Scientist/Evolutionist who want all religions banned.

[truthexposer]

Hi I am a newbie here so I if this is posted in the wrong section please feel free to move it.
Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion. I have been doing some surfing on the web trying to find any such info, I know its out there just haven’t found it yet. My son is on his high school debate team and has been given the topic evolution and politics, he and I were discussing the damage religion has done to the world etc. and he wanted to debate the scientific reasoning for outlawing religion. If anyone knows where I can find such persons, articles, books etc. could you pass them on and if you have a link it would be great. What he is really looking for is scientist/evolutionist who see the positive side to banning or outlawing all religions.
Thanks for your help. :)

[Tom Sawyer]

#1 - There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". People who realize that evolution is real are called normal - there's not a special distinction for them.

A guy named Richard Dawkins wrote some aritcles about how religion is akin to a virus. Google "Dawkins religion virus" and you'll come up with some stuff about it. Most non-believers don't want to outlaw religion, though, we just want everyone to get it out of our faces and mind their own damn business.

[travc]

Look into the Jacobins (the French Revolution). If I remember correctly, Thomas Paine was imprisoned (and almost executed by them) partially for criticizing their atheism, this after he fled England partially because he was being accused of being an atheist.

The French Revolution is the greatest example of excessess of an irrational atheist dogma (Romantics shouldn't be given power). The Bolshivic revolution also has lots of "bad" material in this respect. Then there is the Cultural Revolution (China). That should be more than enough material to take the anti-atheism side, but I would definately start with the Jacobins.

[Godless Wonder]

Oh, nevermind

[Malachi151]

Look into the Jacobins (the French Revolution). If I remember correctly, Thomas Paine was imprisoned (and almost executed by them) partially for criticizing their atheism, this after he fled England partially because he was being accused of being an atheist.

The French Revolution is the greatest example of excessess of an irrational atheist dogma (Romantics shouldn't be given power). The Bolshivic revolution also has lots of "bad" material in this respect. Then there is the Cultural Revolution (China). That should be more than enough material to take the anti-atheism side, but I would definately start with the Jacobins.

Umm.... err...... First ofall, I think he taking the pro-atheism side, at least this is the claim, though it could be a bait.

Secondly, the problems you mentioned went way beyond religious issues, and they exist equally under religious forms of persecution.

In other words, there are equal examples, such as the Catholic Church, of religious groups imposing religion, just as your examples are of imposing non-religion.

The major problems of the Cultureal Revolution and Bolshevik Revolution have little or nothing to do with religious issues, however.

[Draygomb]

To make a good decision one needs to know the facts.
The fact is God doesn't exist.
Anyone who believes God exists shouldn't be allowed to make decisions.

[pfred]

... evolutionist/atheist ... scientist/evolutionist
Please come back and respond. I am curious what someone who uses the term "evolutionist" has to say.

[Scifinerdgrl]

As long as there's a First Amendment in the United States, there's no chance of a religion being banned. The separation of church and state protects both from the intrusion of the other.

[Hyndis]

Please come back and respond. I am curious what someone who uses the term "evolutionist" has to say.

And since the RCC officially has no problem with evolution (unless the new guy changes JPII's policy), according to this logic some 1.2 billion Catholics are all atheists.

I'm sure that would be news to them. :rolling:

[liquid]

though it could be a bait

Sure sounds like bait... 'evolutionists' want to outlaw religion? scientific reasons for banning religion? :rolleyes:

[King Rat]

Fishing with cheese and corn is illegal in most states.

[Jolimont]

This atheist has NO desire to ban religion or even to ridicule those who love religion. I just want believers to leave me and my kids alone. Don't ask us what church we go to, don't ask us if we believe, don't offer to pick up my kids and take them to church (since I'm obviously too lazy to get up on Sundays) do as you wish and let us do as we wish.

I love it when people believe crazy shit. Makes them easy targets for scams.

[Worldtraveller]

This would probably get better answers in the E/C forum.

But I have never heard of any atheist or scientist actually advocating banning religion. Sure, it's a pipe dream some of us have in our weak moments.... :D

You say "Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion." I would imagine most, if not all, of those articles were written by right wing fundibots exploiting the religious persecution card for all it's worth....in other words. Lying.

If you do find anything along these lines, please share with us here. There are plenty of atheists and scientists out there who don't pass up any opportunity to disparage religion, much of it deserved, but a fair amount is overblown rhetoric as well, but the vast majority would be just as happy to be left alone and not have religion forced on us through laws...and we would have the same respect for theists.

Cheers,
Lane

[Matt the Medic]

Moving to E/C.

-i

[Martin B]

Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion.

Have you really?.

I have been doing some surfing on the web trying to find any such info, I know its out there just haven’t found it yet.

Ahh... I see. It is all coming clear to me now.

[Frito]

This strikes me as pretty severe baiting. My apologies if the OP is true.

Very few atheists want religions banned. Most of us realise that a lot of people depend on religion to get through their lives, and we respect their right to do so.

As for "evolutionist" being for the overthrow of religion... that is very silly. I am sure there are a few people that believe in evolution and that religions should be banned, but they are a minority. I think you would be more likely to find religious folks that think all religions but their own be banned.

Also, the First Amendment protects from the tyrany of the majority (Which people that know the facts of evolution and atheists are not) when it comes to religion. I would suggest your son just debate evolution, without a Godwin's law violation inducing argument like the one you are putting forward.

[show_no_mercy]

"Evolutionists" want science taught in classrooms. This means that religion should not be allowed in science classrooms. That's about as far as this "outlawing religion" thing goes.

[King of Men]

I want religions banned, though possibly education would be a more effective way of reaching the goal. And no, I do not respect the right of people to use religion as a crutch, any more than I respect their right to use heroin. At least heroin kills 'em off eventually.

[lpetrich]

However, Maximilien Robespierre, who ordered much of the guillotining of the French Revolution, opposed atheism and preferred a form of deism:Atheism is aristocratic; the idea of a great Being that watches over oppressed innocence and punishes triumphant crime is an idea of the people.Eventually, his colleagues decided that they did not want to go the way of his numerous victims, and they ordered that he be guillotined. Which was successfully done.

[Duck!]

Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion.
I'd like to see a list of these scientists from a reliable source.


Duck!

[figuer]

I would never support the idea of banning religions, as that would be curtailing other's freedom, but I certainly would support the banning of religious education of minors.

Just as an adult having sex with a minor is illegal, because the minor is considered immature to make informed decisions about sex, likewise a minor should be considered immature to make informed decisions about religion. So religious proselithising and indoctrination should be permited only with adults. Children should be thaught comparative religion of course, as that is part of human history.

Of course, such an scenario is highly unlikely, but it would certainly be fun to start such a campaign.

[Nice Squirrel]

I once knew a scientists that wore his underware on his head. That alone disproves the theory of evolution.

[theyeti]

Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion.

I have never read any such articles.

I have been doing some surfing on the web trying to find any such info, I know its out there just haven’t found it yet.

Probably because they don't exist.

My son is on his high school debate team and has been given the topic evolution and politics, he and I were discussing the damage religion has done to the world etc. and he wanted to debate the scientific reasoning for outlawing religion.[i/]

There can be no scientific reason for outlawing religion. Laws are human constructs informed primarily by our values. Science describes the way in which nature works; it does not tell us what kind of society we should want to live in.

Very few evolutionist/atheists (whatever that is) would want to live in a world in which religious belief were outlawed. Even if they think religion is dumb, even harmful, it's better to allow people their own freedom of conscience, lest one's own freedom is taken away.

[i]If anyone knows where I can find such persons, articles, books etc. could you pass them on and if you have a link it would be great. What he is really looking for is scientist/evolutionist who see the positive side to banning or outlawing all religions.

And I have no doubt that he (and you) are looking for such people for the purpose of smearing the scientific community as being anti-religious. Sorry, but such people don't really exist. You'll have to find some other means of slandering us.

Thanks for your help. :)

You're welcome.

theyeti

[IRON MAN]

I once knew a scientists that wore his underware on his head. That alone disproves the theory of evolution.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: ... (Cocacola coming out my nose) ... (cough) ... :rolling: ... (choke) ... :rolling: :rolling: ... (splutter) ... :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

[IRON MAN]

.... OMG .... That seriously near killed me when I read that Squirrel. I really was drinking coke at the time too. oh shit, haven't laughed like that in a while ...

As I have mentioned in other threads, I make a hobby of picking up anti-evolution pamphlets and literature whenever the opportunity arises. It's one of those things I just love to hate.

I highly recommend it to anyone, just for the entertainment value.

And these supposed "evolutionists" and scientists that want religion banned get plenty of air-time in those things, which is the kind of place truthexposer may have heard of them.

But there seems to be a less evidence of their existence, than a CroMagnon Man, I don't know why a creationist would even bring them up.

Maybe there are some athiests that actively rail against religion, but there are probably people who actively rail against the belief in pink unicorns too.


BTW, I am relatively new on here myself. Some people referred to "baiting". Is this something that happens often on this forum? Can you explain to me exactly the motivation/MO for this?

[Rob0t X]

BTW, I am relatively new on here myself. Some people referred to "baiting". Is this something that happens often on this forum? Can you explain to me exactly the motivation/MO for this?

i am not new here (newer than you i guess), but i was wondering the exact same thing.

[DinoStoned]

BTW, I am relatively new on here myself. Some people referred to "baiting". Is this something that happens often on this forum? Can you explain to me exactly the motivation/MO for this?

i am not new here (newer than you i guess), but i was wondering the exact same thing.

Well, as far as I understand, by baiting they hope to get some evidence of us evil, satanic evolutionist atheists spouting some rabidly anti-religion words. Then they'll go all around, show everyone what they found, and say "See, these atheists*shudder* hate religion, they want to take away our freedom to practice religion, they are oppressive, they persecute us, etc."

Rarely works here though, most of the posters here are too rational for that. :p

Even if this were to be a baiting attempt, it's a pretty bad one. But yeah, back on topic. I don't think you'll find any trustable quotes from respectable sources about evolutionist/atheistic scientists regarding their desire to ban all religions.

Of course, that doesn't mean we don't fantasize about it once in a while. ;)

[LeeBuhrul]

#1 - There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". People who realize that evolution is real are called normal - there's not a special distinction for them.A guy named Richard Dawkins wrote some aritcles about how religion is akin to a virus. Google "Dawkins religion virus" and you'll come up with some stuff about it. Most non-believers don't want to outlaw religion, though, we just want everyone to get it out of our faces and mind their own damn business.

:Cheeky: You tell'm :thumbs:

Banning any thoughts or beliefs as suggested in the OP is wrong... and bad... no matter what that thought or belief is... religions included

[Sico]

truthexposer exposed. (http://66.148.41.31/cgi-bin/ubb/ubbmisc.cgi?action=getbio&UserName=truthexposer)

Check out this: (http://66.148.41.31/ubb/Forum15/HTML/000006.htm)
In my opinion the antichrist besides being everyone against Jesus Christ but the one talked about in the bible is a combination of a Mason,New Age witchcraft, possibly a successful NY Banker, German in America and is alive today. God fearing people like us are precieved as insane and every time I am challenged I gasp for breathe thinking I haven't seen anything yet. We are hated against the dark side that rules this earth. We are weird and disillusioned to believe in the bible. Hang tough because I can guess that Jesus will beam us up within a time frame of now and the next 20 years. What annoys me is the spinless Christians doing half of what Jesus told us. One go to the Lord for the lost. Second, go to the lost for the Lord. The ones that go to the streets and seek the lost are even being condemened by the cushy wooshy church attenders.

Apologies if this is some other truthexposer.

Edit: sorry the link is broken, you can search for all posts by this user to find the above, but take my word for it, its not worth it!

[animus]

I fully support the First Amendment and the right of people to believe whatever they want. However, if religion were to suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth, I certainly wouldn't mourn its passing.

[_Naturalist_]

Why ban religions? As long as they don't interfer with science or the education of it, or with government and the laws.

Religion has not proven to be very good at all, but I don't think it will work to ban it. It is sad however to see how parents raise their children to believe a certain set of myths.

[Jet Black]

stop the accusations of baiting or the OP's motive for this thread. If you think he is baiting, simply do not rise to it. Please discuss things in a constructive manner, as befits this forum.

Jet Black [E/C] Mod

[EverLastingGodStopper]

I rarely see scientists getting involved in church-state politics; instead, politicians and public speakers fill this role.

You may find anonymous message board users making comments saying that they favor "banning religion," but you won't find many real-life people in positions of power (say, group leaders) who espouse such a position. Religious freedom is our right, guaranteed to us under the First Amendment. Anyone who wants to "ban religion" is holding a position that is contrary to the First Amendment.

Even people who are personally opposed to religion do not seem to favor "banning" religion. If you have been told that there are organized efforts being made to ban religion, you have been lied to. Propagandists will say anything to frighten people who don't otherwise have knowledge of certain topics.

[Howay the Toon]

#1 - There is no such thing as an "evolutionist". People who realize that evolution is real are called normal - there's not a special distinction for them.

A guy named Richard Dawkins wrote some aritcles about how religion is akin to a virus. Google "Dawkins religion virus" and you'll come up with some stuff about it. Most non-believers don't want to outlaw religion, though, we just want everyone to get it out of our faces and mind their own damn business.

And his point was not to suggest that religious people are suffering from some mental illness. It was to point out the features of religious ideas that lead to it them being good at replicating themselves and to offer this as at least part of the explanation for the longevity and pervasiveness of religious ideas. In other words as an illustration of his ideas of memes.

As a good liberal he would be horrified at the thought that he was in favour of "banning" religion.

[Plognark]

I fully support the First Amendment and the right of people to believe whatever they want. However, if religion were to suddenly disappear from the face of the Earth, I certainly wouldn't mourn its passing.

Me too.

[NottyImp]

Anf of course, banning things doesn't work. The USA didn't just ban drugs, it had a "war on drugs". Does the USA no longer have a drug problem?

More to the point, after some 72 years of nominally anti-religious Soviet rule, has religion died out in the states that make up the former Soviet Union?

Education is the key, coupled to critical thinking.

[boundlesslife]

Hi I am a newbie here so I if this is posted in the wrong section please feel free to move it.
Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion. I have been doing some surfing on the web trying to find any such info, I know its out there just haven’t found it yet. My son is on his high school debate team and has been given the topic evolution and politics, he and I were discussing the damage religion has done to the world etc. and he wanted to debate the scientific reasoning for outlawing religion. If anyone knows where I can find such persons, articles, books etc. could you pass them on and if you have a link it would be great. What he is really looking for is scientist/evolutionist who see the positive side to banning or outlawing all religions.
Thanks for your help. :)

Someone else may have mentioned this, but to make sure it doesn't go unnoticed, there's a book out now, selling like hot-cakes on Amazon.Com, that really does what you want. It's:

"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

Just search Amazon.Com for that title, or the author, read the reviews, and you'll find it's a fantastic treatment of the subject that's bothering you. We found out about it in a Unitarian-Universalist book club, and now the Humanist book club we're in has jumped on it and can't want to share ideas on how to get the most out of it. Elsewhere on this discussion board I posted a summary of it's sales records (at that time) on Amazon.Com, and it was outselling the Holy Bible 2.5:1, outselling the most-recommended books on creationism by 10:1 to 100:1, but these figures don't begin to give you the full picture of how powerful this book will be, in turning the world around and taking it in the direction of reason and freedom from dogma.

[JLK]

I once knew a scientists that wore his underware on his head. That alone disproves the theory of evolution.The powerful Athiest Literature Army (http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/challengedbanned/challengedbanned.htm#mfca) (ALA) already boasted of the 2004 suppression of the texts of Captain Underpants.
Da Controversy silenced. Spread the word. Trooth Hasn't a Chance.

[ninewands]

Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion.
Notwithstanding the next quoted sentence from the OP, produce a bibliography, or hell, just a google listing of these articles. :mad:

I have been doing some surfing on the web trying to find any such info, I know its out there just haven’t found it yet.
Could there be a reason for your lack of success? :Cheeky:

My son is on his high school debate team and has been given the topic evolution and politics, he and I were discussing the damage religion has done to the world etc. and he wanted to debate the scientific reasoning for outlawing religion.
I could give you lots of sociological, psychological and economic reasons people should shun religion, but there is NO good reason for banning it. Just because I don't buy it doesn't mean it's not of value to some people. On the other hand, I could give you half-a-hundred good reasons NOT to ban religion. I SERIOUSLY doubt that your son is going to be able to rebut arguments made by the like of Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and James Madison.

[truthexposer]

WOW!
I did not write my post to bait anyone or slam the scientific community or any other erroneous charge etc. that has been mentioned.
I apologize if the wording I used was incorrect, my son just showed me his debate assignment and the parameters he has to work in and I thought I could help him find some quotes and info that was all.
Now I don't advocate the banning of all religions etc. and neither does my son.
Last month he had to debate the pro-life position on abortion, even though he is pro-choice, he won the debate.
Yes, I have read articles and op-ed pieces from different newspapers about people wanting to ban or outlaw religion. If I could have found them I probably of wouldn’t of asked here.
For those of you who have helped, thanks.

[Nice Squirrel]

If your serious: I have never heard of anyone seriously wanting to ban religion. maybe you could enlighten me with a link to one of the op-ed pieces you have found.

[doubtingt]

Scientifically minded atheists who view religion as an overall negative generally do so because any faith based system is by definition anti-thetical to the principles of reason. Since reason is the seat of free thought and thus all human liberty, faith based systems are in a deep and principled way at odds with liberty.

However, since laws against certain ideas and ways of thinking are clearly and directly anti-thetical to free thought, one cannot protect or promote reason by outlawing unreasonable ideas or belief systems.

This is at least one argument underlying why (as many others pointed out) atheists and scientists almost never espouse a desire to outlaw religion.

Many theists have trouble understanding this, because their own faith based belief systems are perfectly compatible with authoritarian subversion of reason and free thought.

As it relates to your son's topic of "evolution and politics", outlawing religion is wrong for the same reasons that political interference with the teaching of evolution is wrong. Current political attempts to inject creationism or ID into the class are attempts to subvert science and reason through the use of political force. All ideas, including ID have a fair and equal chance to be taught as science, by establishing themselves via scientific evidence.
ID proponents are trying to use the law to bypass this fairness of reasoned evaluation and force their idea into the class even though it has not had to pass the tests of scientific validity that evolution and other science ideas have had to, prior to being discussed in grade school science courses.

IDers and creationists are essentially legislating belief by declaring that certain limited religious ideas must be accepted as and taught as valid science simply b/c the law (and not the reasoned evaluation of the scientific community) say so.
Those scientists fighting to keep ID out of classes are simply fighting to prevent the legal force of the state from being used to coerce teachers and students into accepting certain religious ideas as scientific fact, despite their objectively unscientific status.

[show_no_mercy]

Yes, I have read articles and op-ed pieces from different newspapers about people wanting to ban or outlaw religion. If I could have found them I probably of wouldn’t of asked here.
For those of you who have helped, thanks.

There's a difference between "people" and "scientists". Sure there are people who would like to outlaw religion, there are also "people" who think everything in existence was created last Thursday, along with all of our years of memories, light, etc. This doesn't mean that "scientists" believe that crap.

And like other people have said, "evolutionist" is a term more than likely created by creationists to make evolution sound like a religion. Using this term only makes one seem uneducated. Not saying that YOU are uneducated, but "evolutionist" is a silly term.

[boundlesslife]

And like other people have said, "evolutionist" is a term more than likely created by creationists to make evolution sound like a religion. Using this term only makes one seem uneducated. Not saying that YOU are uneducated, but "evolutionist" is a silly term.

Great observation! Why are there no cries against Solarcentracists (who do not believe the sun revolves about the Earth)? Where are the pleas to not listen to the Periodictableists? (Etc.)

[JLK]

I have read articles and op-ed pieces from different newspapers about people wanting to ban or outlaw religion.Written in the first person?
The well-oiled Creationist Propaganda Machine impels its subjects to write stories about others falsely alleged to desire that.
Here is an example we just discussed.
Perhaps you wanted lieexposer.

Last month my son had to debate the pro-life position on abortion, even though he is pro-choice, he won the debate.Since a certain stereotype of American tends to bring up abortion out of the blue... Why does your son not have to take a postion he doesn't hold regarding "evolution & politics"?
BTW, encouraging this role reversal in highschool is what Phyllis Schafly recommends, no?

[Flint]

Outlawing religion stands about as much chance of accomplishing its goal as outlawing breathing, and for the same reason. Religion serves an absolutely essential human purpose, and will do so for as long as humans can abstract trends and patterns from the world around them. What we attempt to ban is institutionalized intolerance. Even that is hard enough.

[RBH]

JLK, that link leads nowhere.

RBH

[truthexposer]

Since a certain stereotype of American tends to bring up abortion out of the blue... Why does your son not have to take a postion he doesn't hold regarding "evolution & politics"?
BTW, encouraging this role reversal in highschool is what Phyllis Schafly recommends, no?

You obviously know very little about high school debate. :banghead: They are given subjects many times not of their choosing and given a certain amount of time to defend the position given them.
They also look at events in history and debate them, such as slavery, WW2 etc.
I came here looking for help and found very little but a bunch of nit picking whiners who want to fuss and bitch about how a word is used.
Sorry I even asked. :down:

[DinoStoned]

You obviously know very little about high school debate. :banghead: They are given subjects many times not of their choosing and given a certain amount of time to defend the position given them.
They also look at events in history and debate them, such as slavery, WW2 etc.
I came here looking for help and found very little but a bunch of nit picking whiners who want to fuss and bitch about how a word is used.
Sorry I even asked. :down:

Well, we're just a lil jumpy and cynical around here because of the drive-bys and trolling.
But really, it's pretty much impossible to find quotes from respectable scientists regarding the outright banning of religion. As the others have said, you find those in religious propaganda tracts, where they try to misrepresent the stand of atheists.
And really, no sane scientist stationed in the U.S would publically talk about banning religion there. The resulting outrage would probably kill his career.

ETA: Regarding your son's debate, what exactly is the phrasing used for the debate question? As long as good ideas are put forth he should be able to work around the lack of quotes. In my opinion the question is loaded though, 'banning religion' gives off vibes of bigotry, and the opposing faction would probably be able to argue on the case of religious freedom. A question that asked about the pros and cons of religion would probably fare much better . . .

[Godless Dave]

If your serious: I have never heard of anyone seriously wanting to ban religion. maybe you could enlighten me with a link to one of the op-ed pieces you have found.

Stalin and his successors in Russia; Maa Zedong in China. Neither ended up banning religion altogether but they managed to put pretty oppressive controls on it. Both were atheists but neither were "evolutionists". In fact Stalin was opposed to Darwinism for stupid ideological reasons.

[Xulfer Cirtsag]

I apologize if it's been mentioned, but the first place the originating poster should look is http://evilatheistconspiracy.com

They've got all your evil atheist plots you could dream of.

[IRON MAN]

I came here looking for help and found very little but a bunch of nit picking whiners who want to fuss and bitch about how a word is used.

I agree that you do get that sometimes. I have been disappointed to find mindless contrarianism, (is that a real word?), in the first reply to a genuine post, (and it tends to taint the rest of the thread). Some people just have a hair-trigger knee-jerk reaction to any apparently theist idea here.

Something like:

Suppose for a moment God does exist...

Well he doesn't - so shut up!

But don't tar us all with the same brush. Otherwise you would be guilty of the exact same error which supposes [all] scientists oppose religion.

...And really, no sane scientist stationed in the U.S would publically talk about banning religion there. The resulting outrage would probably kill his career...

Exactly, because the opposition of free-thought opposes the very ideals of science and logic.

Apparently Socrates could've fled from his kangaroo court, and subsequent death sentence, but to not subject himself to the law, (an attempt and expression of human reason), would've violated his very nature.

In the same way, a violent over-zealous crusading Christian violates the ideal of Christian Love.

If you lay claim to a particular mode of thought, and then immediately violate it, you can't be taken seriously as being counted amoung it's participants.

In this way I think we are at least able to show that suicidal terrorists do not truly represent Islam, and the Spanish Inquisition do not truly represent Christianity. Less extreme deviations are more difficult to prove.

But what we are saying is, that it is safe to assume that no one who truly believes and uses the principles of logic and science would try to ban religion.

That just as silly as Jesus trying to enforce Christianity.

[Stella]

I apologize if it's been mentioned, but the first place the originating poster should look is http://evilatheistconspiracy.com

They've got all your evil atheist plots you could dream of.

:rolling:

[Killer Mike]

Hi I am a newbie here so I if this is posted in the wrong section please feel free to move it.
Over the years I have read numerous articles by evolutionist/atheist who have advocated the outlawing of religion. I have been doing some surfing on the web trying to find any such info, I know its out there just haven’t found it yet. My son is on his high school debate team and has been given the topic evolution and politics, he and I were discussing the damage religion has done to the world etc. and he wanted to debate the scientific reasoning for outlawing religion. If anyone knows where I can find such persons, articles, books etc. could you pass them on and if you have a link it would be great. What he is really looking for is scientist/evolutionist who see the positive side to banning or outlawing all religions.
Thanks for your help. :)

I would not argue religion should be outlawed. The First Amendment makes that impossible and goes against everything America stands for (eg. freedom)
Rather I would argue that religion can be a "bad" thing. It leads to intolerance, bigotry, and a superstitious mindset. Use examples like the Salem Witch hunts, the Christian Crusades, Catholics and Protestants killing each other in Ireland, Islamic terrorism, the KKK, etc.. I mean how many stories in the newspapers do you read about an atheist blowing up a church or killing in the name of their beliefs? The answer is none!!

[pfred]

I came here looking for help and found very little but a bunch of nit picking whiners who want to fuss and bitch about how a word is used.
Sorry I even asked. :down:
You got some help, but we are all just a little tired of the creationist propaganda, like constantly hearing about creationism in schools, other neanderthals mixing church and state, ...
Anyway, if you want help hire a tutor to teach you and your son how to debate. (just being a little cynical)

[RBH]

Vaccination/fraud derailment split to here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=124060).

RBH
E/C Mod