What ‘some’ atheists do to get attention…

Friends,

I’m following Joe’s advice and not painting all atheists with the same brush. Normally, at least as far as Richard Dawkins and others are concerned, atheists are the ones who are being persecuted by the religious. They call on atheists to stand up for their atheist rights. They denounce mostly Christians as being dupes or haters or something less than creatures made in the image of the Holy God. Well, here’s a story (a story I’m posting as a general picture of some atheists and not a specific story of all atheists) for you to check out and comment on: Atheists Blast Creationists in Copyright Battle. 

I think I might comment a little more on this later, but for now I’m just putting a link up so that no one thinks I am accusing all atheists of being evolutionists who hate Christians. Only some of them are. I don’t know why atheists are so concerned that Christians believe in something beyond themselves. My friend Jeff said in one of his posts that if Christians would just keep their views to themselves there would be no real problems. I can say the same thing here: Why can’t atheists and evolutionists keep their Damned (n the religious sense) religious views out of the schools, out of politics, and out of the way? Why don’t they just leave Christians and other religious folks in peace? Why must they be so evangelistic and hateful–not all of them, but a significant portion of them? I wish atheists would quit cramming their religious views down everyone’s throats. Gee Wally, they are more evangelistic than most Christians!

Why do atheists think they have a monopoly on rational beliefs? Why do evolutionists think they have the only voice on origins? Don’t bother answering those questions. I’m not defending CSEM or Hovind. I’m simply pointing out that not all atheists should be colored with the same crayon.

jerry

Advertisements

  1. jwhaws

    Is evolution an “atheist view”? Is stem-cell research an “atheist view”?

    Atheists would be glad to leave Christians in peace. Atheists have no interest in telling Christians what they can teach in their own schools. But when Atheists have children in a public school, they simply want science to be taught there. Along with reading, writing and ‘rithmetic. These are not views based upon a religious faith. They are simply wanting their children taught fact.

    Atheists aren’t pushing anything on Christians. If Christians want their children to only learn Christian views on educational topics, there are plenty of Christian schools to choose from. When it comes to a state-run school, though, Atheists shouldn’t be forced to learn Christian speculation on what might have created the universe.

    Do you not understand this? Evolution is not in any way an “atheist view.” It may not be the “Christian view,” per se, but it’s certainly not an atheist one.

  2. Jeff,

    Your comment makes the assertion, however vaguely, that public schools belong to atheists. You wrote, “Atheists have no interest in telling Christians what they can teach in their own schools. But when Atheists have children in a public school…” Did I read this correctly or did you mis-type?

    Is your assertion that the public school is the font of Atheism? You think that because my children are Christians they should be excluded from public education? You think that because I don’t believe Darwinism that my children should be shuttered away in a Christian school? Wow, Jeff, it sounds to me like you are asking for Christians to be segregated from the population! It sounds to me like there ought to be two different educational systems in this country. Surely that is not what you are saying, is it?

    Christians do not want their children to ‘only learn Christian views on educational topics.’ We want our children to have fair access to all the facts–that is not what happens in public schools. We want our children to learn about Darwinism, but we also want the inconsistencies, fallacies, flaws, challenges to, and alternatives to Darwinism to be taught. Furthermore, if my children should be exposed to Darwinism, why shouldn’t your children (if you have any) be exposed to alternate theories? Surely you don’t mean to say that you don’t want your children (if you have any) to be merely indoctrinated? Surely you want your children to be taught how to think and not merely what to think. Right? Or have I misread you?

    It sounds to me like you want indoctrination, not education. It sounds to me like you really do not wish for the free exchange of ideas, but rather the suppression of thought. It sounds to me like you are not as free thinking about where the evidence leads after all.

    PS–the article above refers to ‘atheists’ who are promoting an evolutionary agenda against those who promote a Creation agenda. Now, it may be true that not all evolutionists are atheists and that not all atheists are evolutionists. But in the story I linked to above, they are one and the same. Furthermore, I have not met one evolutionist who has visited my blog who is not also an atheist and vice versa.

    With all do respect, it seems very hard for me to accept your premise that they are not a means and end of one another. What else is an atheist supposed to believe in? It’s all too circular for me.

    Thanks for dropping by,
    your friend,
    jerry

  3. jwhaws

    Yes, in fact, you completely mis-read me. But it’s not surprising. There’s a natural disconnect between the perspectives of Christians and Atheists on these issues, and they’ll never come remotely close to seeing eye to eye.

    No, clearly, the schools are not run by Atheists. And the idea that you would even think I’m proposing “indoctrination” insults me to no end. To the point, in fact, that I’m going to wait to respond to this. Responding while you’re angry can only lead to saying things that will offend the other person and will lead to further misunderstandings.

    Thank you for your response. I’ll return when I’ve had some time to decompress. Hope your weekend gets off to a fine start.

    -Jeff

  4. Jeff,

    You shouldn’t take anything I’ve said personally. OK, just respond to this part of your reply:

    Atheists would be glad to leave Christians in peace. Atheists have no interest in telling Christians what they can teach in their own schools. But when Atheists have children in a public school, they simply want science to be taught there. Along with reading, writing and ‘rithmetic. These are not views based upon a religious faith. They are simply wanting their children taught fact.

    Now, riddle me this: Do you have any idea who actually started the whole idea of public education? Do you know who thought it was a good idea that people know how to read, add, and write? Do you know that if no for Christian missionaries, many cultures wouldn’t even have a written language? Do you know that teaching religion and establishing religion are two different things?

    Now, after you have decompressed, I’d like you to, if you feel so inclined, to exegete this sentence for me:

    Atheists have no interest in telling Christians what they can teach in their own schools. But when Atheists have children in a public school, they simply want science to be taught there.

    Now, how would feel if I re-wrote that sentence to read thus:

    “Christians have no interest in telling atheists what they can teach in their own schools. But when Christians have children in a public school, they simply want science taught there.”

    Jeff, you know I’m a big fan of yours, but you honestly have to be naive to not think that Darwinism and its propagation in public schools is not a religious endeavor. It may not be christian per se, but it is religious nonetheless. And if you are offended at my intepretation of your sentences, how do you think it sounds to me when I read that atheists don’t care what ‘christians teach in their own schools’? Jeff, I am the public too! My taxes pay for those public schools that you and other atheists think you alone own. What rights to my children have? Do my children have a right to not be taught religion too? Do my children have a right to be taught science and not Darwinism? Do my children have a right to be educated in the three R’s and not fear reprisals from teachers who don’t believe in anything but Darwin?

    You can deny it all you want, but this is the reality that Christian children face in public schools. I even know a teacher, she’s a Christian, she teaches science, she teaches honors science and even she takes flak from her fellow teachers. This, my friend, is the reality of what Christians face in the public school system that will not allow Darwinism to be challenged at any level.

    This is not theory. This is fact.

    your friend,
    jerry

  5. Jill

    Jerry
    Evolutionists rarely admit that their worshiped theory is as much a religion as as Chritianity . They claim to be highly scientific and objective. Where Christians cannot do science objectively because they are influenced by their belief system. The only thing about the science of origins that is objective are the facts…we both look at the same fossils , animals, DNA, rock strata, canyons, stars and planets.
    the difference is in our interpretation of how they may have come into being. Evolutionists decided it came into being on its own through chemical reactions and Christians reason how life and man and earth came into being through information found in the Bible. No one knows for sure….we were not there and no one has recreated life from nothing or from just organic material. We each look at the same facts and provide our own ideas (theories) of formation. Both sides have reasoned from their own preconceived ideas and framework. Evolution is as much a belief system as Christianity.
    The schools and evolutionsts who pride themselves on being non religious give themselves away when discussing (or refusing to dicuss)different theories of origins. Their profession of freedom of speech and inquiry and research begins to fade rapidly. They sense an icongruency in their actions and get angry and upset and unable to discuss it any further but blame you for not understanding how influenced your reasoning is. And heaven forbid we should have more misunderstanding on your part.
    The schools hide behind their separation of church and state wall and block true scientific debate and discussion and study all in the name of objectivity.
    When they actually carry the banner of the atheistic belief system and demand all must bow the knee (AND MIND) to it.
    We must not buy into their spouting off about “Christian speculations”….as if they don’t speculate….there is a designer involved in the origin of life or there isn’t …those are the two views that theorize and then BELIEVE their conclusions fit best with what we see here and now.
    Of course not all evolutionists are atheists but evolution is an atheistic theory. I would suggest that Jeff decompress over this…there is no such thing as neutrality…it’s all religious.
    jill

  6. jwhaws

    OK, I’ll give this a shot now. Jerry, it’s tough not to take it somewhat personally when you say I’m in favor of indoctrinating children. I’m not some random dude who wandered into your site. I’d think I would have earned a benefit of the doubt by this point. If I have not, I suppose that is my fault. But I digress …

    I think this is a fruitless argument. Being an intelligent person, if you truly believe what you have written (and I believe that you do), I’m not nearly smart enough to make you believe otherwise. In fact, I even qualify for your definition of “naive.” 🙂

    I’ve beaten my head against the wall on this debate with Christians many times. I’ll attempt to give my perspective, then you’re going to disagree with it, and nothing will change. But here’s what I’d say on your questions, from my “naive” perspective …

    Do you have any idea who actually started the whole idea of public education? Do you know who thought it was a good idea that people know how to read, add, and write?
    Al Gore

    Do you know that teaching religion and establishing religion are two different things?
    Did you know that teaching religion and teaching science are two different things? Did you also know that I want a cookie?

    “Christians have no interest in telling atheists what they can teach in their own schools. But when Christians have children in a public school, they simply want science taught there.”
    Sounds great. If we all agree, then, can’t we all just get along?

    you honestly have to be naive to not think that Darwinism and its propagation in public schools is not a religious endeavor. It may not be christian per se, but it is religious nonetheless.
    Personally, I think the teaching of gravity has a hint of religiosity to it.

    if you are offended at my intepretation of your sentences, how do you think it sounds to me when I read that atheists don’t care what ‘christians teach in their own schools’?
    I think you probably feel like Christians should be able to establish whatever curriculum they want in their own schools. Just like they can teach whatever they want to at home. In a public school with all religions/lack thereof potentially represented, they should be taught science in science class. And religion in religion class. And how to put a condom on a banana in sex ed class. Imagine how confusing it would be if we shuffled all those up. If my math teacher had put a condom on a banana, I might have run out of the classroom screaming.

    What rights to my children have?
    Not many. They’re children. Although I think the driving age should be lowered to 8. Make things more interesting on the roads.

    Do my children have a right to not be taught religion too?
    Sure do. Just keep ’em away from those pesky churches.

    Do my children have a right to be taught science and not Darwinism?
    Yep. Once Darwin dies, this argument will clearly fade away.

    Do my children have a right to be educated in the three R’s and not fear reprisals from teachers who don’t believe in anything but Darwin?
    If there are people who think Darwin was a deity of some sort, they should be hauled away. Or brought to my place so I could dissect their brain.

    This, my friend, is the reality of what Christians face in the public school system that will not allow Darwinism to be challenged at any level.
    The school systems I’ve been in haven’t been capable of challenging geocentrism, much less Darwinism, whatever that is, and whoever actually believes it. Ain’t me. Ain’t anybody I know.

  7. If they taught us how to put a condom on a banana in Calculus it would be the only useful thing I would have learned.

  8. Hag,

    I think Jeff said that. I don’t get it no matter who says it. I never took calculus and when I was in school, our sex education didn’t entail such stupidity. I wonder how sex ed teachers will teach the use of the female condom? Nevermind, I don’t want to know. The whole idea shows just how profoundly stupid the whole concept of public education has become. If it were just about reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic, (and a little science, but no Darwinism), it would be worth it. I can handle the rest in my own house. I don’t need help.

    jerry

  9. Jon

    Jerry, what’s with you? You seem to obfuscate nearly everything people write. I just shake my head as I read Jeff’s posts, and then read how you interpret them. If you had redacted Jeff’s name, I would think you were responding to someone completely different. Nearly none of what you say Jeff wrote is actually what he wrote.

  10. Jon,

    Since you are so wise, please interpret the following sentence, written by Jeff:

    “Atheists have no interest in telling Christians what they can teach in their own schools. But when Atheists have children in a public school, they simply want science to be taught there.”

    Now, when you can tell me how that can be interpreted in any other way besides the way I interpreted it, I’ll allow you to accuse me of obfuscating Jeff’s post. Jeff is the one who made the distinction between Christian schools and public schools not me.

    You can shake your head all you want, but you’ll just end up sick.

    It is only you who think that Darwinism is the same as Science (well, you and a few other dunderheads.) Let’s see, Jeff calls Jesus ‘Baby Jeebus’ so I will from now on refer to you and your kind as Darwieners. Yes. That sounds nice.

    jerry

  11. jwhaws

    Eh, come on Jerry. “Baby Jeebus” is just a ‘Simpsons’ reference that makes me smile. No harm is meant. I’m not even sure that it can be interpreted as something negative. I don’t even know what it means. I just like to bring a little levity to these discussions since they so often break down into chaos. If you want to call people who support evolution “Darwieners,” it won’t bother me at all. Just know that calling it “Darwinism” immediately presents you as not just a creationist but someone who wants to belittle people who support evolution, even if you don’t. It’s a well-known pejorative term. I’ll assume you didn’t realize that.

    As far as “Atheists have no interest in telling Christians what they can teach in their own schools. But when Atheists have children in a public school, they simply want science to be taught there” goes, you could interpret it as “Evolution has a scientific basis; creationism/Intelligent Design does not. Please teach the only theory. Thank you.”

  12. Jeff,

    I heard Homer say that one time–in fact, I think I have it as a sound on my Instant Messenger. I understand that some say ‘Darwinist’ is a pejorative, I take it as an accurate reflection of the truth. I’m in no way ashamed of being referred to as a Creationist, although I would prefer terms like Biblical literalist, fundamentalist, Christian, Evangelical, Conservative, and the like, all of which, at some time or another, have been pejoratives also and have also been used to belittle Christians who will not accept evolution at any level.

    I agree with your last statement, only you and I know that it is not taught as ‘only theory’. It is taught as ‘there are no other viable options’ and there is no dissent allowed.

    But, what’s that between you and me? Simpsons Rule!

    jerry

  13. jwhaws

    Jerry-

    Well, I don’t at all intend to belittle anyone or make this into some ugly battle. Heck, I was just asked to defend Christianity on my blog. And ya know what? I did it. Probably not well, but I did it anyway. It was a valiant effort, nonetheless.

    I see where people Biblical literalists (see? I can adjust) are coming from when they say about evolution, “it is not taught as ‘only theory.'” They see issues with evolution and feel like it is presented as fact. The problem from a scientific perspective, though, is that evolution is still a solid theory of human origins. What small problems that people have come up with have logical explanations. There certainly isn’t any problem that comes close to invalidating it.

    As far as “other viable options” go, it depends on what you mean by “viable,” as it often does. That’s not really a scientific term. While Intelligent Design might seem viable to some, it hasn’t begun to met any scientific criteria. So it’s not a theory. Not yet. Maybe it will be. If it meets the standard, I’d welcome it into the classroom. If a scientist could get it there, he’d win the friggin’ Nobel Prize and become a millionaire overnight. It’d be cool to see. It just hasn’t happened yet. There’s really nothing to teach there. And there aren’t any viable (there’s that word again) problems with evolution that would lead one toward any other theory.

    I mean, the best they could say beyond evolution is, “Um, well, we just don’t know how that happened. Now, let’s dissect a horse.” Evolution is a good theory, and it’s the only one we have. Saying “only theory” is misleading because it hints that a theory is somehow inferior. Scientific theories face a very high level of scrutiny before they can earn that title. Evolution isn’t something some dude yelled out of the window of his truck as he drove by a gay club one night. Actually, it may be. But it has grown significantly since then.

  14. Jon

    “Atheists have no interest in telling Christians what they can teach in their own schools. But when Atheists have children in a public school, they simply want science to be taught there.”

    Here are the myriad ways you interpreted Jeff’s comment:

    Your comment makes the assertion, however vaguely, that public schools belong to atheists.

    Wrong. They belong to taxpayers. And Muslims, Buddhists, atheists, Communists, and everyone else who lives as a citizen in this country is a tax payer. The government cannot support teaching your personal beliefs without teaching every single other personal belief out there. That was Jeff’s point.

    And by the way, your conflation of biological theories and atheism is, as always, stupid. Just thought I’d reiterate that.

    You think that because my children are Christians they should be excluded from public education?

    Should be? No, he said they could be. He’s saying that it’s your choice to make. If you don’t like the way the law is (and it is law, after all), then evacuate your children from public schools and home school them. Take responsibility for the education of your children. That’s what he’s saying. No one’s forcing you to put them in public schools.

    We want our children to have fair access to all the facts–that is not what happens in public schools.

    Religious beliefs aren’t facts, period. But let’s talk about the suppression of ideas. Would you want your children lectured on what the color of happiness is? No? Then you’re suppressing ideas too. That you don’t detect this double standard in your own reasoning is the entire problem with this discussion right now.

  15. Jon,

    What passes for ‘scientific’ education in public schools is more closely related to indoctrination.

    On the contrary, it is you who do not detect the double standard in your own line of reasoning. You are the one who cannot get it through your thick, improperly evolved skull, that Darwinism and Darwinian evolution is simply the religion (religious practice) of atheism. And the only reason you deny it is because it suits your purposes to do so–which is to continue teaching evolution in schools and indoctrinating scores and scores of children in the basic tenets (thanks, Ron!) of atheism.

    I have never said I am opposed to the teaching of Darwinian Evolution in public schools. I have said, “At least make it fair and teach all aspects of it: The good, the bad, the pro, the con.” And yet you continue to mischaracterize my point of view because you, my friend, are weak. This is only way for the Darwinist to survive: Mischaracterize the point of view of those who disagree. The only way for people like you to survive is to surround yourself with lies that have no basis in reality, and to insult those of us who will not worship at the throne of your god. You claim you want truth, and answers to mysteries, and yet Darwinism is no answer at all. Natural selection neither explains nor proves anything.

    I just don’t think one religion ought to be taught to the exclusion of all others. If there is true separation of church and state, then atheism should also be excluded–any hint of it–from the classroom, including Darwinism. And contrary to your misunderstanding, Jeff’s comment about ‘Christian Schools’ and ‘Public Schools’ is exactly what I said it was: he was, however subtly, suggesting that there should be separate, segregated schools for Christians and atheists and that atheists ‘own’ the public schools. That is how his sentence was worded. I may not be able to debate much when it comes to science, but I am trained at understanding language and how to make sense of it. I know what he meant. He should have worded his sentence differently if that is not what he meant. And since he claims to be a journalist, he should have known better.

    Darwinian Evolution can be taught, and ‘all facts’ doesn’t have to include the teaching of any particular religion. Actually, Jon, I don’t want the public school teaching my children about religion: that is my job and no one else’s. That is precisely my point. The entire problem with this discussion right now is that you do not understand that Darwinism is a religion: And I have rights to and I don’t want my children taught your religion of Darwinism or atheism. You’ll deny it a million times because you don’t want to admit that there is any god, and you don’t want to admit that Darwin is your god, and you don’t want to admit that atheism is a religion, and that atheism and Darwinism are inseparable.

    But you are only deluding yourself. Darwinism is a religion. You have your scriptures, your prophets, your congregations, your exegetes, your colleges, your sacred spaces, and your sacraments & rituals. That is the whole problem with this discussion right now is that you are so intellectually dishonest, that you cannot admit what everyone else knows.

    The other problem is that this is my blog and I can say whatever I like. And what bugs you is that you cannot change my mind. Jon, you are the loser at life, not me. You are the one who speaks words without wisdom and darkens the councils of this world and this universe. You are the one who utters mysteries that you cannot understand because you haven’t learned the first thing about the fear of the Lord.

    When you learn about the fear of the Lord being the beginning of wisdom then I will consider that your words here to me might actually have some merit, some worth, some weight, and something for me to be concerned about each day when I wake up from my sleep. Until then, you are just another loser Darwinist who is full of hot air, and one who probably evolved from one of the lower species of apes that didn’t learn how to use tools are barter for better raisins or how to go on strike in order to get what you want.

    Those who understand, however, have a much higher calling: We were created in the image of God. And all your sputtering and stammering about rights and laws and facts is nothing more than cover up for undeniable fear that you are wrong. You need the law to justify you because nothing else does–least of all your atheism, your Darwinism, and your unswerving devotion to that insipid religion called materialism.

    jerry

    PS–I’d tell you to have a nice day, but in the world of evolution, that wouldn’t be right. In the world of evolution, red in tooth and claw, we must fight for survival and I’m hoping that your species will soon be extinct–by natural selection of course. That, my friend, is the law of the jungle right?

  16. Jon

    You’re crazy, not profound.

    That pretty much answers everything you wrote to me.

    🙂

  17. Jon,

    Strong, very strong. Once again, you prove my point about the only argument your types have.

    jerry




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: