Members banned from this thread: Snikitz and Humorme


Page 3 of 59 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 587
Thanks Tree262Thanks

Thread: Why should Atheists give a shit about Theists?

  1. #21
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    47,031
    Thanks
    28014

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    What exact Christian law is being "forced" on you?

    I view most atheists in the same light that I do racists. I find them intolerant, ignorant bigots. If it were legal, I would never, ever hire an atheist. To be an atheist is to express a level of immoralityand a lack of personal integrity that I simply can not accept.

    That is called an "oppinion." You are welcome to yours.

    But I fully support these weirdos and freaks right to BE who they are irrelevant of anything I may think of their vile character. If these bigots want to have a demonstration, I think they should be able to. If these moral degenerates want to put up billboards - they should be able too.

    Simply seeing or hearing something we disagree with does not mean that anything has been forced onto us.
    Hello. I am a deist, which in practical terms is indistinguishable from an atheist. I believe there is a divinity, but that doesn't change anything. No impact. Blind watchmaker.

    I hardly see myself as immoral or lacking in personal integrity, and I suspect you hold me in higher regard than this yourself.

    There are anti-religion nuts, every bit as obnoxious as any fundie. However, most atheists I know are contemplative, sincere and respectful. Most have developed their beliefs after much study and contemplation, very like a spiritual awakening.

    Every faith I know claims belief is a gift, but too many seek to use religion to regulate and harm their neighbors.

    I will agree to condemn bad behavior, no matter who exhibits it, but I think it's preposterous to suggest those who adhere to a religion are "better" humans. That's patently, obviously not true.
    Thanks from Czernobog, chaos and Friday13

  2. #22
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

    However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position, were they to suddenly find themselves in the minority in their home country, and were suddenly forced, by virtue of government laws, to behave in accordance with a religion to which they did not ascribe.

    The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

    It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.
    More pretentious horsehockey...

    Politics is nothing more than religion in action. A society's measure of right and wrong is predicated on their belief system. In a cannibalistic society it is okay to eat people as there are no moral objections to it. In a Christian society, cannibalism would be illegal as it offends the sensibilities of the majority of people who are Christian.

    The fact that atheists want to eradicate any mention of Christ in a public setting means that the undeclared religion of the United States is secular humanism. Secular humanism advocates that man does not need a god in order to good or just. And so, when we have an absence of any mention of God, atheists are happy because society embraces the tenets of secular humanism.

    The objective of atheism is, by nature, to be the guiding force in determining what is good, evil, right, wrong, etc. This whole issue is not about whether or not atheists should give a shit about theists. They do not and cannot. It's about atheists acknowledging that they want to rule.
    Thanks from kmiller1610

  3. #23
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44,140
    Thanks
    20588

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Politics is nothing more than religion in action.

    ...

    The fact that atheists want to eradicate any mention of Christ in a public setting means that the undeclared religion of the United States is secular humanism.
    The Establishment Clause prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion. That means it is possible to do so, and that therefore your assertion about the inseparability of religion and government is wrong. The United States government has no religion as a matter of constitutional law. That means neither Xianity nor Secular Humanism (nor Judaism nor Islam nor Buddhism, etc., for that matter) is recognized as the national religion. We have no national religion, irrespective of religious demographics. As a matter of constitutional law, your Jesus is not special and the religion he started has no special place in government or law. Nor does any other religion, and that is as it should be.

    Oh, and atheism is no more a religion than "off" is a radio station.

  4. #24
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    58,124
    Thanks
    30510

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    More pretentious horsehockey...

    Politics is nothing more than religion in action. A society's measure of right and wrong is predicated on their belief system. In a cannibalistic society it is okay to eat people as there are no moral objections to it. In a Christian society, cannibalism would be illegal as it offends the sensibilities of the majority of people who are Christian.
    The problem with this view, historically, is that Christian societies have changed drastically in response to economic and environmental challenges. Christians didn't used to lend money at interest--it was a terrible sin. But when the bankers of Florence started doing it, they justified their actions by the results, which were extraordinary. Soon the Pope was their debtor. In 1600, the notion of representative democracy was considered almost unChristian, the relationships of subjects to the sovereign being a reflection of the relationship between Christians and God.

    Religious beliefs are amazingly malleable, based on conditions on the ground. Look at how malleable the Christian political establishment's views are when they see power in the offing.

  5. #25
    You just made the list! Macduff's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    78,516
    Thanks
    19932

    From
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    Pimping exploits women. Laws against prostitution necessitate pimping. There's another, venerable institution by which women have been trading sex for economic support for centuries. It's called "marriage."

    If laws against prostitution were really aimed at protecting women, police would target the customers, not the prostitutes.

    As for most of the rest of this thread, what I see is high levels of intolerance on both sides.
    But that still happens in places where prostitution is legal. Theoretically, legalization is supposed to benefit women. But in reality it just doesn't work out like that. Look at Amsterdam, where prostitution is legal. Pimps aren't cut out of the market. They're incorporated into it.
    A prostitute in Amsterdam, a notoriously expensive city, will pay up to one hundred euro a night for the rent of a window.

    She also has to pay a pimp, and pay taxes if she registers though only 5% of prostitutes have actually registered for tax, perhaps for fear of the social stigma that comes with publicly announcing yourself as a prostitute.

    Just in order to take some home for herself she'll have to have sex with ten to fifteen people per day. The vocal union for the sex workers, De Rode Draad, went bankrupt and closed down in 2009.
    Why Amsterdam's Prostitution Laws are Still Failing to Protect or Empower Women
    Amsterdam is still a major destination for human trafficking. The women still suffer abuse and stigmatization. Far from stopping pimping, legalization just makes it more convenient.

  6. #26
    vulgar? Rasselas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    58,124
    Thanks
    30510

    From
    in my head
    Quote Originally Posted by Macduff View Post
    But that still happens in places where prostitution is legal. Theoretically, legalization is supposed to benefit women. But in reality it just doesn't work out like that. Look at Amsterdam, where prostitution is legal. Pimps aren't cut out of the market. They're incorporated into it.
    Why Amsterdam's Prostitution Laws are Still Failing to Protect or Empower Women
    Amsterdam is still a major destination for human trafficking. The women still suffer abuse and stigmatization. Far from stopping pimping, legalization just makes it more convenient.
    Your story is a little suspect. First, it says nothing about abuse of prostitutes by pimps in Amsterdam. Not. One. Mention. It does complain about the high cost of housing in Amsterdam, which I think is not caused by legal prostitution.

    Second, it mentions legal protections and unions for prostitutes, though it does little to describe them. For the writer, it's like they don't exist.

    Third--As for human trafficking, the article quotes from a generalized report on human trafficking, attributing comments to Amsterdam without actually showing that the problems referred to happened in Amsterdam.

    Fourth--It's clear from her ending that the reporter is operating out of a bias. She calls people who pay for sex "rapists" who should be prosecuted. That's a strange definition of rape.

    The central argument of the piece is that legalizing prostitution increases the demand for it. Why is that, in itself, a bad thing?
    Thanks from NightSwimmer and Czernobog

  7. #27
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    The problem with this view, historically, is that Christian societies have changed drastically in response to economic and environmental challenges. Christians didn't used to lend money at interest--it was a terrible sin. But when the bankers of Florence started doing it, they justified their actions by the results, which were extraordinary. Soon the Pope was their debtor. In 1600, the notion of representative democracy was considered almost unChristian, the relationships of subjects to the sovereign being a reflection of the relationship between Christians and God.

    Religious beliefs are amazingly malleable, based on conditions on the ground. Look at how malleable the Christian political establishment's views are when they see power in the offing.
    I realize you aimed that post at me, but I agree with you. I do not belong to the MSM version of Christianity. The religion never changed; the leaders wanting to appeal to the masses changed the message.

  8. #28
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Jeffrey View Post
    The Establishment Clause prohibits laws respecting an establishment of religion. That means it is possible to do so, and that therefore your assertion about the inseparability of religion and government is wrong. The United States government has no religion as a matter of constitutional law. That means neither Xianity nor Secular Humanism (nor Judaism nor Islam nor Buddhism, etc., for that matter) is recognized as the national religion. We have no national religion, irrespective of religious demographics. As a matter of constitutional law, your Jesus is not special and the religion he started has no special place in government or law. Nor does any other religion, and that is as it should be.

    Oh, and atheism is no more a religion than "off" is a radio station.
    When one looks at original intent, they can easily dispel the myths you rely on. For example, the atheists have tried to sell the American sheeple on absolute B.S. regarding the foundations upon which this nation was built. For example, one atheist site promotes this load of hooey:

    "The pact, known as the Treaty with Tripoli, was approved unanimously by the Senate in 1797, under the administration of John Adams. Article 11 of the treaty states, "[T]he government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…."

    https://www.au.org/resources/publica...ristian-nation

    But, there is a rest of the story:

    "A prominent member of Adams' cabinet, Secretary of War James McHenry, claims that he protested the language of article 11 before its ratification. He wrote to Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott, Jr., September 26, 1800: "The Senate, my good friend, and I said so at the time, ought never to have ratified the treaty alluded to, with the declaration that 'the government of the United States, is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.' What else is it founded on? This act always appeared to me like trampling upon the cross. I do not recollect that Barlow was even reprimanded for this outrage upon the government and religion. ...A second treaty, the Treaty of Peace and Amity signed on July 4, 1805, superseded the 1796 treaty. The 1805 treaty did not contain the phrase "not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

    The reality is, no such separation of church and state language exists in the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution or any other foundational document. The phrase, coined by Thomas Jefferson, was in a personal letter to the Danbury Baptists and it carries NO weight, not even persuasive authority in American law.


    If I begin dismantling your arguments on this thread, my posts are going to get long winded. You really want to go there?
    Last edited by Humorme; 26th December 2016 at 05:36 PM.

  9. #29
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    30,620
    Thanks
    19285

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    While I agree with the sentiment, I don't know any longer. Christians have fought hard for religious Liberty. When minority religions and atheists get any degree of power, their objectives change so as to accuse those of living their lives of "forcing" their lifestyle on people.

    If every mention of a God offends the atheist, then they can better claim that America is an atheist nation. They are no different than the Muslim. We invite them to become part of the American culture and some get so whizzed off that they go on terrorist rampages that end the lives of Americans on a wholesale basis.

    Today, the voice of the atheist is all verbal and propaganda on the Internet along with a takeover of the news and entertainment media. They want to silence any mention of God any where, any time and under any conditions. They cannot face the truth, so they choose to try and silence it.

    When Thomas Jefferson penned the words to the Declaration of Independence, it proclaimed that our unalienable Rights came from a Creator (a God, whomever you deem that to be.) According to Jefferson, the Declaration of Independence is the "fundamental charter of the Rights of man." That is a foundational principle upon which this nation was founded.

    In the past I have proudly stood up for anyone and everyone that needed a voice. My personal commitment has been that I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'd fight to the death for your Right to say it. Atheists make no such commitment. They mistake kindness for weakness and they cannot afford Christians to have the Freedom of Religion. Any mention; any nuance; anything from our culture that is indicative our of our culture and our past threatens those people.

    It's ironic. The commitment to protect their Right to speak openly has only resulted in their trying to silence the very people that have been working to protect them. I don't know that it has been a very productive policy.
    Yes I do fear Christians I posing their values on me... they want to deny me reproductive freedom. They want to deny gay people civil rights. They want to be able to discriminate against certain groups of people. They want to have prayer in school. Atheists Believe in live and let live,certain people believe that Christianity should be the national religion
    Thanks from Friday13

  10. #30
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    30,620
    Thanks
    19285

    From
    Maryland
    Quote Originally Posted by kmiller1610 View Post
    Secular Humanism has been at the center of much public policy for 80 years. It has been at the center of forced deficit spending for much of that time. The assumptions behind it are as religious as any deistic religion. It overlaps significantly with the teachings of Christ. The big difference is that voluntary acts of charity are the heart of the teachings of Christ. Big government secularists believe in the righteousness of a proper system, not the choice to be a righteous person.



    Matthew 25 Good News Translation.
    Wow...I bet you think anyone who is not a Christian is beneath you
    Thanks from Friday13

Page 3 of 59 FirstFirst 123451353 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14th August 2014, 07:45 PM
  2. Should Theists Be Allowed To Shop/Vote?
    By Xerographica in forum Economics
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 29th August 2013, 08:45 PM
  3. Why Should I Give A Shit If Another Country Wants To Be Communist Or Socialist?
    By Distressed American in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 3rd June 2007, 02:08 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed