Fox News Viewers Threaten Atheists Over 9/11 Cross Lawsuit

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by fooks
"you people"

Whatever.

It is very important for Atheists to take a legal stand on anything that might infringe in Separation of Church and State.

ya, for whom exactly?

you idiots?


use my friggin money to bring a bs lawsuit against something you really don't believe in?

i would bankrupt you in a friggin heartbeat.


just wait a sec.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

No that is misguided thought. Separation of church and state is there to keep the church from running the government THAT'S IT. It doesn't mean the government has a restraining order against the church.

Be liberal all you want, just don't be unreasonable.

I am fully aware of what Separation of Church and State is. I've been debating it for about 20 years.

Atheists are right to call attention to and file suit in any questionable violation - related to Separation of Church and State.

If government funding is being used to put up a cross that clearly represents Christianity - - - the Atheists are correct in making a case.

This is fact based. It has nothing to do with political thinking - - Atheists are both Conservative and Liberal. I personally am Social Liberal - Fiscal Conservative.

reply to post by Annee


i've been waiting for evidence that it is government funded.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

No you aren't getting it. What you are describing is an agnostic misidentifying themselves.

Sorry - - but that is just stupid.

In reality - - everyone is Agnostic. Both believers and non-believers.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

No you aren't getting it. What you are describing is an agnostic misidentifying themselves.

Sorry - - but that is just stupid.

In reality - - everyone is Agnostic. Both believers and non-believers.

ok, just run to the light annee.

you are dead and you don't know it.


open your eyes and see all that your shown.

my prayers go out to you.

reply to post by Annee


No.. actually what you just stated is the stupid statement.
In reality not everyone is agnostic. You aren't grasping the idea.

Also.. i'd like that evidence that the cross is government funded still please.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Also.. i'd like that evidence that the cross is government funded still please.

not a chance in hell dude,

it's all bs from these idiots. maybe we strike their eyes out. wtf?

costing people money they really don't need to pay for.

i have NEVER seen a lawsuit these morons paid for themselves.

gd jackals i tell ya.

the aclu is going to be history. they will die out eventually.

reply to post by fooks


Yeah it's a shame too an organization like that that showed some discretion and had some tact could really be a useful tool to the people.

Originally posted by fooks

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

No you aren't getting it. What you are describing is an agnostic misidentifying themselves.

Sorry - - but that is just stupid.

In reality - - everyone is Agnostic. Both believers and non-believers.

ok, just run to the light annee.

Can you prove there is a god? No - you can't. Can you prove there isn't a god? No - you can't.

You are Agnostic. No one knows one way or the other if there is a god. Everyone is Agnostic - - whether they accept it or not.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Annee

 

No you aren't getting it. What you are describing is an agnostic misidentifying themselves.

Sorry - - but that is just stupid.

In reality - - everyone is Agnostic. Both believers and non-believers.

I'm gnostic. I know there is a God. Ammend that to "many people are agnostic".

Originally posted by 547000
I know there is a God.

No you don't.

You are claiming experiences you've had prove there is a god.

We've been through this in other threads.

Experiences are experiences - - they are not proof of a god.

reply to post by Annee


I, as in ME, as in I, know.

However YOU don't.

Knowing something and being to prove something are not the same thing.

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Annee

 

I, as in ME, as in I, know.

However YOU don't.

Knowing something and being to prove something are not the same thing.

edit on 20-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

I don't think your first phrase is grammatically correct. You talk about knowing something and being able to prove something are different things...I agree but how are you any better if you aren't offering any proof yourself?

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Annee

 

I, as in ME, as in I, know.

However YOU don't.

Knowing something and being to prove something are not the same thing.

You can call it Knowing all you want - - but until you can prove god - - it is a belief.

I have my own "Knowings" - - what I know is they are my own "Knowings". As much as I believe them 100% - - I can not prove them as fact. Not to myself. Not to anyone else.

Therefore they remain a belief. That makes me and every one else Agnostic. Which means "I don't know" - - because I can not prove it as fact.

reply to post by Jazzyguy


While I think its not a good idea to sue for doing this I also understand the athiests.
When they see that cross they see a symbol of oppression, suffering and ignorance marking the place where so many of their loved ones died. I guess for them it feels like a mockery of them, like spraypainting the tomb of one in your family.

I by myself would like to have a neutral symbol that is not religious to mark the place in a way that is pleasing for all.

Originally posted by Vorlon128
reply to post by Jazzyguy

 

While I think its not a good idea to sue for doing this I also understand the athiests.
When they see that cross they see a symbol of oppression, suffering and ignorance marking the place where so many of their loved ones died. I guess for them it feels like a mockery of them, like spraypainting the tomb of one in your family.

I don't think that way. Not about this. What you are presenting is a completely unrelated discussion.

This is strictly Separation of Church and State.

Having one specific faith represented when people of many faiths died in the attack is just plain wrong. The country was attacked - - not Christians.

reply to post by Annee


That doesn't mean everyone is agnostic.. that just means they should be.

If you actually accept that you don't know then you are agnostic.
If you believe there is you are theist, if you believe there isn't you are atheist. It has nothing to do with what you can prove and everything to do with what you believe. You are fighting a losing battle here.

Also still waiting on that proof that this has anything to do with separation of church and state. A symbol regardless of who paid for it (thought you still haven't shown evidence the state paid for it) does not mean the religion influences the government so it's really irrelevant.

Originally posted by drew1749

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Annee

 

I, as in ME, as in I, know.

However YOU don't.

Knowing something and being to prove something are not the same thing.

edit on 20-8-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

I don't think your first phrase is grammatically correct. You talk about knowing something and being able to prove something are different things...I agree but how are you any better if you aren't offering any proof yourself?

Knowing involves either:

1) Experiencing it yourself.

2) Learning by argument.

Therefore if you know by experience, you know despite not being able to prove it to others. If you met a stranger, and later you recount the story to others, then you know you met a stranger despite not being able to prove to others, because you may have no objective evidence of it. But you still know you did, even if they don't know, because you experienced it for yourself.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Annee

 

I, as in ME, as in I, know.

However YOU don't.

Knowing something and being to prove something are not the same thing.

You can call it Knowing all you want - - but until you can prove god - - it is a belief.

I have my own "Knowings" - - what I know is they are my own "Knowings". As much as I believe them 100% - - I can not prove them as fact. Not to myself. Not to anyone else.

Therefore they remain a belief. That makes me and every one else Agnostic. Which means "I don't know" - - because I can not prove it as fact.

Being unable to convince others doesn't mean you know nothing. It just means you lack the means to convince others.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dbf18dd67c23.gif[/atsimg]