Are your religious freedoms in danger?

Yes I did purposely eliminate it because it was irrelevant to the point I was making in my opinion. I believe there should be a separation of church and state, therefore I don't believe initiatives should be based on religion. There's no need to attack me, that's just my opinion.

 

Agh, the slippery slope fallcy.

So you are telling me that the FSM is a symbol of atheism? Recognized by your doctrinal houses and authorities? And not just a rude, infantile, parody of someone else's faith?

Would it be appropriate to put say, pictures of nake people crapping on an atheist on the wall? It would similarly, JUST be parody correct? Or do you think people are unable to tell difference?

 

Yes I did purposely eliminate it because it was irrelevant to the point I was making in my opinion. I believe there should be a separation of church and state, therefore I don't believe initiatives should be based on religion. There's no need to attack me, that's just my opinion.

 

all or none... your crappy pictures would only be allowed if other religions were allowed to do the same... see how that works


.

 

#1 - What does that have to do with an atheist cheeringt the display of Wiccanism, but not Christianity.

#2 - Since when did the FSM becom ethe doctrinal symbol of atheism? Or do the ten commandments, really, when you read them offend you? Are they a deliberate parody of your faith? Or it it just the religion, the fact that it is Christian that gets your gall? Because being atheist means you have to hate evreything of a different faith?

#3 - Are you incapable of discerning the difference between parody and legitimate expression of faith. For instance, in your extreme all or nothing approach, how would you react to say ... a picture of a bunch of naked people crapping on an atheist wearing and FSM medallion? It would just be legitimate expression of my non-doctrinal Christianity? Correct? And its got an atheist in it, so its quite inclusive to the community that sues a lot. Would that be ... acceptable?

#4 - there is a reason that everyone but atheist have a doctrine. It allows everyone else to have ... standards. It's called going on the record, but as we see, what atheism is and its judgement shifts quite radically based on whether behavior is coming from then, or toward them.

So, perhaps you understand why the Bible says to seek wisdom ... as opposed to contrarianism.

 

if one religion can use a torture device as their symbol, then other beliefs can use whatever symbol they want too

i don't care if they want to use a four leaf clover or a horse shoe, all should be allowed or none

all I want is all relgions to be treated as equal by our government, it's the only true way to have religious freedom for ALL Americans

just like there are many many flavors of Christianity, there are many many flavors of Atheists and Agnostics

as to the last line... I do see that some refuse to eat from the tree of knowledge...

.

 

Well fortunately, our system of jurisprudent relies on things like context, intent, and acknowledges complexity, and doesn't conform to such all or nothing silliness.

Take killing, we have everything from self defense, 'rescue' situations where someone helps another being attacked by a criminal, crimes of passion (manslaughter), and several degrees of murder - all allowing us to make an informed, judicious decision - one where justice is the result.

Why religion needs to be an all or nothing? Well, now you know why atheists lose as many as they win in this fight.

Besides, we cannot just have 'nothing' that is an atheist symbol (its not the FSM) and we cannot favor atheism either.

 

Neutral, fact is, if the government remained neutral, there would be nothing for Christians to fight about, as they would be just like any other religion that doesn't try to force their beliefs on others via our government


.

 

yes, unless you have a fanatically religious judge, the results will usually be just (and yes the all or none, is how it's supposed to work, otherwise it's unconstitutional)

I agree " we cannot favor atheism either" - I would not want to see "in no God we trust" on our money either, the government should remain Neutral

.

 

actually Atheists have many symbols just as Christians do

http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist6.htm

you may say their symbol should be "nothing"... but sure they believe yours should be too.... just sayin


.

 

1959 - nice.

Conspiracy, even better.

because in this fascinating modern day and age, what we really need is the biased sample fallacy, wherein one judge, now dead, sets the tener of ALL possible judges, many of which are already Christian - and obviously, whenever an atheist goes before them, well, I am not sure you atheists know this, but we still have a couple of guillotine's we keep in secret just waiting for the day you show up to disagree with a speeding ticket.

Judhes are human, and they, like any human, sometimes make mistakes. So, not sure how a judge making a stupid decision about race, no doubt in the South, where, at the time, atheists were as vehemently racist as their religious neighbors, means that hanging the ten commandments of the wall automatically means that all judges are stupid if they find the display innocuous?

Do you know what it takes to become a judge? Do you realize what a rigorous and trying process that is? You do realize that they are subjected to incredible reviews in most cases before being offered a seat, and/or elections that can recall them when they go too far. We also have this thing called an appeals process.

Did you know that for a time SCOTUS upheld slavery? Yep that secular institution upheld slavery. We had to amend the constitution to be ride of such prejudice. People.

Now, would you care to enlighten me how SOME courts hanging the ten commandments is ... going to lead to the downfall an irredemption of Western jurisprudence? Because when atheists make this case before judges ... they lose - for a very good reason.

Now, if ALL courts were REQUIRED to display the ten commandments, I would actually agree that this is undue favoritism. Becasue, and this is always a shock to atheists who see creeping theocracy around every corner and on the yoke end of a slave collar we all carry in our back pockets, American Christians, most Christians, are commited secularists.

Perhaps, the case that a single religious picture causing armeggedon is just ... silly?

 

Really, which one is your doctrinal symbol?

You have a doctrine?

BTW, IBM has a logo, its not a religious symbol is it?

 

I am not an Atheist... i am also not a believer in a jealous vengeful god either

.

 

We ar enot the ones suing. You are the ones claiming that a picture that has been hanging for decades suddenly, and magically, becomes imbued with powers of discrimination because one day, and random atheist noticed it ... and decided to blog about how enraged he was.

The government is neutral, which is why they tell angry atheists, "Screw off," as often as they say, "There is indeed something to that."

You know what decides it? Facts. Evidence. Context.

Not propoganda.

And that is why, the government, all branches, disagreed with the atheistic interpretation that barring funds based SOLELY on a groups faith alliance was unconstitutional. Yet atheists still stew because ... faith based initiatives are currently and obviously doing immens harm?

Seriously, please consider the phrase - a rebel without a cause. You are fighting pictures hanging on walls. Consider me unimpressed when I know men and women who fight terrorists.

 

So, you are neither an atheist nor a Pagan. Gotcha.

I suggest the New Testament. It'll give you a much better read on what God is really like, especially if you don;t like the vengeful part.

 

I used to be Christian... and you wanna know a secret........ the God in the old testament is the same one that is in the new one

 

Yeah, but we are not the same people.

In case .. well, look outside. Do you see Sheep? Egyptian raiders? Assyrian Baal worshippers? Do you see a mostly illiterate populace? Do yo see the mjority of the people tied to the land? No police force? Rampid slavery and torture? The rule and exploitation of the weak by the strong? An eye for eye, or a .. modern system of justice.

Here's a hint - Jesus came for reason, and unlike the OT, he is the NT.

Tell me, whe rasing a child, is there a point where it become simprudent to spank them any more?

Are you the least bit curious about the differences, causes, and expectations of the lower law vs. the higher law?

BTW - I used to be an atheist. Then I discovered that all I was really doing was being a dick because I was angry at God. The funny thing? Atheists loved me whenI attack Christians. Now? THey think I am a dick.

Funny how that one worked out?

 

what reason was that, to pretend to be killed by mere humans and then wait 3 days to rise from his dead body, for show only of course... cause he could of left his body at any time..... right?

we are no longer living in biblical times, i do agree with you there, one only has to look at the middle east to see what those times were like

you were not really an Atheist if you were really "angry at god", Atheists do not believe in a god to be angry with

.

 

Youar etelling me that, as a former Christian, no one ever took the time to eplain to you the atonement?

And I've been to the Middle East, fought hand in hand with Muslim Soldiers to help them restore their state. I wonder what YOUR state would look like if we started bombing the crap out of it with F-16's? You take a lot for granted, but do you know what was, almost without exception, the most important thing Iraqis had?

Their families.

Serious question? Does this angry lashing out get you anything? Does it make you... happier? More content? Does it feel ... righteous to have just slammed a billion people you have never met because of ... the geography of their birth?

It didn;t do anything for me as an atheist either.

 

I am not angry, just being honest, our beliefs are different that's all

so explain it to me, was Jesus really killed or did he pretend to be killed, was he really stuck in his dead body for three days or did he pretend to be stuck in his dead body for three days?

.

 

I couldn't agree more, and since no one as given any testable, verifiable facts that God exists, then I would have to say that belief in God is a faith.

You don't like my big bold letter? I did them for you. Didn't you see the cool little thing I did with the words getting smaller and smaller?

Oh well, I digress. Truthfully, I could care less if you are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Wiccan, Buddhist, or worship Thor, I do not think it makes you stupid, ignorant, or a lesser person. I really mean that. I know that some atheists on this forum think that Christian baiting is some kind of sport, but it is not one I enjoy. However, I do draw the line when people try to mix religion with politics or science. Religion should stay out of science and science should stay out of religion. It's that simple. As for politics, I believe that our government should stay completely neutral when it comes to religion. This means that the government cannot allow even the smallest favoritism toward a religion. And no, atheism is not a religion.

Say there was a big bag of jellybeans. The jellybeans are flavored cherry, lime, strawberry, mango, orange, pineapple etc. Someone asks you what is your favorite flavor of jellybean and you tell them that you don't like jellybeans. Is that a flavor? Now imagine that someone else likes cherry flavored jellybeans. That's all he talks about and when you tell him that you don't like jellybeans, he get upset and tells you that you are just anti-cherry. You try to explain to him that you are not anti-cherry, you just don't like jellybeans, but he starts saying that you really like cherry jellybeans, you just don't want to admit it. Later in the day it is decided that everyone needs to split into groups according to what flavor jellybean they like. So the cherry lovers get together and the lime lovers, and the strawberry lovers and the mango lovers and the orange lovers and the pineapple lovers, etc. Now you are left out with no group. You try to fit in by pretending to like a particular flavor but you just can't eat the jellybeans. Soon though, fights start breaking out among the groups. Everyone is certain their flavor is the best no one is backing down. The orange group even starts trying to make the other groups eat orange jellybeans. then at one point, the lime lovers start throwing paper airplanes full of jellybeans at the strawberry lovers sandcastles. You try to reason with them saying that it doesn't really matter what flavor anybody likes and maybe they should try a healthier snack like carrots, but that just gets everyone saying the you like carrot flavored jellybeans. So yet again you try your hardest to make them understand that you do not like jellybeans, but unfortunately not one can believe that someone could actually hate jellybeans.

It is not a perfect analogy, but I hope my silly little story sheds some light how an atheist feels when theists insist that atheism is a religion. So where do I stand in the story? I'm the guy that likes all the different flavors of jellybeans, but can't eat them because they upset his stomach.

 

great analogy, have never heard it explained like that, but you are so spot on

 

Ummm ... when you dump on an entire region, treat Jordan, the UAE, as if they are the same as Iran and Israel? That is not 'just being honest', neither as a former Christian is playing deliberately dumb about both the atonement and the resurrection. Either you were never Christian, this ignorant, or you are deliberately twisting these commonly known bis of our theology ... and that is not 'just being honest'.

But you know, what, when I behaved exactly as you do, I denied being angry too. Even though the evidence of such was staring right back at me.

(Note to all atheists, not saying you are ALL angry nihilists, but the ones that are so vehemently anti-Christian? )

 

RIght, but I am not the one claiming that my faith is, er, not a faith.

Here is that primer again on why you have a burden of proof. Only been shown at LEAST a hundred times on this forum.

But do you know what the big difference is between your arguement and mine? Mine is the result of curiosity. Its the result of actual study, of sifting evidence, of collectuing it to make an evidenced bas case.

Yours? Its a google search used to confirm your own pre-existing conclusion.

In case you missed it, actual logicians disagree with your scions assesment as well.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

So, one of us is using evidence, the other analogy. Which is the stronger more logical case?

You will forgive me that my intellect is not swayed simply because someone with a famous name makes an illogical analogy.

 

So we can expect Neutral to support the federal funds that helped create the art that depicted the cross in a glass of urine.
It's just art, right Neut? Who would cause a ruckus about some art?