Atheist must swear to God - or leave US Air Force.

[Deleted]

There is a difference between democracy and the majority intruding upon the religious freedom of the minority. Just because more people want something doesn't mean it's the right choice, which is why we have the supreme court etc.

Yes, so lets the supreme court decide. But I don't understand your atheist viewpoint -as Richard Dawkins wrote:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, [B]no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference[/B]".

There is no "right", because there is no standard which it can be meassured against. We are just animals, a product of time, mater and chance. All morals, laws ect. are a social-, cultural product. That means: What the majority wants, is from this viewpoint, what counts. If they want to change the constituion and the majority of the people are ok with that, that shouldn't be a problem from a atheistic viewpoint - there is no "right" thing to do. Right by which standard? The constitution? Product of social, cultural contract - these have been changed since human beginning, why not change it again?

Evolution is about the survival of the fittest - the strongest (the majority in this cases) decides - who cares what a minority wants.

[v2prwsmb45yhuq3wj23vpjk]

Given the statistics, yes.. that thinking still bears validity...
76% Americans are Christians, 51% Americans are active practicing Christians. Only some 16% are atheists.
It's still a very religious country.

That does not make swearing to any sort of god or deity significant to the oath. The idea that anybody who would not uphold their oath or had nefarious intent would not be willing to utter those words is childish naivety. People who wish us harm aren't going to be stopped by words like that.

[Gadion]

There is a view about society, saying it can be judged by its treatment of the weak. How do you treat those that are most vulnerable? Children, the sick, elderly, animals, minorities...

If the majority of people were actually horrible monsters, it would be bad for all. I have that problem with survival of the fittest. Human prosperity could be seen to be a result of people cooperating and empathy (don't forget a big dose of changeability). It's our ability to take care of one another that would best serve the species. The term "survival of the fittest" implies that the one that gets to the steak first is the only one that eats. If you however share that steak with all the other puppies, you may all actually prosper if they eventually learn to hunt.

[Toast515]

I'm an atheist, and this does not offend me. If I'm at dinner at a friend's house, and they say grace, I bow my head, hold hands, and respect their beliefs even though I don't believe in their god.

[Hellrime]

I don't think he's mocking christians for open-mindedness. He's mocking them for having beliefs for which he has no evidence.

And as has been said 10 times already: atheists do not believe there is no god. They just don't ascribe to the belief that there is one. And no it isn't atheists' job to prove there is no god. It's christian's job to prove there is. And guess what? They haven't yet, so there's no reason to believe as they do. That's just being a reasonable human-being.

I don't believe in science "on science." I believe in science because there's proof that science works. The computer you're on right now is proof that science works. It's evidence to support that belief. There's evidence everywhere for science. Now if you have a problem with the idea that you should decide what to believe based on evidence, I would ask you what else should you base your beliefs on? What else truly supports your beliefs in a non-biased way other than evidence? If you have a good answer, I would honestly love to hear it.

You're missing the point of my post. It wasn't that there is or isn't a god, but you and he have no way to prove there is or isn't a god, so feeling superior to another group and calling them stupid in fact makes him look stupid. Also this must be some crazy pre-Adult Atheism that the kids are using because back in my day it meant: "disbelief in the existence of deity" ("Atheism." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2014). You're thinking of Agnostic.

[Gadion]

I'm an atheist, and this does not offend me. If I'm at dinner at a friend's house, and they say grace, I bow my head, hold hands, and respect their beliefs even though I don't believe in their god.

The situation in the report isn't quite the same though. He isn't asked to respect the ceremony of those around him, he is being forcibly fed an affirmation of a fact that he wholeheartedly disbelieves. I would expect someone to respect others in any situation, but that doesn't mean that you have to allow them to force their will on you in another situation that's dissimilar.

[Vizardlorde]

You're missing the point of my post. It wasn't that there is or isn't a god, but you and he have no way to prove there is or isn't a god, so feeling superior to another group and calling them stupid in fact makes him look stupid. Also this must be some crazy pre-Adult Atheism that the kids are using because back in my day it meant: "disbelief in the existence of deity" ("Atheism." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2014). You're thinking of Agnostic.

Can you prove the tooth fairy does not exist? How about Santa Claus? The Easter Bunny? That's the same thing you ask an atheist when you ask for proof of gods nonexistence. There is no need for proof of nonexistence cause there is no proof of existence in the first place. You can't just make outlandish claims with out proof and then say "prove me wrong".

[Adam Jensen]

If you refuse to accept good, then you can't claim that you accept some actions as bad.

Yes I can.

I just murdered your mom. Well, now you're sad, your family's life is in ruins and I've committed a horrific crime.

Actions have consequence. Murder has negative consiequences. Therefore I can accept some actions as bad. I don't need a god for that.

[Deleted]

Yes I can.

I just murdered your mom. Well, now you're sad, your family's life is in ruins and I've committed a horrific crime.

Actions have consequence. Murder has negative consiequences. Therefore I can accept some actions as bad. I don't need a god for that.

You don't understand what "bad" in this philosopical context means - there is no "bad". At which standard are you measuring something as bad?

As Richard Dawkins said:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference"

You may do all these things - they have consequences - that doesn't make them bad, if you follow the atheistic viewpoint to the end.

[Adam Jensen]

I'm an atheist, and this does not offend me. If I'm at dinner at a friend's house, and they say grace, I bow my head, hold hands, and respect their beliefs even though I don't believe in their god.

Right, but you aren't participating or being forced to participate.

[Deleted]

There is a difference between democracy and the majority intruding upon the religious freedom of the minority. Just because more people want something doesn't mean it's the right choice, which is why we have the supreme court etc.

Yes, so lets the supreme court decide. But I don't understand your atheist viewpoint - I again quote Richard Dawkins:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, [B]no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference[/B]".

There is no "right", because there is no standard which it can be meassured against. We are just animals, a product of time, mater and chance. All morals, laws ect. are a social-, cultural product. That means: What the majority wants, is from this viewpoint, what counts. Is it moraly wrong, if the lion kills the zebra? I don't think so.
If they want to change the constituion and the majority of the people are ok with that, that shouldn't be a problem from a atheistic viewpoint - there is no "right" thing to do. Right by which standard? The constitution? Product of social, cultural contract - these have been changed since human beginning, why not change it again?

Evolution is about the survival of the fittest - the strongest (the majority in this cases) decides - who cares what a minority wants.

[Adam Jensen]

You don't understand what "bad" in this philosopical context means - there is no "bad". Which standard are you measuring something as bad?

As Richard Dawkins said:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference"

I think Dawkins is talking about the universe itself, which is amoral and non-sentient. But as humans, we are capable of being moral. We're unique, even to the animal kingdom, because we can establish good vs evil and understand it. Good exists, its humanity's urge to better itself and care for its beings. Evil also exists, its when members of humanity harm other people for their own selfish and unjustified reasons.

But I'll agree that the universe itself is amoral and indifferent. Good and evil don't exist beyond the actions of mankind.

[Deleted]

I don't think he's mocking christians for open-mindedness. He's mocking them for having beliefs for which he has no evidence.

And as has been said 10 times already: atheists do not believe there is no god. They just don't ascribe to the belief that there is one. And no it isn't atheists' job to prove there is no god. It's christian's job to prove there is. And guess what? They haven't yet, so there's no reason to believe as they do. That's just being a reasonable human-being.

I don't believe in science "on science." I believe in science because there's proof that science works. The computer you're on right now is proof that science works. It's evidence to support that belief. There's evidence everywhere for science. Now if you have a problem with the idea that you should decide what to believe based on evidence, I would ask you what else should you base your beliefs on? What else truly supports your beliefs in a non-biased way other than evidence? If you have a good answer, I would honestly love to hear it.

Your definition was made by popular by Christopher Hitchens, but they won't be found in most dictionaries and they don't make sense if you look at the actuall old greed word, which translates "no/without god/gods". Atheism is the believe there is no god(s) AND that includes the lack of believe in them.

I would like to add, that in the scientific view there is only "proof" in one field - mathematics. All other sciences are based on evidence. Many christians base their believe on the creation out of nothing (proven true in the 1960s and was before that negated by astronomy), intelligent design, the existence of objective morl values, religous experiences and more. On the other hand there are people who believe the explanation for the creation out of nothing is the multiverse theory - they don't have proof, no evidence but these scientists (most atheists, like Laurence Krauss) still believe in it.

Actually you believe in many thinks in which you have no proof: That you parents, husband/wife loves you. That you actually live in the real world and not in the matrix. That objective moral values exist - that something is "wrong" can be proven. That means killing a helpless baby for fun is wrong and not just wrong by law. And more.

[Dhrizzle]

I AGREE 100% Religion should stay away. I think it's mainly religion trying to latch onto science because they themselves realize they lack credibility.

It could be that a lot of early science and natural philosophy (science before they got the process down properly) was carried out by religious institutions and people. For example the Big Bang Theory was thought up by a Catholic Priest, and Darwin had plans to become a CofE Vicar.

- - - Updated - - -

Still not gods.

They certainly have a lot of god-like qualities even if Buddhism's mythologies do drop the power-levels a bit. Certainly they bear some resemblance to the Devas and Asuras in Hinduism (not least with the names). Then there's the remarkable similarities between the Trikaya and the Catholic Trinity.

Quantum mechanics say no. Even Einstein admitted 'God places dice with the universe', using god as an analogy to the way the universe functions.

What this means is that life isn't predetermined, life is determined by chance.

I think what Einstein said was "God does not play dice with the universe" because he though quantum-mechanics was horrible. His idea of God was the natural order of things, and he believed this was "naturalist", meaning everything about the universe would be explainable on its own terms, and eventually everything would boil down to a few mathematical constants. The probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics would break this paradigm (as does the seemingly arbitrary values of some of the universe's constants, the so-called "fine-tuning" problem) and he hated it.

You grasp that "help me god" specifically refers to jesus/yaweh? What if it was "so help me Allah" or "Vishnu" or "Ra"?

"God" can refer to a creator deity (active or passive), the natural order of the universe or the universe itself (among other things) if you can't accept at least one of those as a higher-power worthy of receiving your oath (and the second two as variations on pantheism are both secular-friendly) maybe your ego is too big to be trusted with military hardware.

It's like the 12-step program they have in the U.S. The first step - accepting a higher power - is usually taken to mean you need to find a personal god or a religion, but really it's just about acknowledging there are things bigger than you in the universe.

I have never seen a religious leader get up and decry the actions of members of his same denomination as being intolerant or bigoted. I have never seen christians rise up to protest at evangelical groups that harass gays or planned parenthood clinics or the teaching of evolution as scientific fact belonging in a science classroom as opposed to pseudo-science which fails to be honest and explain that the only problem they have with evolution is that narrative teaches the earth is older than 6000 years old. When I see moderate christians protesting these douche bags, then I'll be satisfied, until then, I expect them to sit quietly with their self-righteous, sanctimonious piety.

http://www.godofevolution.com/why-we-are-protesting-a-young-earth-creationism-conference/

And 100 other people have commended on how DISINGENUOUS and lacking in integrity this is. Clearly you fail to grasp that the Oath is a legally binding declaration of belief in what the oath entails. They might as well ask him to sign a declaration of faith as well.

The oath is meant to be sworn on something sacred, if you don't hold something sacred it's just a pantomime. It's not like an atheist should be worried about annoying the entity involved, or breaking the magic of the oath.

Imagine a government job asked you to say "allahu akbar" in the US, do any of the people defending this feel that you should just "deal with it, and just say it?" Why is it okay for you guys if its a Christian God?

Personally, doesn't bother me. If I get something out of it, and the people involved don't mind that I find the phrases totally meaningless, I'll happily swear to any singular deity or pantheon of their choice.

I'm sorry, to what nebulous "god" is that statement referring then? It is 100% the judeo-christian god, with maybe some realllllly losely interpreted room for muslims in there. It's certainly not respectful of polytheists. And to continue to reiterate - Allah and Yahweh are NOT the same. Christianity worships Jesus as the son of god (incarnation, whatever) and Islam specifically states that he was a prophet, but not the son of god. So, got a little conundrum there.

Christian, Muslim and Jewish theologians (or at least the mainstream ones) have agreed that Yahweh, God and Allah are the same deity with their main point of difference being the role of Jesus and the later Islamic prophets.

Einstein was a self proclaimed Agnostic.

Einstein was more in to pantheism.

[Gadion]

Many christians base their believe on the creation out of nothing (proven true in the 1960s and was before that negated by astronomy), intelligent design, the existence of objective morl values, religous experiences and more.

Are you implying it has been proven that God does not exist? (The way this is stated, it's a little hard to comprehend- particularly the part in the brackets)

Else, I'd have to concede that many Christians do in fact believe in many of those things (do not read most or all). I personally would dispute morals as objective though and there is a case to be made for some "religious experiences" to be merely a fabrication, hallucination or a dream.

[Deleted]

I think Dawkins is talking about the universe itself, which is amoral and non-sentient. But as humans, we are capable of being moral. We're unique, even to the animal kingdom, because we can establish good vs evil and understand it. Good exists, its humanity's urge to better itself and care for its beings. Evil also exists, its when members of humanity harm other people for their own selfish and unjustified reasons.

But I'll agree that the universe itself is amoral and indifferent. Good and evil don't exist beyond the actions of mankind.

You say we can establish good against evil, but say at the same time the univerise is amoral. You talk about, good, evil and even unjustified reasons. That means that you measure it against a standard. You are trying to derive an "ought" from nothing - but there is no standard, no "ought" the universe just is. A christian would say, that god is this standard - an atheist can't or shouldn't if he stays true to his viewpoint.

Humans are a product of matter, time and chance - what external source should give as the ability to transcend nature, if nature is all there is? As Dawkins said: "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”
You wouldn't call it moraly wrong if one animal kills another animal. Why the special treatment for humans, which are nothing more than advanced animals?

[Tziva]

This thread shouldn't have gone on as long as it has. We don't allow religious discussion on this site.