Should atheists be included in DNC interfaith service?

Groups wants Atheists included in DNC interfaith service. Pentecostal minister refuses to reply to requests.

The interfaith service scheduled to take place at the Democratic National Convention's Aug. 24 in Denver is supposed to be about unity. But to a Washington, D.C., coalition that supports non theistic views, it's about division.

The Secular Coalition Group, a lobbying organization for church-and-state separation, is pushing to get an atheist on the speaker list, and contends the service is divisive because it alienates nonreligious Democrats at a time when the party needs to unite to support the presumptive nominee, Sen. Barack Obama.

Take the time to read more at:http://www.gazette.com/articles/convention_39362___article.html/service_interfaith.html


Convention CEO Leah D. Daughtry, a Pentecostal minister, said in a statement that the purpose of the first-ever Democratic Convention service is "to honor the diverse faith traditions inside the Democratic Party." but refuses to reply to requests from atheist and agnostic groups.

That is what atheists have "faith" in, that we as a species don't need invisible sky wizards to know the difference between right and wrong, that we're capable all by ourselves. As a believer in a God, I have no problem in sharing a faith forum with atheists as I agree with them that we don't need God to know good from evil. I believe God gave us the ability to fend for ourselves without His/Her/Its incessant coddling, that we can grow and mature on our own as any child can. To reject atheists simply because they don't believe in any God (and despite sharing the same beliefs in the ultimate good of morality as any theist as you or I) is ignorant and has no place in ANY party, let alone the Democratic party.

when you don't believe in unicorns?

Yeah, let 'em have their dogma..I got my own spirits.

:sarcasm:

Best way to observe the Constitution? Drop the interfaith shit entirely.

But I would like to be included in the "Science and Logic" service.

So I don't understand this.

Maybe someone can enlighten me.

Secular Coalition to DNC: "Unity" Event Should Include Us; Coalition Director Offers to Participate in Democratic Convention's Opening Ceremony

http://www.secular.org/news/DNC_Daughtry080730.html

Are Atheists Welcome at the Democratic Convention? Asks the Secular Coalition for America

http://www.secular.org/news/DNC_Daughtry080723.html

It sounds like people are objecting to the very concept of an interfaith event -- since it would by definition exclude those people without a faith.

NT!

They're separate issues, not the same.

You can be a Unitarian Universalist as an athiest, or a Buddhist, or a number of other religions/faiths.

Or would want to be included in something like this? Ridiculous.

you have got to be kidding!

And I again refer people to the actual schedule for these events. It's a *big* deal, with a "keep out" sign hung on it. That's how I take it, anyway.

Would you want to go to this function?

No, why? The church exists and has members just fine without me (I'm not in Dallas):
http://www.churchoffreethought.org/

Hey, the Houston branch is back in business, it seems - thanks for causing me to look into this:
http://www.hcof.org/Content-Public/Page-Edit/Page.asp?iID=-159097705

And some other good news I had not known about:
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/08/29/church-of-freethought-gets-tax-exemption-in-texas.htm

Thanks for doing me a favor!

Would I personally want to go? No. I'm not social. I wouldn't even want to go to the convention. But that's not important right now (and don't call me Shirley). There's a post downstream a bit where I have explained my views and why this *is* important, as have others.

who are screaming to be let into this event. That's why I'm questioning who these people are and why they want to find yet another reason to cause trouble and division at the Democratic convention. I don't belong to any atheist groups. None of the other atheists I know do either. Why would I want to go listen to an atheist speaker at a "faith" event? I'm not terribly happy about the mix of religion and politics but it's there, it's not going away, and I'm realistic about it. In an incredibly important election year where our party has already faced enough division and infighting I'm certainly not going to whine that my personal opinion that god doesn't exist isn't being represented at some "interfaith service."

that this religious stuff should not have been made a centerpiece of the convention, which it *has*, the way I read the schedule.

I'm sick of mixing religion and politics, and I'm sick of the pandering.

If they insist on doing it as such a big whoop-de-doo, they need to include everyone. No, I would not be making this argument if it were a small side thing! BUT IT ISN'T!

But unfortunately this is the corner they have us backed into.

It's not a keep out sign. It's just not a free for all where anyone can get up and speak.

If you were having a meeting with a group of pro-choice people, how would you feel about a pro-life group insisting they need to be heard and insisting on being included in the proceedings.

I've been told by atheists that atheism is not a faith. Hence, why would they want to be part of an interfaith service? Even so, I'm sure individuals can attend.

A godless secular humanist. Member of several atheist groups. A former seminary student and someone who thinks that a person's religious beliefs or absence of beliefs is an important personal issue which needs universal respect. I think it's important that the service reflect all belief traditions of all members of the Democratic Party...and I think that if the reverend cannot accept that, that she is the wrong person for her position.

I can't abide anybody claiming to speak on the behalf of Democrats to say that we're not valued or wanted by this party...same as I will not respect anybody who says that people of faith are not welcome in this party.

:sarcasm:

He can't imagine a group of non-theists.

And yet I don't know any who belong to any atheist groups. But I will concede that I was wrong to jump to the conclusion that such people must be disrupters. I'm probably way too paranoid but you have to admit that it does sound a little like a Republican ploy. Try to get atheists into the faith service and if you fail, cause a ruckus among atheists in the party and if you succeed, laugh at how those secular liberals invite atheists to their faith rallies.

sort of an unbelief, iirc.

I don't think not being included in a service is meant to show that you are not valued or wanted. But if you're not part of a "faith" group, why would you want or need to be included? Serious question.

And thank you for your words. I agree that both groups should be welcome. Just not sure where y'all are coming from, I guess.

At my Unitarian Universalist church one of our ministers is an acknowledged religious athiest, but he's still a spiritual person who belongs to an organized religious group.

NT!

Atheism is believing there is no god. You can still participate in multiple religions and be an athiest.

I lack belief in any, due to the lack of evidence for them.

An easy way to demonstrate how wrong you are: the reason you don't believe in Zeus is the reason I don't believe in any god.

And you can be an atheist and yet belong to a religion. Buddhism for example.

I don't KNOW that there are no gods (I'd have to possess every bit of information in the universe to prove it, which would make ME a god), and since the evidence for gods is essentially nonexistent I don't believe in any of them.

You can certainly be an agnostic atheist or probably even a religious agnostic. I don't know why I was thinking about the atheist vs. agnostic thing in such a black and white way other than it was late at night. ;)

As an atheist, I guess I tend to think that if you don't believe in god then you might as well call yourself an atheist. While an agnostic to me is someone who may have some spiritual leanings but is skeptical and ultimately thinks that these questions are unknowable.

Agnostic's see no evidence for god, so lack belief in them, but don't outright claim there ARE no gods, or god.

Athiests claim outright there simply ARE no gods. NOt that they have a lack of belief of them,but that there are definately none.

Still it's off topic. I'm not the Athiest. ONe of my ministers is, and since he has a Masters in Divinity, I'm going to assume he knows the correct definition when he calls himself that.

You are not qualified to tell ME what I believe - you aren't inside my head.

I am an atheist.

You described agnosticism.

I also happen to be an agnostic, as explained elsewhere.

Sad to see the lack of understanding and assumptions about atheism still abound.

:eyes:

I must have missed the memo.

Why would I? :shrug:

Atheism isn't a religion, so it wouldn't make sense for atheists to be included in a faith service. The whole thing would just turn into a big back and forth debate, which isn't the purpose.

I suspect ulterior motives, because I can't imagine any atheist I know (and I know a bunch) wanting to go.

and IS DIVISIVE

It's the rabid anti-theists. And they're "atheists" like PUMA are "democrats".

I thought you said rabid anti-atheist. I was thinking that this group was just trying to stir up trouble and division among the Democratic party and make atheists look bad. But now that I've read a bit about them I guess I may be wrong. There's nothing wrong with rabid anti-theists though.

One can be atheist and anti theist, and not rabid.

Simply believing that religion is harmful, and being unafraid to say so, does not make one rabid.

The "rabid" anti theist is a construct of the MSM and the bronze age text worshipers who control our government, courts, and media.

I have read all of the writers normally tagged with this label. None of them are rabid.

They merely believe that religion is harmful, and have no problem saying it. This is a very positive trend.

Many, many people believe that religion is harmful. The taboo against saying this is growing weaker. We are tired of the "faithful" inserting their unfounded and dangerous beliefs into what should be secular- namely the state.

The fastest growing "church" in this nation is the belief that belief in God is doing more harm than good.

Eighteen percent of Americans now define themselves as "non believers". Isn't that a minority of approximately the same magnitude as African Americans? And yet, you blow us off as if we were nothing.

The presence of religion in ANY PART of our party, or government, is patently offensive to almost one in five Americans! And that number grows every day. As faith based idiocy threatens to eclipse reason completely, more and more people are seeing the light.

Before you insult us with such glibness, you should think a little harder about the actual role of faith in today's world.

I assure you, we atheists have thought long and hard. We do not deserve to be dismissed so lightly.

PUMAS, indeed! What a woefully inadequate comparison.

What you said, doubled!

don't believe in their beliefs, my in laws and I are not speaking because of this very thing!




:yourock:

And I find being left out of this function objectionable. If you look at the schedule, this is a *big* deal, but people like me are being told to stand outside the door. And it really sucks that the minister apparently won't even reply.

Note that it is a "first-ever" service. More religion in politics. In that case, I certainly think atheists/agnostics/freethinkers deserve a voice as well.

A 2006 survey by The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life asked, "What is your religious preference?" and 11% responded, "No religion, not a believer, atheist, agnostic." In this survey 56% responded as Protestant and 23% as Roman Catholics. The other categories -- Jewish, Mormon, Orthodox Church (Greek or Russian), Islam/Muslim, and Other Religions -- totaled just 8%. These results are similar to those of a BBC survey that determined there are more atheists and agnostics than there are Jews, Presbyterians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Roman and Greek Orthodox combined in the United States.

A Harris Interactive survey from 2003 found that 9% of Americans do not believe in a god, while an additional 12% were uncertain about the existence of a supreme being. With the current population of the United States at about 300 million, this means that there are approximately 63 million American atheists and agnostics.

there are more atheists and agnostics than there are Jews, Presbyterians, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Roman and Greek Orthodox combined in the United States.

Of course, I would be curious about why they would care to attend. But, one never knows, atheists are welcome at Friends Meetings, and occasionally, some do attend.

I would hope that if they attend that they would do it for some other reason than simply to make a ruckus. Such things are rather pointless.

I think they are just pointing out that this opening religious thing is a *big* deal, that a part of the Democratic party is being left out of. I again refer people to the schedule for the opening thingie, and other events. It is practically melding religion with the party, IMHO.

Frankly, the "so what's" here kinda remind me of the reaction I got in high school when I objected to the prayer meetings in the auditorium (yes, I'm *that* old) and the fact that I could either attend or sit in the principal's office. Of course, the real answer, which was eventually caught on to by most schools, is that they should not have taken place during school hours....

Diests? UU'ers?

... All the other folks who (like many of our founding fathers) didn't believe in prayer, or sacrament, or regular worship?

Has it really gone so far that Thomas Jefferson's own party wouldn't allow him to speak?

Jefferson had a great appreciation for the teachings of Jesus Christ, he just disputed the "supernatural" parts of the story.

I doubt that atheists or agnostics would be turned away from such a service. I'm just not sure why they would want to be there.

It's kinda like Vegans attending a barbecue. Sure, you can bring along the tofu dogs if you like, but do you really want to hang around a bunch of meat eaters?

That's the difference.

It's not that the vegans don't want to come to the barbecue, it's that the meat-eaters don't want them to have a voice there.

Put into another context, this isn't so far apart from an "inter-faith" celebration that only had abrahamic faiths, but gnostics, wiccians, humanists, and diests/spinozans need not apply to attend.

You know, the guy who wrote the Constitution.

They might argue about who wrote the gospels and snicker to themselves if someone actually believes that Jesus turned water into wine, but that doesn't mean that they may not have read the bible and found things there that were good lessons.

I think Aesops Fables holds some good lessons (some....some are kinda fucked up), but I don't think they're real stories

There are plenty of athiests and agnostics who attend religious services regularly, whether it's UU, Buddhist, or something else, and get plenty out of it. Just because you're Athiest or Agnostic doesn't mean you have no spiritual side.

And if you were having 20 friends over to your house and didn't invite the 1 vegan friend over, and when he asked to come because he likes BBQ's and he can throw some marinated tofu on the fire, you said "no, only meat eaters here. You can only cook meat at a bbq. keep your tofu at home." what kind of friend would you be?

Just because you don't believe in god, or are an athiest, means you completely lack any kind of spirituality. The thought that one of my UU ministers, a religious athiest who spent the summer working and counseling injuried veterans, shouldn't be allowed to attend because he doesn't believe in god is preposterous.

Atheists don't believe in gods, and also DON'T believe it's been proven there are no gods.

Atheists are certain that there is no god.

One can be both an agnostic AND an atheist - the former refers to knowledge, the latter to belief.

:P

But I guess these definitions are ultimately personal and we can't stop anyone from calling themselves what they like.

An Athiest simply doesn't believe god, or gods exist period.

Agnostics see no evidence, and therefore don't believe, but don't necessarily rule out the possiblity or believe it's been proven there are no gods.

NOT believing in gods is different from believing gods don't exist. Not believing is the opposite of believing something isn't. Thank you for finally understanding what I've been trying to tell you.

Likewise, "Agnostics see no evidence, and therefore don't believe, but don't necessarily rule out the possibility or believe it's been proven there are no gods." is also how I feel.

I think that logically, there is no difference between "not believing in gods" and "believing gods don't exist." I think I see the distinction you're making though. "I don't believe in god but the question is essentially unknowable" = agnostic. "God doesn't exist because there is no evidence for his existence" = atheism.

I posted this myself a while back, to even less attention. I *do* think it's divisive (as big a deal as it is; see schedule), I *don't* think the Secular Coalition is just disrupting, and it doesn't look like many people have the same view. Oh well.

As long as I'm here (and I'm leaving after I post this), any rec's for today's Election Reform News greatly appreciated....! ;)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=203&topic_id=507058&mesg_id=507058

What is the gathering for? If it is for the gatherers, then I'd say it's their call. If it's to glorify God, then I'd say it's her call.

The organizers need to ask themselves, "What really is the most important thing to me/us? Me/Us? Or being open to the Truth?"

She must have a lot of free time on her hands...

What with so many folks claiming to speak for him/her, so she needn't have any actual opinions on the subject...

;)

Put perhaps a different way:
"What is most important to the people selecting the speakers, and how do their choices reflect that?"

That being said, I think there is powerful grounds for an ineffable, unknowable, incomprehensible, kind of "god" that makes no sense to the logical, rational, mind, and thus cannot "exist" within any sort of sane mind, and at the same time, people have this uncanny ability to look outside of what seems logical, rational, and sane, and find new, and amazing, and deeply profound things every day.

I can see why it would be silly, even offensive, to have a speaker/"grenade thrower" like Christopher Hitchens, but it would be totally wonderful to have a speaker like Carl Sagan (R.I.P) who didn't believe in a guy with a beard, but did speak with breathtaking awe, and humbled reverence, about the universe as we know it.

Sagan? Hitchens? The event planners?

;)

If s/he could, what would be the point of Faith?

i find it objectionable, but still want nowhere near it. The point is, look at us democrats, we are tolerant of all these faiths, except of course no faith in the supernatural because that is a political bomb.

Polls show, and recent elections evidence, that a national politician can meet with success if they are make, female, black, white, hispanis, protestant, catholic, gay, straight...but not an atheist.

I even resent the word atheist...why do we need a name for someone that does not believe in something. Do we need a name for all those people that are NOT christians, or americans, or firemen?

just my $0.02.

The CEO of the DNC is a Pentecostal minister. She has just proven (in case you did not already know) that we as Democrats are no longer tolerant of all faiths. Or gays and lesbians for that matter.

most definitely the point.

what reason would anybody have to exclude anybody - I don't get it.

There should be no raising of the eyebrows if atheists wish to attend or not. But, I have a question which I think is obvious. Why does there have to be one in the first place? Are we running that scared of the religious right and the repukes? The democrats are supposed to be inclusive but these past few years we seem to be kowtowing to the religious right.

Anti choice people are always writing about not feeling welcome in the democratic party. IMHO, they sound as bad as any right winger and make the assumption that when democrats see a pregnant woman we will sing the praises of abortion. Nonsense. Most pro life (I use pro life on purpose because democrats believe in quality of life instead of quantity of life) democrats I know really stress contraception.

I have watched democrats going from not mentioning religion often to watching candidates almost debate who is the most religious. Carter was probably the most faithful of any modern day president and he didn't use code words. He was president to all and not just the religious right.

Please remember not all calling themselves Christian read the bible literally nor do we believe that only the books in the bible now are the only ones ever written. Many writings were left out like the book of Thomas, Mary Magdalene and others. They showed Jesus as very human. The new testament was put together by one man.

I don't believe in having "faith" in things. Nor using "faith" to fill gaps in things that are not understood.

Whether others do is their business. Not mine.

So what would be the point?

UU for one. You don't have to be an athiest to be a UU, but you can be.

Some sects of Buddhism have no gods, so it fits.

This is simply more theist bullshit. If they want some religion, go do it in a church, not during a POLITICAL convention.

Our diversity includes those without religious beliefs.

Now all should be respectful, of course. Focus on what brings us together - this shouldn't be a time for arguing about beliefs - or non-beliefs if you will.

But I do not think any doors should be closed. That's not right. If an atheist speaker wants to join in, and speak about unity and inclusion - go for it.

why would atheists be part of an interfaith meeting. Picketing it , okay, but part of it. What would they do, when it was their turn to speak, tell the rest of the people gathering there, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, etc etc etc.. That they are "delusional".. Somehow that seems rather counterintuitive to the purpose.. Just saying

Fine with me, but guess how long it would take for those delegates to be thrown out of the convention.....

The entire idea, is something right our Monty Python.. :)

1. It's an interFAITH service. I have no faith.
2. It'll be a bunch of talk about God and whatnot. Zzzzzzzboring.
3. We atheists don't really get together in groups based around our lack of faith. We don't really do "services."

That group sounds more like real-life trolls than genuine atheists.

"Interfaith" is precisely that and there's no faith among atheists.

See other posts upthread. One of my ministers at our Unitarian church is an athiest. Just because they have faith, but not faith in YOUR god, doesn't mean they dont' have faith.

Sounds a lot like an Agnostic Theist to me.

He's talked about it before in different sermons. I'm an agnostic, but he's definately athiest.

Faith is believing in an idea, be it God, Gods, or something else, for which there is no definitive proof or evidence. Atheism is holding the conviction there is no all powerful god, or gods. Some Athiest UU ministers define their faith as being in a higher power, but that the higher power is the human race working in concert, etc. They can describe it better than me. It's not my personal position, but that of one of the ministers of my church.

Still, to limit the definition of Faith to being belief in God is a separate issue than parsing the word Athiest in a snarky way.

Humans are apt to SAY all kinds of things.

It doesn't address the issue at hand.

That is only true of 'strong' atheists, who are wrong in asserting that as theists are in asserting gods exist.

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods, most often motivated by the lack of evidence for any.

Atheists can't have it both ways. They believe in nothing and then want a part of the service? Makes no sense. Believing in nothing is not a faith.

I have a lot of very firm and considered beliefs, as a matter of fact.

I just don't believe in "god," certainly not the way s/he is described in the religions I am familiar with. There are some I'd rather like to believe in, but I don't except as instructive myths. I'd really like to believe in reincarnation as well, but I don't. If *that* turns out to be true, it'll be a nice surprise.

I *certainly* don't believe in any gods who demand worship and send people to hell. And I'll tell him/her to his/her face if I'm wrong and the subject comes up.

I will admit to not having "faith," that being defined as believing a thing with no evidence.

If they must have this religious service, couldn't get get a minister from a less radical denomination?

Seems like religious bigots are getting an increasingly warm reception from our party.

I think a lot of people here are seriously missing the point.

All the "well, why would they want to go's" scare me. Of course I don't "want" to go, in the sense of thinking it'd be enjoyable - I also don't want to see it being made as huge a deal as it is unless absolutely everyone is included.

I didn't "want" to go to the prayer meetings in high school either, nor did I "want" to sit in the principal's office - I wanted the prayer meetings not to occur, as they were inappropriate during the school day.

As is this deal. But there's no hope of canceling it or making it less a centerpiece in the current climate, unfortunately, so the Secular Coalition is asking for the best compromise available. That's how I see it.

That has nothing to do with it.

I suppose you want the snake handlers from Arkansas to be included.
Or, how about the chicken blood-letters from Louisiana.

Or, to beat them all, how about the 5 members of the Jones family that live in Idaho, who believe the father is the latest incarnation of Jesus because his wife told him so 3 years ago.

And then you wonder why 50% of Americans are on medication of some sort these days!!

Yes, as long as they are treating the snakes humanely. And any other religion that is not violating any laws.

"The only difference between a cult and a religion is a hundred years" - unknown (meaning I could find the quote but not the author)

"The only difference between a cult and a religion is the amount of real estate they own"--Frank Zappa

Well, * thinks god talks to him because * says so. I don't see the difference.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_RHeinlein.htm

My concerns are twofold:

One - We shouldn't be having such a thing in the first place, as it has no business touching politics. Church and state, and all that. If there is going to be something held at the convention NO Democrat should be excluded. You want to have you church thing, do it outside the convention!

Two - But since we clearly need to pander to religion, they damn sure better have ALL faiths there, not just the Xtians, Jews and Muslims...I better see Pagans, Zoroastrians, Gnostics, Buddhists, Toaists, Odin worshippers, peyote eaters...etc.

But I very very much doubt that's going to happen.

This is just plain bullshit.

"Faith without deeds is meaningless!"

Atheists, like Albert Schweitzer, did more for the "least of God's brethren" than all the Dobsons, Falwells, and Robertsons combined.

Unless you redefine what faith means.

...as strictly owned by theists. Atheism actually IS a faith. It is believed in with strong convictions, there is no proof one way or the other, and I would assume atheists are as sincere in their beliefs as any theist is in theirs. Faith, as defined by any honest academic dictionary, DOES NOT require a belief in any god. I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. Not because it's being carried in a chariot by one of the petty Greek gods of old but because the Earth rotates on its axis. I have no proof that the Earth or the sun WON'T be destroyed thus preventing that next sunrise, but I have faith that such an event won't happen. My belief in God has nothing to do with my faith in these things, my faith that the laws of science WON'T come undone between now and then does. I don't need my God to reassure me of this.

Ignorance and Intolerance isn't owned just by theists, atheists often proudly wear those badges too, and both camps are MORE than willing to redefine words like faith to justify their own opinions.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith

faith

Main Entry:
1faith Listen to the pronunciation of 1faith
Pronunciation:
\ˈfāth\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural faiths Listen to the pronunciation of faiths \ˈfāths, sometimes ˈfāthz\
Etymology:
Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust — more at bide
Date:
13th century

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

very informative!

NT!

Here, try post #22 of this thread on for size and see what "mean-spirited" really is... :eyes:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3820614#3820818

And as for knowing atheists, yes I do and enjoy their company and debates with them, but thanks anyway for asking. :)

(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow.

I'm glad that you have "faith" in the sun. Personally I have scientific proof that the sun will rise tomorrow so I don't really need that faith.

I have no proof that the Earth or the sun WON'T be destroyed thus preventing that next sunrise, but I have faith that such an event won't happen.

You may not have the proof, but that proof does in fact exist. Thankfully the sun will rise tomorrow and the earth will not be destroyed, not because of your faith but of some widely and easily verifiable scientific facts.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

eom

I would be interested to know what you said. I won't be offended or anything. :shrug:

Frankly, that's what has always really bugged me about how DU mods handle "problem" posts: They just delete them whole and leave a link to the rules. Er, which one did I break? I've had some posts deleted before (out my 3000+ and 5-ish years here) but with no indication of why. Another forum I go to (non-political in scope, but I'm a creature mostly of their off-topic) the mods are MORE than happy to make an example of someone crossing the line and show why. In this instance, I have an idea of what might've done it but if I'm right JESUS CHRIST it was a weak reason to delete the post. I'm not sure if I'm even comfortable PMing it to you now, especially not if I can't fully remember. I just got back from work, fully expecting other posts to have been deleted so I had saved them in a .txt file before I left so at least I'd have them.

Look, I don't have anything against anyone here on DU (well, there was this one chick, but she was grating on everyone's nerves, and I just had the misfortune of getting caught in her crosshairs for having DARED disagree with her in some thread back in like '05), but people are going to disagree. There words might get strong, but if I'm right about why my post is toast, then it was DAMNED weak a reason to kill it. Nastier threads and posts have survived. Maybe if I'd included a :P or ;) mine would have too.

DU can be frustrating sometimes. Ce la vie.

Yes, there are some who take it further and assert that there are no gods - they're "strong" atheists - but atheism overall is the LACK of belief in gods, and thus is not a religion or faith (no matter how many times theist-written dictionaries try to define us as they see fit in an attempt to win their arguments about unproven gods).

"Atheists do not believe in no gods; they don't believe in gods." is a double-negative and more over does not contradict anything I said, only repeats it.

My post - "Faith, as defined by any honest academic dictionary, DOES NOT require a belief in any god." So unless you're telling me that even academic sources (which rational people separate from THEOLOGICAL sources) can't be trusted to present definitions of the words in our language...

And just like the other poster, you dismissed inconvenient parts of the definition of the word faith in order to make your point, but since you've already demonstrated a eagerness to dismiss academic definitions, I'm not sure how I can get out of your circular reasoning.

But I still take issue with your overly broad reading of the definition. Though I also see why you take issue with my selective reading. Let's break it down:

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions

Nothing about atheism requires any allegiances or loyalties to any duties, people or promises. I suppose atheists have a sincerity of intentions though that's not really the definition of "faith" that is intended in the context of an "interfaith service."

2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust

This is the definition of faith that we're dealing with in this context, is it not? Atheists don't believe in god so #2a(1) is out. Atheists as a group don't believe in anything for which there is no proof unless you try to argue that there is no proof that god doesn't exist. But that's as much of a ridiculous double negative as "do not believe in no gods; they don't believe in gods." So 2b(1) is out. 2b(2), "complete trust" isn't really the definition of faith that we're working with here. That's for saying that you have faith in a friend of yours or something. It's irrelevant to the religious context. I suppose you could legitimately say that atheists have faith in the scientific method but that would be a misleading usage in a religious discussion. Atheists may have complete trust in science but they don't believe in doctrines for which there is no proof in the same way that religious people do.

3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

In this instance, as well as #2a(2) above, you may have a point. In the sense that Buddhists for example can be atheists then you can be an atheist and yet still be religious and therefore be an atheist with "faith." In that sense there could be atheists involved in an interfaith service but wouldn't they already fall under the banner of an existing religion that allows for a non-belief in god?

I'm just going to graciously concede this round to you, how about that? As you can probably tell from my chosen avatar, I'm not usually this uptight... ;)

One can be an athiest, in the context of 2a(1), but still hold true to 2b(1) and have faith in other things, such as humanity. The two definitions aren't necessarily linked. An athiest is capable of faith, but they are convinced there is no deity. Their faith is in other things. Believing there is no god, does not mean you take NOTHING on faith.

Faith has several definitions. I was referring to the difference you describe.

An "A"theist is who object to the very mention of "God" in a public venue and any expression of faith raises their blood pressure. They often organize to remove any reference to "God" in public settings or from public documents.

An "a"theist, however, doesn't believe in "God", but doesn't get all bent out of shape by hearing other people talk about "God" or faith or anything religious. They can enjoy dinner with a similarly emotionally healthy "religionist" without getting into an argument.

I have no *absolute* proof of anything.

But there are many things for which there is a lot of evidence.

I don't regard expecting the sun to come up as "faith," any more than I regard recognizing that evolution has a lot of evidence going for it as "faith."

and he is a throwback!

Thanks! I needed a laugh after this thread. I seldom post this much, but the "who cares" posts really got my back up, which caused me to get real stubborn. Sort of like when I sat in the principal's office rather than go to the prayer meetings. Shoulda sued. Oh well, live and learn.

But I would have to wonder why Atheists would want to attend an interfaith worship service? Doesn't their chosen belief, or lack thereof, make it so they are exempt from such performances. One wonders why the uproar?

It should not be presented as such.

BWAHAHAHAAHAHAAH!!!!!

Religion and politics shouldn't even be mixing like this in the first place.

This thing is a *big* deal, not some side meeting. It's basically a centerpiece, and I think everyone should be included in a centerpiece.

We're not real people anyway. Who cares what we think? You all think we're going to burn in hell anyway. May as well start your eternal exclusion early.

If they are atheists then they don't believe in faith in the religious sense.

I mean, why wouldn't you invite a vegan to your BBQ? There will be beer, right?

asparagus

We grill some vegetables first on the cleaned and fired grill, then throw on some marinated tofu for them, then once we have all the vegan food cooked, we throw on the MEAT. There's more to a BBQ than meat, and there's more to an interfaith service at a political convention than a specific God.

I'm a proud atheist and the name (DNC Interfaith Service) may not imply it, but secular humanists or atheist SHOULD be included. Not for any religious reasons obviously, but for a voice for those who aren't religious. We don't like religious folks talking for us.

We should be included too.

..?

I've been told by atheists that atheism is not a faith. Hence being included in the interfaith conference would seem to be inappropriate. I'm sure woman, black people, union people and the like have their own meetings. So should the atheist group. Are there non-union members insisting on speaking to the union people? Do we have white people insisting on speaking to the black delegates? Vice versa? A man insisting on speaking to the women's group? Pro-life Dems insisting on speaking to the pro-choice Dems.

Well, if there are, I'd tell them all the same.

The faith groups exist, same as any other group within the Democratic Party. They are not going away, same as any other group in the Democratic Party.

Live, and let live.

It is a huge deal, given a lot of time, a centerpiece. No one at all should be left out.

This is supposed to be a secular government. Let the interfaith conference take place, fine - with people of faith, NOT politicians!

And as an atheist, why the heck would I want to be included in this? No thanks.

This is the same divisive individual who tried like mad to prevent the DNC from seeking to have GLBT representation among the delegates to Denver. Now she's making up a new event to make for new exclusions.
Daughtry wallows in backward thinking and prejudice. She makes problems for our Party at every turn, and has done more to cause the lack of unity we have on the Progressive side than any individual or group in the country.
I oppose Daughtry's invlovment in our Party. She is all about division, 'us and them' thinking within our ranks. She's a bigot and she brings her bigotry to the work place. Her actions have generated law suites and much unhappiness. She's trying to purge those she does not like, the minorities she holds in contempt, and anyone who is in favor of actual equality and religious freedom.
The problem, yet again, is Leah Daughtry.

We just wish they'd do it in private, and on their own time.

So I belive there is no god = faith?

No faith involved.

EDIT: Actually, it's "non-belief."

I think even many people who describe themselves as atheists are actualy agnostics. Take the Flying Spaghetti Monster. An agnostic would say "There is absolutely no evidence that such a thing exists, so I don't believe in it, but I can't say for an absolute fact that it doesn't. Show me the money and we'll talk." Whereas an athiest would say "There is absolutely no evidence that such a thing exists, it's absolutely preposterous. It does not exist."

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Atheism itself is in some ways a logical fallacy. One could argue that the step from Agnosticism to Atheism does take an aspect of faith, in some ways very simliar to the exact opposite belief.

Talk about inherently flawed.

I can't say with absolute certainty it doesn't though, and neither can you. The only absolute is that there are no absolutes. If you can say with absolute certainty it doesn't you're operating on a degree of faith, whether you like to admit it or not, because you're operating under a logical fallacy.

Also: Santa Claus.

This is not a logical fallacy.

Unless you're omniscient. I didn't know we had explored every nook and cranny of the entire existence of the universe, possibly multiverse, or who knows what else is possible with dimensions and whatnot. You obviously do know everything though since you know that with absolute certainty. Kudos.

I also have faith that friday comes after thursday, and 1 + 1 = 2.

This is completely different than religious faith.

I guess I'm really an agnostic far toward the atheist end of the scale. I used to call myself a "devout agnostic," but people here in the bible belt thought it was really a religion. Everybody knows (or thinks they do) what an atheist is.

You said "An agnostic would say "There is absolutely no evidence that such a thing exists, so I don't believe in it, but I can't say for an absolute fact that it doesn't. Show me the money and we'll talk." But that's what an atheist might say. There's no evidence that god exists, therefore he doesn't. If you can find proof that god exists I'll be forced to change my point of view, not because of belief or faith but due to verifiable facts.

An agnostic, as the word implies, thinks that we simply cannot know whether or not god exists. It's the idea that god is inherently unknowable. So maybe the christian conception of god is wrong or maybe it's right but there's no way we'll ever know.

I think anyone condensing the definitions to a message board post realizes that it's at best an oversimplification of the concepts. I would refer to the wikipedia articles on atheism and agnosticism, if only for the sources on the pages.

Yes, some people would define any non-belief in god as Atheism and include Agnosticism in that. Some split Atheism into Weak and Strong, with the Weak being more Agnostics, the strong the more True Atheists. Others break even Agnosticism into more and more pieces.

It probably should be expected that people who question everything, would tend to disagree on the semantical definitions of their state of thought.

The most common definitions though of the two are the not that the Agnostic sees God as unknowable, but simply sees no evidence, and chooses to not believe in something without evidence. An atheist on the other hand, in the most common definitions not only sees no evidence, but sees this lack of evidence as proof (key word) that there is no god. It's often been pointed out that Strong Atheism itself demands an act of faith, because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Though as I said, this is an area where the semantic arguments themselves could fill whole rooms of books.

It's right in the name! Agnostic means that you believe there can be no knowledge of god.

And no serious atheist and certainly no scientist would say that a lack of evidence is proof that god doesn't exist. That's a logical fallacy* The burden of proof is not on the atheist to show that god does not exist. It's up to the believers to provide evidence that god does exist. Absent that evidence, an atheist says that god doesn't exist. That's not a matter of faith or belief, it's just that we don't believe in anything for which there is no evidence (santa claus, flying spaghetti monster, weapons of mass destruction, trickle down economics)

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

They point out that both sides argue from logical fallacies, which they do.

It's like I present a box to three men. I say "is there a cat in this box?" One man argues there is, the other argues there isn't, and the third rolls his eyes. ;)

More:
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2008/08/the_democratic_and_republican.html

This is not, as I've said ad nauseum, a little side meeting. It's a *big* deal. And I resent being left out (figuratively - I'm not going to be at the convention....!), much as the 20 meat-eating and one vegan friend at the BBQ mentioned upstream.



More:
http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/08/democratic-convention-schedule.html

a Jewish Gay Female ( in no particular order ) as President...


before anybody who states "There is no such thing as Gawd"

good question, too.

in the interfaith service. It flies in the face of what atheism is. If the Secular Coalition Group were savvier they would petition for their own event at the convention discussing issues facing nonreligious americans and the separation of church and state. They would demonstrate tolerance by inviting those who would not allow them to attend the interfaith service to the secular event.