David (afai),

Wow, for someone who claims to be soooo rational, what an irrational response.

I generally avoid these type of discussions in this thread since they inevitably end up all heat and no light. But I was drawn here via the Alien thread and having read through the posts felt compelled to point out that the theists had made a mistake of conceding home-ground advantage to the AFAI by trying to argue God from a scientific perspective.

And in response I get this invective laden outburst from our resident atheistic guru. It seems that I am "really..pathetic" for reasons that are unclear but appear to having something to do with not offering whole-hearted support for David's every utterance.

Just to address a few points. David is upset with my using the term "activist atheist" which he feels is derogatory. But I just use it to differentiate the likes of David from what I'd perceive to be the majority of atheists who make a personal choice and leave it at that. That David sees it as derogatory is probably the result of paranoia (all the theists are agin' me)...or a guilty conscience?

David wrote "explain this phrase. “Absolutism again.”" (what, no please?:)). In the previous post I referred to the absolutism of some in this thread who adopted the view that if you're no with us you're against us.

David wrote: "Why are you opposed to it?" "it" being saving the kids from indoctrination by those awful theists.
As a general principal I'm not opposed to stopping indoctrination of kids...if it were possible. But David isn't proposing stopping indoctrination, just replacing it with an indoctrination of which he approves. As a rule of thumb, you should always be wary of those who just want to save the kids. Cut Co2 to save the future generations. Censorship to protect the kids etc etc. It almost always conceals a further agenda. And here David doesn't even try to conceal it. Re-indoctrinate the kids to create more atheists, which to David, is a good thing....more like him must be good for society, right?

mhaze,

“But David isn't proposing stopping indoctrination, just replacing it with an indoctrination of which he approves. As a rule of thumb, you should always be wary of those who just want to save the kids.”

Seems you missed on explaining how atheism is going to indoctrinate ‘kids’. Maybe you can explain that?

I agree that using children to support a stance is a questionable tactic. But further explanation that children grow into voting adults is ample justification as we all have to live in this thing called democracy. Be nice if it worked as best it can is my opinion with the privileged position of religion curtailed somewhat, dontcha think.

You use the term ‘activist atheist’ to separate people into a suspect class. I guess you are an inactivist something or other. Paranoia has nothing to do with it, nor has insecurity whatever those terms mean in your reading of what I have said. Can you explain them…..thanks!

Nice try at a squirm out of ‘absolutism again’ but make it clearer for those of us who respect rationality. Don’t point the absolutist gun at me and think you can get off scot-free with no explanation as to what you mean. I'm waiting.

David

mhaze,

I noticed this just came onto the AFA forums. It is not unlike the endless number of similar stories that are reported to the AFA on a constant basis. That you are blind to the reality of childhood religious mental and physical indoctrination is a sad reality in society that concentrates on sexual abuse as that is, well, sexy and shocking. That is only one part of the shock.

This is the Catholic Church and I would like you for a moment to contemplate a fundamentalist brand and how children in their ‘care’ might suffer.

Trying to diminish this reality by vague accusations at me, that this has and is happening to thousands upon thousands of children, makes you just an unwitting puppet supporting the unconscionable. Not your, fault but have a think.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/forums/showpost.php?p=358302&postcount=1

I have a reason to be on this forum and it has nothing to do with self-aggrandisement, pushing an agenda or indoctrinating children.

David

David - afai,

1. I wasn't squirming out of the explaining 'absolutism'. Struth, where do you get these notions? I explained it when I first used it and I explained it again at your request. When I used it I was drawing attention to a certain attitude in the thread that those who weren't whole-heartedly supportive of the AFAI's aims must be opposed to them. In particular I was pointing to a response to my original post where I'd posted a neutral view but been attacked as pro-theist. I was not specifically refering to you at that time. The gun (what a quaint term) was aimed elsewhere....its not all about you, you know.

2. "You use the term ‘activist atheist’ to separate people into a suspect class. " Nup. When I used it I was talking about the appropriate response from theists. I was specifically referring to the response to activists such as yourself. There is no need to respond to non-activist atheists, although some theists may want to respond with sorrow or pray. But 'suspect class'? Wow!

3. "Seems you missed on explaining how atheism is going to indoctrinate ‘kids’. " I used my entire 350 word quota. I can't explain everything to you in one post. I also suspect it won't be possible. What others will see as indoctrination, you'll see as just laying out the facts. Elsewhere you wrote..."The state should teach students about all religions as a subject in the humanities....This would include that religions have no empirical evidence in support and the foibles produced by religion not hidden. " This, in the eyes of others, is untrue or not the full truth and is therefore, to them, indoctrination. I suspect you won't get that.
Parents have rights and the right to have their kids taught as they want is one of the more important. Its fundamental to our society and we dilute it to society's cost. I know you won't agree. This comes, of coarse, with the proviso that the parent makes the decision solely with the child's interest at heart.

Does that include the denomination of a kids belief before they are even borne.

mhaze,

The word ‘absolutist’ has a specific meaning(s) as does ‘activist’.

This nonsense of, ‘if you are not with me you are agin me’ has nothing to do with absolutism. Just admit you were using an inflammatory word for effect. The same as stating , “resident atheist guru.” Your posts drip with this kind of venom.

“Activist atheist” is just another. Are those promoting religion, ‘activist theists’? Can you quote yourself where you have use that term? That should be easy as there are far more of them promoting religion than there are atheists asking for the evidence of their gods existences.

It really is useless interacting with you when the all-round non- specific religious education I and many educators consider a good thing is called by you, propaganda.

What exactly is being propagandised? Have you a dictionary? If so, look up the word and get back to me about this.

To then take religious indoctrination away from state schools as I have been promoting, into the realm of general parenting, is a continuation of your mischievous use of ideas and language.

State schools should not be the instrument for specific religious indoctrination in a multi and no faith society. This is not rocket science.

You are digging the hole deeper with deviousness. Maybe this is a good time for you to stop and re-evaluate what you are saying and why you are saying it.

David