Atheists To Hold Massive Rally On National Mall Next Month

They were communists which is politicised Atheism as stated by Marx and acted out by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, Castro and lets not for get the other side of the coin of Marxist ideology, Hitler, Mussolini, and Spains Franco. They murdered untold millions. estimates are the best we can do.

 

Of course you do. You protestations to the contrary not withstanding. I know better, and so do you.

 

Hitler had varying levels of support from both Catholics and Protestants. He was not an atheist in public image by any stretch.

Now, he probably was an atheist deep down inside, but I'd wager the same is probably true for most politicians.

 

It is what it is. I made nothing up. But your offense at the truth of it exposes your weakness. I am right.

 

Do yourselves a favor. Don't lump us agnostics in with you atheists. Agnostics are open to the possibility that a god may exist; all we demand is proof before belief. Atheists come to the table already denying that a god exists. That is just as absolutist a belief system as the Christians that they protest against.

Hypocrites.

 

And that bolsters your argument, how?

 

Oh it had it's day and time. But as we have grown more educated and our intellect has expanded it's not so much needed now. I mean we can raise pork cleanly now so it is safe to eat. We can eat meat on fridays now because we have supplies of fish all week long. We know how to treat illness and disease now and what causes them. It's still not safe to engage in anal sex but we know that is because it is not very clean and diseases are easily transmitted not simply because a god says not to. We also know how celestial bodies move and can accurately predict them.

But then there are lots of people who might engage in bad behavior were it not they believed a supernatural being threaten them with punishment if they did. I happen to just think it leads to an orderly and civil society which I want and I want my family to be able to live in.

 

Most people of faith I get into such discussions have their canned position easily put aside and then they cannot counter with a intellectual position so they make up silly arguments.

 

There are whole books on the subject. One with your intellectual capacity would surely find such a read rewarding and fulfilling.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/Archeology-New-Testament-Beginning-Church/dp/0691002207"]http://www.amazon.com/Archeology-New-Testament-Beginning-Church/dp/0691002207[/ame]

 

You believe you have the knowledge, a religious position. Science confirms religion, not irradicate it.

 

They are not mutually exclusive. That IS the error.

 

No it doesn't, there is no something in which atheist believe, we simply do not believe in supernatural beings anymore than unicorns. Do you believe in unicorns? If not, is that a religious belief? How about big foot, if I don't believe IN big foot who does that translate into I believe IN something.

 

Its ok. We understand that you cannot comprehend the evidence science provides.

 

No. They were written by eyewitnesses of the events in the gospels. Mark was the earliest and written around 70 AD. 40 years after Christ.

 

A lot of people view alcohol as "immoral." A lower percentage of Christians view it that way than the proportion 90 years ago did, but nearly all of the basis for Prohibition was religion. There was also a rationale surrounding domestic abuse from alcoholic husbands, but overall, most temperance groups were very religious and used their interpretation of faith to justify the banning of alcohol.

Nowadays, we have other social issues that are addressed solely with religion that don't have much of logical, secular argument. Understandably, atheists, followers of religions other than Christianity, and even Christians with differing interpretations will often speak out against religiously-based laws.

Preserving morality isn't the government's job, because morality itself is often very subjective. What one person considers immoral might not be that way for someone else. There are obviously some agreed upon morals, but the majority of the ones in place are universal in nature and don't depend on religion for their justification.

 

So what. They bought into his propaganda. Many, many, many Christians and Catholics were murdered by Hitler, not to mention Jews.

 

There is nothing empirical about faith.

 

Hearsay....Got it.

 

Yes, but again, Hitler didn't represent atheism anymore than Fred Phelps represents Christianity.

 

I recomend a book called "A Case for Christ". I forget the authors name, but he was a lawyer who asked the same question you just did. Give it a try, I got something out of it.

 

Unbelief is still belief. It has intellectual substance.

 

I would expect that we will see a lot of antagonism demonstrated by the rally. Conceptually, the whole atheist dissertation is an argument against aspects of religious dogma. That's it's very nature......You can argue that the particular antagonism is healthy, but you cannot argue that it is not antagonism.

Totally not what I said. I do not oppose the concept of freedom of assembly....even in cases where I disagree with the message. I think this thing should be encouraged. The free exchange of ideas allows a public judgement on those ideas.

 

I said earlier that they are not mutually exclusive.

 

But legislateing immorality is? Duplicity.

 

They are. Since you do not understand science, you would say such a thing.