New book on the market. Didn't read it. If anyone did, please comment.
50 Great Myths About Atheism (//http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0470674059/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0470674059&linkCode=as2&tag=wwwdebunkingc-20#_)
Here are the first 10 myths explored in the book:
(//http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff277/josephpalazzo/50myths.jpg) (//http://s243.photobucket.com/user/josephpalazzo/media/50myths.jpg.html)
I never read it, but have heard all of the myths from Christians on forums. It is a fact by one definition of religion that atheism is a religion and probably why the courts agree. But that is the same old bugaboo that gets debates into trouble with disagreements that prevent real debates, and only quarreling. :roll: Solitary
Quote from: "Solitary"I never read it, but have heard all of the myths from Christians on forums. It is a fact by one definition of religion that atheism is a religion and probably why the courts agree. But that is the same old bugaboo that gets debates into trouble with disagreements that prevent real debates, and only quarreling. :roll: Solitary
The author makes it clear in his book that the 1st amendment rules out not only favoring one religion over another, but also the favoring of one religion over irreligion -- and irreligion is not thought of as another religion, though the theists, not the court, have interpreted that as if irreligion is another religion.
Quote from: "Solitary"It is a fact by one definition of religion that atheism is a religion and probably why the courts agree.
In Torcaso, the "declaration" that Humanism (not atheism) is a religion was dicta, not a ruling. It has no weight in law. The Court hasn't actually ruled that atheism is a religion. (An orbiter dictum is the personal opinion of one justice, it's not part of the ruling in the case.)
As much good as this is doing (looking at the table of contents, I can just see how much this book will clear up) there unfortunately will always be people who simply disagree with this because they can and they will always insist on their regurgitated talking points. Books, seminars, conferences, education, etc. cannot seem to solve this.
It appears that the book deals with the myth that atheists just want to do all kinds of harmful things with no consequences (myth 6). Just because I don't believe in the Christian god does not mean that I want to go off and kill people! :-x
Christians are the ones who have permission to do whatever they want. No matter how bad they are or what crimes they commit, they need only ask Sweet Jesus to forgive them and they are off the hook forever. We atheists have to worry about REAL consequences, such as paying a fine, going to prison or being executed. Even without this, though, I have no desire to rob or murder anyone, or set their house on fire, or commit any other kind of crime. I don't like hurting people, and see no reason why they would want to hurt me. Guess I'm an idealist or something, but it doesn't seem like God has anything to do with it, since I don't believe in him.
The greatest myth in my lifetime as I was growing up during the Cold War was a fallacy that atheism was some kind of Communist plot. In fact for years before the word "atheism" entered my vocabulary I was taught that "Communism" was the definition of atheism (sic). As a kid the Catholic nuns at school even had me falling for it