U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: Atheists Lose...Again.

a reply to: tadaman

Oh you have had plenty of practice being one of them reading your posts.
Oh and bigots? Please biggest bunch of bigots going are the Christians.

a reply to: boymonkey74

and this is why.

a reply to: rickynews

Oh yes iam sure god was really happy you dropped a nuke....bloody foolish and darn right stupid thing to say.

a reply to: tadaman

Because most christians cherry pick what they want to follow in the bible and many use it to disguise their own bigotry.
Gay folk for example.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Anyhow iam out of this baiting thread.
Some people need to read a dictionary and understand wbhat an athiest is.

a reply to: boymonkey74

no because atheists cherry pick what they want Christians to be without taking into account that when they try to use someones faith to twist an ARGUMENT into their favor people get pissed off and tired of the same old tune.

Every demeaning and dehumanising argument calling people stupid or idiotic for believing in God or any faith is tantamount to pissing on something very much at the core of their culture.

If you dont understand that then keep on spreading the inferiority of Christians no matter your justification.

we will learn to respond in kind.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Daedalus

Nice optuse response totally founded in discord and irrelevant semantics.

Here is one definition for you...

www.urbandictionary.com...

obtuse...the word is obtuse...B and P are not even on the same end of the keyboard...

discord and irrelevant semantics? this from the person who spells a word wrong, and then backs it with an entry from urbandictionary...

i've already stated that i don't have a problem with people believing whatever weird thing they wanna believe...what i have a problem with is people peddling their dogma as absolute truth....so you're barking up the wrong tree...

my problem is the insistence on the notion that religion is culture, and that somehow that makes it ok for religion to be co-mingled with governmental function.

i've defined "atheism"..it is the rejection of the belief in a god, or gods...nothing more, nothing less...

i don't hate religious people....and the ones i DO hate, i hate not because they're religious, but because they are militantly religious, and feel the need to force their beliefs on others, with threats of damnation to hell for eternity, because they think differently.

if you're a christian, jew, muslim, mormon, catholic, protestant, wiccan, jehova's witness, or whatever else, that's great...keep it to yourself, keep it out of my government, and don't try to force it on me. and don't for even a single moment, try to imply that i am some how wrong, or evil, or less than you, because i don't subscribe to your belief system....live and let live.

a reply to: boymonkey74

yes. I agree with you. Though semantics wont cover up bigoted personalities and sentiments towards a culture whom they dont agree with.

a reply to: Daedalus

Thanks grammar Nazi.

That makes this whole exchange more productive.

So you do know the definition.....good.

Here is another

www.merriam-webster.com...

originally posted by: Tearman
...
On the one hand I identify more with the label atheist because I think there is slim chance religions are true. Others might call me agnostic because new evidence could change my degree of certainty. It is difficult to imagine what form of evidence might be convincing, I will admit.

I didn't want to leave that last comment unexplained. Because an honest examination of our beliefs requires an evaluation of the evidence, I wanted to point out one of the principal problems we face with any evidence as far as it concerns the concept of god.

That problem is this: God, it would seem, must be far outside of our power to isolate and to test. Even if we were to interact with it directly, we could never be sure what was really happening to us. At best we could say that we hope what is happening is what it appears to be. Or conversely, that it isn't what it appears to be in the event that it appears to be something horrible. Some day we may envision a test that can answer this question: Is this thing really god, or is something else happening? Until that day it must remain a matter of faith, or a wager as I like to call it.

Of course this isn't the only problem with the evidence, just one that seems particularly insurmountable to me.

a reply to: tadaman

So you lack an ON TOPIC response, or even one in response to my previous posts.

You have NOT been on topic and you continually ignore and mock serious questions, and NOW you want a serious answer??? To what question???

This thread has been in tadaman land of obscure threats, ridiculous interpretation and bloated bigotry for quite awhile now.

We're done. Buh Bye!

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Daedalus

Thanks grammar Nazi.

That makes this whole exchange more productive.

So you do know the definition.....good.

Here is another

www.merriam-webster.com...

and yet another sidestep...you're ridiculous, i'm done with you.

concession accepted.

a reply to: windword

yet again.

Another response about me. How surprising. All that time between posts and you would think that you had something in response to the plethora of posts I made explaining my point.

You have nothing, yet again.

Ok.

Bye sparky.

a reply to: Daedalus

a cop out is acceptable.

Since you didnt really make a point to contend, and really would have no follow up to defend,

BYE!

I think almost all of this vitriol could have been avoided if people had been clear about why they oppose religious expression in govornment, or if others had tried to understand that reason.

originally posted by: Daedalus

originally posted by: uncommitted
Hmmm, you are I think applying 21st century context to something that happened 1,100 years ago. Whether you believe in God or not is neither here nor there - I think you are missing that. Jerusalem and more to the point the area around it represented power at the time. The patronsing tone is ok though, I appreciate you to just want to bash religion and you thought the crusades were a good example, that's fine. JFK was a staunch Catholic and was persuaded (wrongfully and with obviously shocking repercussions) to launch the war with Vietnam - probably a better example really of those who thought that being God fearing meant right was on your side - in the Crusades, both sides did.

it's not really bashing, so much as highlighting certain logical flaws...

what does JFK being a catholic have to do with anything?

i understand what jerusalem represented, but to a number of faiths, it has ALWAYS been considered "holy land"..

and i only brought up the crusades, as an example of something awful that was done in the name of god/religion.

You don't understand the JFK/Vietnam thing? Really? You don't think it was seen as a Christian (Catholic in the sense of JFK) against the Godless? Ok, I'm not sure based on your thoughts on that why you believe America sadly thought that was a fight to get involved in, but personally I think it's an example of a more modern day crusade.

Apologies, in some ways I'm taking the thread off topic - I just feel thankful looking at other posts on here that I'm not the only one.

a reply to: uncommitted

ok, now i understand what you're getting at, and that's an interesting way of looking at it....however, as i always understood it, the whole vietnam thing was just another instance of the idiotic american war on communism....and you're right, it was a kind of a modern-day crusade... and it was just as wasteful, and just as silly.

i never saw it the way you described, because i don't subscribe to the notion that communists are godless heathen devil people....though, i will concede that there are more than likely people who do.

just like the war on terrorism, and the war on drugs, and the war on [insert item here for future useless "wars"], it's fueled by this idiotic need to have an enemy...the MIC isn't happy unless there's an enemy to fight, so that there can be war spending...

a reply to: Tearman

but isn't it enough just to be opposed to the mixing of religion and government? does there really need to be a more substantial reason, or explanation, outside of the common sense principle that it's just not a good idea?

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Tearman

but isn't it enough just to be opposed to the mixing of religion and government? does there really need to be a more substantial reason, or explanation, outside of the common sense principle that it's just not a good idea?

It's not enough. We should always know why we are taking a stand a certain way.

It also helps prevent others from misrepresenting our cause. If we are clear about it, hell, they might agree with us. who knows? At least they'll know where we're coming from.

If we don't make ourselves clear, we're boogeymen coming at them for no apparent reason.

Here is a short reading from the Acts of the Apostles, which is both documented and in the world historical record.

And yes indeed, although some may not like this reality, the Holy Bible is a Historical document, and the oldest document of history.

Come on now you good atheists, keep an open mind and don't be afraid of a short, historical story. I promise it won't hurt you any.

Anyway, I couldn't help but think of some atheists who once found themselves just as Saul once was, until...

Acts 9: 1 - 20
But Saul, still breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
and asked him for letters to the synagogues at Damascus, so that if he found any belonging to the Way, men or women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem.
Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him.
And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"
And he said, "Who are you, Lord?" And he said, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting;
but rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do."
The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one.
Saul arose from the ground; and when his eyes were opened, he could see nothing; so they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus.
And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.
Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani'as. The Lord said to him in a vision, "Anani'as." And he said, "Here I am, Lord."
And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,
and he has seen a man named Anani'as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight."
But Anani'as answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;
and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name."
But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel;
for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."
So Anani'as departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came, has sent me that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit."
And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized,
and took food and was strengthened. For several days he was with the disciples at Damascus.
And in the synagogues immediately he proclaimed Jesus, saying, "He is the Son of God."