I attended an IB school for two years before moving out of the state, and I can attest to the huge amount of work involved (even during Freshman year).

It was sold to us as the most difficult, strenuous, and rewarding program available for high school students, and all of my teachers did a phenomenal job.

Of course, it was not sold at all as a "make the world a better place" blank slate or a "world citizen prep" schedule. I'm really disappointed that this was left out of all of the meetings trying to sell students and parents on the program.

We were told it was created by an Ambassador's child who wanted children to have the opportunity to have a high quality education that would be available to them around the world - not a for children to have the opportunity to learn how to be an active "world citizen" - what does that mean anyways?

This is just another part of the public school system I am disappointed in for leaving out important facts in history, biology, English, and now the basis for their curriculum as well...

I agree. The treatment isn't similar, which I suppose comes from the author's predisposition that Christians are inherently stupid and/or willfully ignorant of "reality" and therefore are wrong for spreading lies. Spreading the "truth", however, is allowed and must be permitted because atheists are really here to help, while Christians are not.

Christians (and people of most other major religions) are also quite self-sufficient, productive, and happy members of society. We actually all work together pretty well, and I don't judge atheists for explaining their beliefs and giving arguments in support of them - they are trying to share their worldview. Christians are just doing the same.

I agree - although anger won't win over any minds (it can appear this way, but that is coercion, not conviction).

I agree that changing one's understanding of the universe (and their place in it) does take substantial courage. But you also need to understand the courage needed by Christians to follow wholeheartedly someone else who is larger than them. Releasing control is much more frightening than taking it.

1) For any one person, and in most real-life grey cases, absolutely
2) Again, absolutely
3) Not necessarily - I would agree that this is true in most circumstances, since most people I know decide that the other side is "stupid", "crazy", or "superstitious", but there are many who keep to their beliefs BECAUSE evidence to the contrary has made them look back and verify the truth to their own beliefs.

Of course I am not asserting that most people are prone to behave in ways that are counter productive to their own or the species' survival. I am saying that if you rely on the opinions of others when determining morality, there will be large amounts of variance.

There are a ton of scenarios in which very reasonable people with disagree, but there can only be one "right" choice in many situations. I will assume that most everyone will agree that apostasy (or even simply doubting one's religion) does not deserve death, or that slavery was never right even when it was acceptable. People are fallible and that is why it is so difficult to try and base one's morals on what is around them.

Evidence: See any Islamic Republic following Sharia - see slavery, see Communism, see Socialism, see Apartheid, see the Holocaust - take your pick from any one of countless options. Popular support is not enough to justify morality.

Both sides believe stuff like this - both are being repressed, both have an unfair bias against them.
People said all kinds of bad things about Bush and it was ENCOURAGED.

This guy is an idiot and belongs here on the idiot board along with James Cameron: “I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads. Anybody that is a global-warming denier at this point in time has got their head so deeply up their ass I’m not sure they could hear me.”

Don't worry, the folks here are interested in an intellectual dialogue - but usually it doesn't go over too well to post a whole lot of text, especially several posts in a row. Keep it concise and avoid preaching - this is a blog for people who are determined and convinced atheists - no one is expecting to change your mind and you should not be expecting to do so either.

Good luck and enjoy the discussions!

I'm not sure what is courageous about being an atheist, by itself. Believing what you want is easy, especially if you are the only arbiter of what is real and what is imaginary or superstitious. Everything becomes relative and everyone can decide for his/her self what morality really is (or base it off of the status quo, but that is not very reliable).
I do agree that taking on an unpopular or uncommon viewpoint takes an amount of courage, but you will be disappointed to find out that Christians and atheists alike share in this same type of courage (i.e., standing up to criticism for one's beliefs).

Bob is probably completely overreacting here, but as with any medical case (or any time services are being paid for) professionalism is expected and required of the nurses, doctors, and other staff. If they are doing their job well, then respect for the other's religious beliefs should work both ways.

About using "Jesus Christ" as an aside, profanity, or other part of speech, atheists need to understand a few things. One, this is a person that Christians care deeply about, so of course they find it offensive. Two, if another person (regardless of religion) used your name or that of a spouse, parent, child, etc. in the same manner, you would certainly find it offensive. Most importantly, if Jesus means nothing to you as an atheist, stop giving him credit for having the power to cause you grief and/or trouble, since it is obvious to you that he probably didn't exist (in which case you are using the name of a fictional character - so why not use someone like Pinocchio - oh wait, then that would be wierd, right?)

If the nurse treats her patient's differently (i.e., worse) because they don't agree with her religious beliefs, then she can be qualified as an extremist. If not, then the label is premature and makes Bob and the author look like hypocrites. Neither would appreciate being called atheist extremists, and it wouldn't help their cause, either.

I don't mean this to cause a flame-war, just wanted to put the use of words in perspective.