Open letter to all Atheists.

But what if I'm a real person, and what if therefore instead of saying that I'm "offended" by "prayer in public places", as apparently the imaginary people in your head do, I make like a real person and point out that entanglement of church and state violates the First Amendment? How do you feel about that, and why should I give a damn?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What's more annoying is that the prayer leaders know that this is what they're making you do, half the time when they're ostensibly talking to God they're really preaching at the congregation. Which is insincere.

Yeah, but what does Republican Jesus think?

That would be hypocritical only if dronester and the rest of us wanted atheism to be an exception. But we don't. We agree, for example, that atheism should not be taught in public schools. Town hall meetings should not be kicked off by an official announcement that there is no God. Money should not bear the legend "IN GOD WE DON'T TRUST (BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE)". The principles of humanism should not be displayed in courthouses. No atheist advocates for such things to be done. Where, then is the hypocrisy?

It's illegal. If you can find an instance where it's nonetheless being done, contact the ACLU.In the meantime, I am against it being done, as I'm sure is dronester. It is none of any public school teacher's business to tell children that there is no God, any more than to inculcate any other religious view, and we will say so plainly. So where is the hypocrisy?

No. This is why it is illegal for atheism to be taught in public schools; why town hall meetings are not kicked off by an official announcement that there is no God; why money doesn't bear the legend "IN GOD WE DON'T TRUST (BECAUSE THERE ISN'T ONE)"; and why the principles of humanism are not displayed in courthouses. Not only are these things not done, not only have I never sought for them to be done, but I don't want them to be done and would oppose any such proposal. In what way, then, am I forcing my beliefs on you?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That would only follow if God has announced that there was no such thing as evolution. If so, he would indeed be a liar. Also, he'd exist, and atheism would be false.But that would apply to any false statement. If God had announced that 2 + 2 = 5, that would also make God a liar. But it does not follow from that that people teaching that 2 + 2 = 4 are teaching atheism.Your reasoning is hard to follow.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, perhaps on that subject we should listen to James Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights. For example, he had this to say about the appointment of Congressional chaplains: This seems to shed some light on what he was thinking when he wrote the First Amendment. He also writes: If you're really concerned about what the First Amendment was meant for, you now know that its author meant it to exclude such things as official ministers and official prayers.

You seem to have gone a little loopy. That would be your perspective. If you can prove that it's God's perspective, then you will have proved that God exists and that he is wrong. Philosophers yet unborn will thank you.---Look, consider the following scenario.Jack starts a new religion, which maintains that God is responsible for the sky being pink with green spots, and that God says so.Jill, a public school teacher who (as it happens) believes devoutly in God, but does not adhere to Jack's religion, happens to mention to her class that the sky is blue. Is she therefore teaching atheism? Was she teaching atheism before Jack founded his cult? If the members of the cult all lose their faith, does the claim that the sky is blue stop being atheist? This is absurd.Surely to be atheistic, a statement has to be, y'know, atheistic, it has to imply that there is no God, not that some particular sect is wrong about some particular question of fact.

The point is that you can't make a statement atheistic by incorporating the opposite of that statement into a theistic religion. This is true whether or not the statement can be checked by direct observation. We cannot directly observe the Earth's core, but if Jack started teaching that God had fashioned it out of billions of happy little monkeys, it would not become atheistic for Jill to teach that it's made of white-hot iron as scientists have inferred from the available evidence. It should certainly be treated as a religion for the purposes of interpreting the First Amendment, whether or not it technically is one.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Obviously.

That may be the wildest non sequitur ever. You'll be the envy of all the other creationists.

And yet the title of the thread was "Open letter to all Atheists." As no-one has expressed that view, it would be hard to demonstrate that such a person is a hypocrite. I can hardly think what form such hypocrisy would take --- someone who declares prayer offensive, perhaps, and then does a little genuflecting in private, sacrifices a few goats? It's not very likely, is it?

Then you know that your point is wrong. If you can have evolution without atheism, then evolution and atheism are separable. But you could in principle have an atheist who denied evolution. Of course, he'd have to be nuts, but then some people are, even atheists. Fred Hoyle was a fine example.

Well, that would be a creator God, wouldn't it? In that he'd be a God who created stuff. I don't claim that that's what happened, of course, but that would be a creator God compatible with evolution. I'm not sure you've grasped this whole "logic" thing. And God can do what he wants, that's the great thing about being God. That and the excellent dental plan.