Friends, Hello from Texas! I made a video today about the new Bible classes in Texas public high schools. I used a large boarded-up church as my background. Cost: Priceless. http://youtube.com/watch?v=pEzBytmleag Essentially I’m challenging Atheist and/or state-church separation minded public high school students to take those Bible classes, and bring up our best critiques of the Bible. When they receive no clear or reasonable explanations, when they receive no explanations that don’t leave the Bible looking like a piece of garbage, I’m challenging them to say so. To declare out loud that the Bible is a piece of garbage, and a class on such a book is an utter mistake. (They should use respect, of course.) Then I’m challenging them to make a video about it for Youtube. If they tell me about their video, I’ll review it along with others like it, and make another video about those videos. I wish I had something tangible to give away for participation, but everyone who takes part will probably feel they’ve accomplished something; that being increased communication among the Atheist community about this fairly new state/church issue, and perhaps the enlightenment of a few teachers. Please let me know your comments on this idea. I’ll probably talk this up at the upcoming Texas Freethought Convention: www.texasfreethoughtconvention.com I think this is a good idea, but I need to hear feedback. 
) Thanks! Joe ZameckiTexas State Director, American Atheistswww.atheists.org/txwww.youtube.com/aajoeyjo
atheon,
Sorry, but Websters has it only half right. Yes, my source is the Bible.
The scriptures reveal a clear distinction between man-made attempts to attain salvation versus God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.
The moniker attached to the former is called religion and the latter, Christianity. The two couldn’t be more fundamentally different despite the fact that adherents share similar worship practices, etc..
Chris B,
One last thing you may want to keep in the back of that crowded little mind of yours – If Christians were to “take over” what’s the worst that could happen?
Conversely, who do you think will get their heads chopped off first if the Islamists had their way, hmmmm? Atheists my friend.
Joe,
“Of course there’s also the Pledge of Allegiance which is essentially a prayer…”
Oh, now that is RICH! The level of sillines displayed here as evidenced by your post just keeps me in awe.
I guess you’ll be happy with Obama then.
atheon,
“I say: We are not worried about the Bible ONLY. We are worried about ANY mythological text infiltrating the school system posing as a legitimate authority for science, history, social or moral law.”
Well then, you’d better be damned worried about what’s going on in our public schools today with respect to the teaching of Islam!
You can start by researching the texts that have been adopted and some of the outrageous lesson plans kids are being subjected to.
Wow, Tim, you’re posting as much here as any other apologist I’ve ever seen on a thread. More even than Phreedm.
I wonder if you are struggling so hard as a way to fight your doubts. You do have doubts.
Reading your responses carefully I think I am detecting that you are using a specialized vocabulary, centring on your particular sect when you make your arguments.
If I am right, then by your definition the only True Chistian is a born-again Christian, as recognized by your sect. Obviously then, they volunteer. I observe that the majority of people calling themselves Christians do not agree with this born-again criteria.
I now suspect that this hidden bit of chicanery is how you Teflon coated yourself against that list of evil done in the name of Christianity. Several of my examples could never have happened except that the Bible inspired extreme behaviour based on literal interpretations.
Mormons and JWs aren’t True Christians in your books and so of course their behaviour doesn’t reflect on your sect.
Exorcism is favoured in several born-again sects. You wouldn’t know about that would you?
One thing about critical thinking, it does not suppose the existence of the subject in order to prove its existence.
Your arguments do.
DD Dropout ,
Perhaps you should have stayed in school…
Seriously, though, the only doubts I have revolve around whether or not I should have made different investments in my 401k or perhaps had one less glass of wine last weekend.
It should be somewhat obvious to critical thinkers here (even Atheists) that the term Christian is derived from the name of … Jesus Christ. Well, duh.
Therefor, by definition Christians would have to be followers of Christ. Now here comes the hard part. What does it mean to actually BE a Christian?
The answer of course does not come from man, but rather from God. Where can we go to find the answers to such questions – the Bible.
Of course, it’s still up to you whether to believe the promise of salvation… or not.
Like I said earlier, I was raised a Catholic and did everything the church taught me, but was actually no closer to salvation than the day I came into this world.
I’m sure Catholics will tell you they are Christians, but that isn’t necessarily so. It depends upon each individual’s choice. I don’t presume to know.
Joe, thanks for the info. I’m not in HS anymore but if there’s anything i can do to help from San Antonio, let me know.
Phreedm, if you want any of us to take anything you say seriously you’re gonna have to back it up with some kind of evidence… don’t you pay attention?
Tim,
In an earlier post, you gave the following advice to DD Dropout:
?So make sure you understand the terms you use in the debate?
You proceeded to recommend that DD Dropout use the following definitions for Christianity and Religion in his debate with you. (Biblical definitions at that?)
RELIGION = Man’s attempt to reach God
CHRISTIANITY = God reaches Man; man accepts
Your choice of words, IMO, suggested that you felt that DD Dropout had somehow misused the words ?Christianity? and ?Religion?. I don?t understand why, so I have a couple of questions.
My first question is: Do you know who your audience is? Apparently not? This is not a Bible Blog; this is an ATHEIST Blog. Atheists don?t speak ?Xtian? so we don?t use Bible definitions in every day conversation. To be honest, we only reference the Bible to prove to Xtians that there GOOD BOOK has a ?BAD? history. We enjoy citing references in the Bible for that purpose?
That being said, don?t you think it?s very cocky of you to come to an atheist blog and suggest that we use your definitions in conversation? I think so?
The second question is: How do you expect one of us to accept homemade definitions for words that have a broader meaning than the narrow definition you posted?
Your definitions don?t walk on water here buddy. IMO, your definitions offered no additional meaning that would have added to or subtracted from the outcome of that conversation between you and DD Dropout. Again, IMO?
As I see it, DD Dropout was not wrong in his used of Christianity and Religion; however, you?ve been wrong in your use of the words.
To further make my point, I?ve reposted Webster?s definition of Christianity and Religion.
Christianity:
1 : the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on the Bible as sacred scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and Protestant bodies
2 : conformity to the Christian religion
3 : the practice of Christianity
Religion:
1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Now, using the definitions that I?ve posted above, please explain how you concluded that DD Dropout needed a “Tim Course 101″ on how to properly use the words Christianity and Religion.
Going forward, I recommend that YOU learn to use definitions from sources respected by atheists rather than proposing that we give respect to your references (The Bible) that have little scientific value or practical use in the natural world.
Tim,
You said:
Sorry, but Webster?s has it only half right. Yes, my source is the Bible.
I say:
WEBSTER?S HAS IT ONLY HALF RIGHT? and your source is the BIBLE? Please!!!!!
See this is a prime example of the language barrier that I was referring to earlier?
You also said:
The scriptures reveal a clear distinction between man-made attempts to attain salvation versus God’s plan of salvation through Jesus Christ.
I say:
How does the text in scripture affect the price of peanuts in China? It doesn?t and it never will. However, individuals like you, who believe in it, arrive and false conclusions and take actions based on those conclusions that can destroy peanut farms in China. Get it?
My point is, the scriptures by themselves have no power over Atheists or the natural world; but they have power of you and others Xtians. Consequently, your constant referencing to the scriptures in an effort to gain some kind of respect as an authority is useless. I mean think about it? The ALMIGHTY Bible cannot change a single word in its text without the help of man. IMO, the vast knowledge supposedly possessed by the Bible doesn?t reveal anymore truth about man?s future than a horoscope prize found in a fortune cookie.
YOU on the other hand have the power to vote, fire weapons, kill, hate, pass laws that are unjust, love, and destroy. You could burn the Bible if you chose to, you won?t. Why? Because you?ve been brainwashed into giving a powerLESS book power over you.
mouse – San Antonio? Yeah there’s something you can do to help with this. You can attend the 2008 Texas Freethought Convention in Austin on October 26, where we’ll be doing a lot of discussing about Bible classes, and other statewide church/state violations, and what needs to be done about them. Plus we’ll be meeting and greeting with other non-religious Texans, and it’ll be a great networking opportunity for us activists.
I’ll be the guy with the tie and clipboard running around with my head cut off…lol
Joe Zamecki
http://www.texasfreethoughtconvention.com
Tiny Tim-MAY
Oh no Tim-MAY! The islamobogeyman is coming. Run Timmy run. Head for the hills! And look up there. The sky is falling! Run for the …?
Atheon,
Where to start. At a minimum, I appreciate your thoughtful responses. You are one of the few Atheists here that actually can make a coherent argument.
Fist off, since by your own admission the Bible has no “power” over Atheists and due to the fact I am a Christian who understands the Bible (at least the basics), then I believe I’m justified in stating that the Bible does make the distinction between man’s attempts at reaching God and God’s solution to man’s condition. In fact, the Bible is permeated with many passages that make this point. Let’s not get hung up in the definitions or the use of the English language.
I mean, who is the better judge of what’s in the Bible – Atheists or Christians? I’m not suggesting that DD Dropout or anyone else is intentionally mis-using definitions, only that they aren’t using the correct ones as revealed in the Word of God itself.
O.K. if you read Webster’s definitions critically, you will see that there is no real difference in the definitions you provided! What are we to do , then? The answer is we need to consult Bible scholars that are experts in Hebrew and Greek. You see, there is a very real problemn with trying to understand the Bible by relying on the English translation. This is especially true when trying to understand the finer points of doctrine.
I will post some of the material I have that will shed light on these definitions as soon as I can.
Tim:
Aye caramba, where to start?
That broke my irony meter.
Seeing as there?s no such thing, what a waste of valuable time.
Christlation: ?Let?s tacitly agree that I?m right.?
Obviously the former, as the latter can never agree on almost anything.
You still haven?t laid out
A. your definition of this ?gawd? character, &
B. proven the silly thing even exists.
Extremely weak appeal to authority. Whadda crock. Even those guys can?t agree.
Here?s the stumper: why isn?t there a ?universal? language? Why so many? Why the diversity? & furthermore, we?re talking billions of ?souls? who were never exposed to any of these ?finer points? ? hell, not even the basic ones! They of course are in that frying pan you death cultists lovingly refer to as ?hell?.
The real problem, is that these ?finer points? are driven into obscurity by that thing called allegory ? another evolutionary anachronistic memetic offshoot that will hopefully slide into obscurity.
You can read ?deeper meanings? into anything ? look @ the 9/11 deniers, the holocaust revisionists, the UFOologists.
Quoting Freud: ?Sometimes a cigar is a cigar.?
& the wholly bibble is a load of cautionary fairy tales.
Not 1 prophecy ever came true. Nada. Zip, zero, zilch. Archeology is constantly shredding the alleged ?historicity? of the stupid thing.
Next bibble I see, I?m using the pages as TP. That?s about how hollow the epistemology of the thing is.
KA
LOL. I Love your responses to Tim-MAY. How many layers of allegory do you think there are between his skull and his cortex?
May I add “and arrogant” to “cocky”?
KA–BRAVO!
Tim,
It’s common among cults for the cult members to alter their language in order to widen the divide between the cult members and members of the general public. This is done in order to shut down effective communication between the two groups and thus protect the cult from outside influence.
It’s pretty obvious from your posts that you’re content being a member of the biggest cult on the planet, but you do have to realize that in order to defend your cult from outside criticism, it’s important to learn how to communicate effectively. Your redefinition of “religion” and “Christianity” is only compounding the problem.
Here’s an example of the problem:
Your definition requires the existence of God in order to make any sense at all. Since there is no proof that God exists, you will only ever be able to communicate with other Christians using your definitions. It is a waste of time for you to attempt to defend your faith with a bunch of atheists until you address this problem.
Also, you’ve also redefined “atheism,” albeit slyly:
Disbelief =/= negative belief. I have personally explained this to you before, but you continue to use your faulty definition. Why? Are you more interested in denigrating atheists than communicating with us? That’s the safest assumption I can make at the moment.
Alatham
Of course the problem with believers is even more fundamental. They simply do not have an operational definition of gawd. Without an operational definition they have no means of distinguishing between that which is and is not defined to be gawd.
JONATHAN SMITH
We don’t believe in the Bible because it says what we want it to say. We believe it, among other reasons, because of that one guy who walked out of a tomb
Tim,
Are you making fun…?
If this were true, I would gladly accept this as a compliment; but it?s not. IMO, most of the atheists on this blog are more than capable of making coherent arguments.
The problem is the language barrier. If you ask a question in one language (Biblish) and we respond in another; you might conclude that we are all incapable of making a
coherent argument. I think this is why you?ve failed to acknowledge the coherent statements made by some of the other atheists. Does that make sense?
Yes, if you are a person who lives in the world of Bibledom then YOU can give yourself any powers (justification) you want. As stated before, your entire argument is
based on the existing of god. Atheists do not believe in God, so we don’t care about man reaching him, finding him, losing him, or anything else. If you were to conclude
that God DOES NOT EXISTs, you will then see that your definitions mean absolutely nothing to us. The power doesn’t come from the Bible…
If we don’t get “hung up” in the definitions then any attempt to communicate effectively will be lost. Definitions are critical to the effectiveness of our
communication. Do you agree?
Again, it depends on the audience. If you want someone to agree with your logic, perhaps you should debate with someone that speaks your language. Aside from that, I
BELIEVE that any rational person can interpet the Bible for themselves; without having to buy into its philosophies. For this reason, I feel that atheists are equally
qualified in validating or discrediting the Bible on its own merit or lack thereof.
See, the world of God is a fictitious place to atheists; and therefore, falls into the same category as Dungeons and Dragons, Legend of Zelda, Wizzards and Warlocks,
etc. These are imaginary places where people can go to create a world that doesn’t exist in reality. In this world, people can assign themselves supernatural powers:
they can see the future, raise the dead, talk to GODs, place curses, become possessed, FLY, live after death, turn water into wine, …
I assume you meant the definitions that you or I provided were immaterial to the point that DD Dropout was trying to make. If so, you have taken a huge step in speaking
our language. If not, you will need more tutoring
Consulting a Bible Scholar is only necessary for those who want to be enlighted on the “finer points” of the doctrine. I personally have no use for the book or its
philosophies. If you’re doing it for me… Please don’t waste your time consulting a BIBLE SCHOLAR for my sake; I’m not interested.
That’s fine, but What’s the point? and What’s the purpose? Are you trying to convert us or do you want us to pick it apart for you by exposing its flaws?
Let me know…
All I can say succintly at this point is that for a bunch of people who:
A. Do not believe in God
and/or
B. Refuse to admit that there is even a possibility God exists
You folks sure want everyone to believe YOU are the experts about what’s in (or not in) the Bible!
The main message of the Bible does come through loud and clear – in English. Whether or not people believe is their choice.
Denigrating the Bible gets you folks nowhere because you have already rejected its message.
I was only trying to make the point that Atheists are in no position to make distinctions concerning the differences in the application of faith.
Tim,
Yes, by definition this is true; atheists do not believe in God.
What is there to admit? What objective proof have you offered for consideration? If you can define your God in such a way that his/her/their/its existence can be
objectively measured; we will consider it. I think you expect us to accept your position WITHOUT question.
Look at it this way, in order to quantify the existence of ANY God we must first establish a method of OBJECTIVELY measuring its/his/hers/their existence. Without doing this first, we wouldn’t know the sign of the God’s existence if we saw it.
One method of determining if a God exists is to associate a God’s claim to an action, outcome, result in the NATURAL world.
In your case, God’s laws are captured in the Bible. These Bible Laws if broken will bring down his wrath. Right?
Such a statement could be interpreted as one claim by God that can be measured against the natural world. Right? If you do/don’t then he will….
So, if I were to worship false idols, kill, use God’s name in vein, covet my neighbors wife, or bare false witness; God should use his supernatural powers to punish me.
Right?
If I were to say God sucks! , F&ck God!, or God Dammit! Would these statements constitute using the Lord’s name in vein? If they do, should I be struck down by lightning
or something? If not, what will be the punishment? If there is no punishment, then his threats bare no weight.
I’m still here, so I’ve just proven that words/text relating to using your God’s name in vein has not affect on the natural. THis is the type of connection to the natural world that I keep referring to… Without this connection, any God that you can create or name is powerless over you and me.
I applied this logic years ago and I’m still around. I know that I will die someday; maybe even tomorrow, but I can’t say that my death will be related to using God’s name in vein. Does that make sense?
Again, if the powers, actions, claims, or promises mentioned in the Bible cannot be measured/confirmed/validated in the natural world; one can conclude THAT GOD does not exist.
If you have proof that contradicts these findings, please present it for consideration/discussion.
Thx.
Tim,
See, this is where we differ. Believing in God should not be a choice if the evidence supports his/her/its/their existence. If the evidence does not support existence of any God, then why believe.
Tim,
I disagree. Denigrating the Bible gets us out of the delusional mindset of believing that God exists. Why? Because we’ve discredited it objectively. Now we can focus our efforts on improving our lives in the natural world rather than the SUPERNATURAL world.
Rejecting its message? Of course we rejects its message, because the so called “CREATOR” or “DEVINE INSPIRATOR” of its messages doesn’t make himself/herself available to
confirm or reject its validity.
The only communication we have is through you and other followers; and for integrity reasons, you or others like you cannot not speak on God’s behalf. He/she should be able to do it themselves. And for the record, the existence of the Bible does not constitute existence of God; your God. Does this make sense?
Tim,
Point noted and rejected. Atheists are too in a position to make distinctions concerning the difference in the application of faith. On occasion, athesits are the target or victims of believers applying their faith. How can you say we have no position to do so?
Sorry,
I’ve been gone a while, single parent, my son loves his MMO’s and I have trouble with kicking him off the pc to debate. I love it, but, contented children offer attractive rewards.
But, since I’ve been gone, it seems like no one understood what I wrote before.
The Christians are scared stiff of us because they think we are breathing poison on their children which endangers their very souls. We know that is irrational because we are free thinkers. But, I read the ideas of free thinkers above seathing the same kind of venom, fear that religion will poison the minds of our children. I think that is equally as irrational.
The thread began as a discussion of whether or not the bible should be taught in Texas or any schools as literature with the suspect agenda that our public schools will become religious schools in disguise.
I say its irrelevent as long as the format is correct.
Some of us were raised as free thinkers, as my son has been. Some of us were raised in the religious brainwash, as I was. That is how I know that there is nothing to fear from religion coming and presenting their case, as long as science is lent an equal opportunity to present the facts. In fact, it can be a perfect tool, a perfect situation in which brainwashed children of fundamentalists families get an opportunity to make up their own minds. There will always be those who will choose to drug their fear of death with a religious crutch. We cannot help them. But, there will also be those who realize that the rites and rituals, and the monetary contributions are surrender to those who would exploit our fear. We can help them, and fear of taking the matter to debate in either a classroom or a courtroom only hurts the cause of free thought. I believe we should engage them on every front where they call us out. But not by gagging them, but, by letting them spew their rediculous myths, and rebutting them with fact.
I hope I made myself more clear this time.
NeoWolfe
neowolfe,
Good to have you back.
I see where you are going with this, so let me refine the context from which my position was made.
I could accept your idea about religion being taught in schools if:
* There are controls in place that would prevent religious material from being placed on the same level as science. The two are different and one should not be passed off as the other.
* The religious material is taught critically along side of other religions suchs Greek & Roman Mythology… not as an alternate science.
* Controls to prevent religious material from being preached.
My earlier posts rejecting religion in schools fail to point out these exceptions. However, the primary reason why I took a strong position is because of the intelligent
design (ID) movement. ID is just one vehicle used by the faithful try and sell scripture as a science to students. (Its unconstitutional to do this…) The supporters of
ID want religion taught as a science; this is bull sh$t. I have a problem with that…
It was on that assumption I rejected religion in schools.
That said… If establishing controls are not considered in this debate, then my original position stands; I will not consider it. However, if controls are put in place then I would consider it.
Do you still believe this is an irrational position?
If so, please explain…
Neowolfe
The history of 20th century America begs to differ!
atheon,
You will probably never read this because the thread is so old, but, I think we are not so far apart in our opinions. You say you demand controls, but I think if you read again what I said, you will notice that I was placing clear conditions upon it. That is, if they insist upon teaching creation as a theory in school, which is really just Christianity’s minority opinion world wide among religions, let them bring it on. But, let the other half of the class be based upon science and logic, not just the view of science of what earth’s history really was, but, also how the bible’s explanation is rediculous and impossible.
“What” doubts me in the above post, and makes a valid argument, but the point he misses is that logic is not taught in churches and sunday schools and madrasas. A level playing field never becomes part of the game. I think we know that given such an opportunity we can win every time.
Thank you both for validating my offworld ideas with a response. Don’t get me started on overpopulation and eugenics.
NeoWolfe