We shouldn't associate atheism and autism.

Post Reply New Topic

Deserved everything he got for proselytising right?

Atheism is not a cult. It's a single belief shared by millions of people with a wide range of world views and no connection between each other aside from not believing in any gods.

I don't see atheist messages whenever I turn on the TV or listen to the radio. Do you deliberately seek them out? However, again, I can't walk down the high street at the weekends without being verbally assaulted by an eejit with a loudspeaker telling me I'll suffer for all eternity if I don't adopt his views on the nature of god (while hundreds of non-believers shuffle past without responding).

(And fwiw, atheism is the default position - it's what a reasonable person should believe until they have some strong evidence to the contrary. There is no strong evidence for the existence of any god)

In all fairness the religious folks on the site were not obnoxious in their religiousness. Like all sites there were a number of obnoxious individuals (both religious, and not), but those folks were all obnoxious for reasons having nothing to do with religion. Though I did get into a long e-mail debate with one young lady about evolution vs creationism. She was quite a trip. But a perfectly nice person.

"Etymologists suggest that “I could care less” emerged as a sarcastic variant employing Yiddish humor. They point to the different intonations used in saying “I couldn’t care less” versus “I could care less.” The latter mirrors the intonation of the sarcastic Yiddish-English phrase “I should be so lucky!” where the verb is stressed."
http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/

Gross generalisation...
Sir, you do yourself a great, and dare I say gross, disservice to your credibility...

Perhaps less emotionalism...
And more intellectualism is in order?

Someone (Leaguegirl right here on WP) finally gave an explanation for why folks use the annoying expression "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less". She said that it means "I am able to not care, so I will stop caring". I guess that makes sense.

In principle I am in total agreement...
How dare others interfere with our hard won freedom of freedom of expression?
How dare others tell us not to engage our god given ability of analytical analysis <sic>?

But!
Well, actually, I don't have a "but"...

"In the sociological classifications of religious movements in English, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

Using this definition, atheism isn't a "cult" here in Australia, since most aussies have "seen the light" and are mostly secular...

"Equally present from colonial times, however, was the scientific spirit of the Enlightenment, with its goal of human improvement and progress, and a willingness to break with tradition.3 Enlightenment principles promoted a secular government, detached from the church, that encouraged tolerance and supported religious pluralism,2 including the right to practice no religion. By Federation, this diversity was enshrined in the Australian Constitution, which says that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.4

No religion is an option increasingly reported by Australians in the Census of Population and Housing."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] ... 30Nov+2013

Please note, the discrepancy between the *statistical* representation of individuals indicating a religious affiliation and that of the degree of secularisation of Australian society has been explain in terms of the selection (by many) of that option being influenced by family upbringing/'heritage" rather than a proactive commitment/embracing of that particular philosophy...

This could be explained by:
The garden variety NT has a reluctance to do the hard intellectual yacka and prefers the more instant emotional gratifications associated with life...

"You often hear clichés and truisms contrasting the place of religion in America and Australia: 'The USA is a very Christian country, and Australia is very secular'; 'While Americans wear their religion on their sleeve, Australians have a natural aversion to public displays of religion, and to religion in politics.' "
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article. ... caYYG1jG9Y

The irony is, however, that the present Australian federal government is dominated by a religiously oriented right leaning faction...
Hardly a true representation of the constituents of Oz, in regards to religious/non-religious affiliations...

But I digress...
I have to...
As an aspie...
It's my job...

According to the Pew Research Center, only six countries in the world have the religiously unaffiliated (Atheist, Agnostic, and holders of spiritual beliefs not associated with a particular religious denomination); in China, the Czech Republic, Japan, Hong Kong, Estonia, and North Korea.

This claim of yours - "most Aussies have seen the light" - is contradicted by the statistics you link to, which tell us that only 22% selected 'no denomination' back in 2011.

I suppose this proves that Christians are still trying to silence us. They don't actually believe in free speech.

It just demonstrates that uncritical ideologues make bad decisions readily. I'm quite content to accept that, however misguided, the motivation stemmed from a belief that it was the morally correct thing to do.

You seemed to have missed this part of my post (you replied to):

It's not the moral thing to do. It's a form of child abuse. This 'teacher' should be fired. If not for using public monies illegally, for stupidity. How dare she do something like that to a child who simply stated he and his family were atheists. Religion was probably being talked about in the playground and he simply put in his 2 cents worth and then gets punished for it...

Is this really something I have to explain again? Morality is the word we give to our personal code of right and wrong. My point was not that I think what the teacher did was right, it's that the teacher thought it was right. The automatic assumption that things done by <insert demographic> are done out of malice, because you happen to be politically opposed to them, is an infantile one.



I agree that the teacher should face disciplinary proceedings, but it's not our place to decide the severity of the punishment. How dare you appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner in a case you know only the slightest details of?



I think this much is apparent from the little we have to go on. Nobody is questioning the stated facts of the matter.

You brought up morality when you called what she did moral. And I didn't say it was right for any reason. It's simply wrong, whether she believed it or not. Trying to indoctrinate a child into religion and then punishing him for not accepting it is child abuse, as I said. I never said she did it with malice, although the malice was there when she punished him for believing his or his parent's truth. It has nothing to do with my politics. It is unconstitutional to do what she did, period. Politics have nothing to do with it except that the Constitution is political.

What part of this being unconstitutional don't you understand? It's not part of this teachers scope of teaching to do anything at all like this. She thrust her beliefs into her job. She should be fired.

I merely mentioned his playground experience which precipitated this as it shows he wasn't trying to convert anyone. There are religious people who would use his proselytizing as justification for this nonsense. There is no justification for this, thus my condemnation...

What part of the above is causing you confusion? Would you like me to break it down for you?



What on earth are you wibbling on about? You're all over the place.

I didn't say it's right but-
It's not right.
It's child abuse but-
It wasn't malicious but-
It is malicious.
It has nothing to do with politics but-
It's based on the constitution.

This is what happens when you try to attack a misrepresentation. You're floundering, blundering around, bumping into the walls of your own little box.



I'm sure these all seemed like reasonable arguments when you vomited them onto the page via your keyboard, but you're addressing a position that has not been stated nor even hinted at by myself.



You merely made the assumption that someone taking a view that wasn't in complete alignment with your own must be diametrically opposed to you. This kind of ignorant, ideology-centred intellectual laziness has no place in rational discourse. Kindly refrain from it.