Toto

Clearly a religious organization founded to promote religion can discriminate on the basis of religion - that is currently the law. And that is why religious organizations should not receive public funds. (It's another thing if the organization was founded by people who happened to be religious for a secular purpose, and the organization operates as a secular organization.)

I don't know why you think this is even worth mentioning.

But tell me if you think that the assertion that "theism is based on a lie" involves bigotry, or just a point of view.

seebs

I would say that the claim that theism *is* a lie is bigotry. A lie is not merely a false statement; it is an *INTENTIONAL* falsehood. To assert that theism necessarily implies *intentional* falsehood is indeed bigotry.

pz

No. To say that theists are liars is bigotry. I think it is pretty obvious that one can't imply intent to a philosophical system.

Personally, I think most theists are sincere and honest in their beliefs. They're just wrong -- they've been deluded by a false belief system.

AquaVita

I have given you a qualification. Many have said that there are theists that would be great moderators and would do a fine job. Yet they are not "qualified". Why? Because they are theists.

From dictionary.com:


Every organization does not make such decisions routinely. There was such a public outry when the boyscouts of America declined to let atheists lead any given troop, regardless of how well qualified they may otherwise be. I have yet to hear a single answer as to how this is any different. Sure, the SecWeb and the Boyscouts have the right to run the organization however they so choose, but that does not automatically make all decisions "right".

That's open to debate. But it's surely possible to promote(from our mission statement)

Theists are also capable of defending such concpets as separation of church and state, evolution, scientific pursuits etc.

HelenM

Indeed. In fact, it's in the best interests of theists to defend the separation of church and state. And there are theist scientists. And theists vary on their beliefs about evolution but certainly some are capable of assessing the evidence for (or against) it.

Helen

Toto

The theists might or might not do a fine job of moderating, but you have not explained how a theist can agree with the mission of promoting non-belief.

You have heard many answers but you refuse to accept them.

The question with the Boy Scouts was what their mission actually was, and whether they were a public organization subject to non-discrimination laws. They decided to define themselves as a religious and private organization.

II is a private, educational organization with a clearly defined mission, a major part of which is to promote non-belief.

You have never responded to my analogy with the Sierra Club - does it have a responsibility to hire people who want to pave over the national parks? Everyone would object to the Sierra Club imposing a religious test, because that is not the Sierra Club's mission, but clearly the Sierra Club has a right to hire staff and volunteers based on their committment to the environment.

All that is true, but misses a major part of our mission, which is to promote non-belief. This is what distinguishes us from the Unitarian Church. The Unitarian Church has its place, but has slid into promoting a sort of flakey New Age-ish theism.

Saying "theism is based on a lie" is perhaps a little harsh, and is easily misinterpreted by those with a stake in theism to mean that all theists are liars, but how can a non-believer think that there is any truth in theism?

This does not mean that theists are bad people or that we should not promote tolerance as a social value, or cooperate with theists on common interests. It just means that II has a point of view that is important.

At some prior point, seebs suggested that the mission of II be modified, so that instead of supporting non-belief, II should support non-believers. This is exactly the sort of mission creep (or mission degradation) that we need to avoid.

brighid

Why?

Brighid

Toto

Why? Because truth matters. The secular web stands for something. This organization promotes the view that the natural world is all there is, and there are no supernatural influences, no gods that need to be appeased or fairies that come and clean up our messes for us. Isn't that an important goal?

ex-xian

As I understand it, the mission of II and IIDB is not non-belief, but is metaphysical naturalism. Couldn't a deist of a panentheist uphold this position?

seebs

Deism is directly contradicted by metaphysical naturalism. Deism is a belief in a God-who-doesn't-intervene. Metaphysical naturalism denies that one, too.