Atheist obsession with god

lik I said, there aren't enough of you and I do everything I can to encourage them!!

 

It seems to me that an American who doesn't believe in God must also not believe in our rights, our liberty, and our equality. Our Declaration of Independence states that our (all) having sprung from one God, is the essence of our equality and our rights...that it is other-worldly so to speak. Our entire nation sprang from/and is built upon this simple concept. Now I can understand someone questioning or wondering about the nature of this God. But to matter of factly state there is no God and to call it a myth is to undermine ones own allegiance to US liberty and country. It is rather boastfull and self important. But ironically, such seems to be the default nature of Gods creations at some point in their path.

 

so atheists cant be loyal americans?? wow

 

Because the believers who believe religious things from books thousands of years old set government policy, pass laws and generally stick their bunk into the rest of the world. And religious people get it easier than an atheist doing the same things.

One example if your a CO during war time a Quaker is given a fast track out of service even if he is a bad Quaker while an atheist who is a CO must usually jump through hoops the religious person does not have to. Another one is opening a charity a religious charity if attached to a major group has virtually no government scrutiny on how they operate and spend the funds try that with a secular charity and see what happens.

If religious people had zero or low impact on society I wouldn't mind but they don't and to me are not given the same standing as anyone else.

 

NEWSFLASH! Find god in the US Constitution please.

Do you even know what the DOI was?

So a disbelief in some man made concoction makes the atheist anti American?

I spent 7 years active duty to defend this country do not come to me talking about liberty and allegiance. Your false assumptions are BS!

 

Actually it uses the word "Creator", not gawd, and that was a very carefully chosen word intended to be neutral. Jefferson and Franklin, the one's primarily responsible for the text within the document were both Deists, Jefferson even went so far as to rewrite the bible taking out the divinity of JC part. Creator means whatever you want it to mean, even to a materialist atheist.

 

Loyal Americans who "get" American freedom aren't really athiests. But are more likely agnostics in general.

 

feel free to provide survey data on that

 

Are you aware that a number of atheists consider themselves to ALSO be agnostic?

 

*tecoyah raises his hand*

 

It certainly would be silly to have an imaginary enemy, but then, that's a big ol' red herring on your part. Outspoken atheists like myself attack religious beliefs and their foundations, not your imaginary pal in the sky per se.

- - - Updated - - -

What else defines a true atheist?

 

To be fair, I've seen a lot of posts that, if taken literally, would seem to be attacking a God that the poster doesn't think exists. Of course, what they are really attacking is the belief system that would support such a character, but that might not be obvious to a simplistic literalist, a person for whom English is not their first language, someone who isn't paying attention, or someone whose prejudice leads them to see flaws in others that don't exist. Also, some might see what the poster is really attacking, but prefer trolling to actual discussion.

 

It is not an assault on that which they do not believe exists, but an attack on an ideation in the minds of those who hold it, and typically with scripture to example the point.

"What kind of God would drown everyone and everything He created?" is not an attack on God, but the logic of the believer. That is why it is reacted to so emotionally... not because the believer defends a God who needs no defense, but that the believer must defend their convenient beliefs... much harder.

 

I've noticed that a great number of athiests pretend to be Christians....naturally giving Christianity a bad name.

 

I pretend to be Christian all the time. I own a business... it is really a requirement in my position... in my area.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of Jim Jones, David Koresh, certain TV evangelists and pedophile Priests in a certain Church.

 

Yeah, none of those are TRUE scotsmen.

 

That wasn't considered their creed or their doctrine.

No you did not. You said it was so and didn't provide any scripture so that we could see what you were interpreting.

An unborn human life does begin at conception, you continue to play word games and rationalize.

Anyone that can read the Bible and say that it is just fine and dandy with prostitution is deceiving themselves and others.

A little NT for ya,

I meant It becomes a human life at conception.

A heart is a part of the same individual that it belongs to,just like your skin .. Not a separate "individual"

I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

- Matthew 19:12

 

Sorry, but I prefer Jesus. Technically speaking, books do not say anything.

 

No, of course not.

 

The Bible places little value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. How else would you know they were not virgins. Regardless this command condemns a pregnant woman and her unborn child to death.

This passage speaks for itself: A prophet praying to God for Abortion

Here God commands abortion by as a punishment for unfaithful wives.

.

Obviously if God cared for the unborn child in general he would wait until the child was born prior to carrying out the death sentence.

 

If a Papal Bull is not creed or doctrine, then what is ? A Papal Bull is by definition creed and doctrine, that is the whole point of making one.

It is you that plays word games. I speak in technically correct language.

Human life begins long before conception, and a blood cell is "human life" Do not blame me if you can not distinguish your descriptive adjectives from your nouns.

The Bible does not consider relations with a prostitute to be that big of a deal. Not the most preferable relation, but certainly not against the 10 commands.

Obviously prostitution is not the preferable means of employment for ones daughter unless one wants ones heirs to be bastards. This has little to do with whether or not it is ok for a lad to seek the charms of a prostitute.

The OT has different rules for women than for men in terms of sex. A man could go outside the bonds of marriage for sex, a woman could not.

Pauline rubbish has little to do with the words of Jesus.

.

Both egg and sperm are human life before conception.

The zygote does not become a living human - (note the technically correct language and clear usage of the word "human" as a noun as opposed to the technically incorrect language you have been presenting) - until long after conception.

A human heart cell is not a living human and neither is the single human cell at conception. Stick to religion. I spend a good deal of my time debating abortion from a scientific perspective and it is no contest.

Eunuchs for Christ ? Is this what you are promoting ?

 

Are you perhaps talking about science faction?

 

Go away if you have nothing to contribute.

 

Are you afraid to answer my question?