Members banned from this thread: Snikitz and Humorme


Page 4 of 59 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 587
Thanks Tree262Thanks

Thread: Why should Atheists give a shit about Theists?

  1. #31
    Veteran Member Isalexi's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    30,545
    Thanks
    19258

    From
    Maryland
    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 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.
    Is not only atheists who do not buy into Christ. It is also Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and others. It is very telling that you believe that Christianity should be for all. You sure sound frightened of atheists that we "want. to rule"...how does an atheist rule any differently than a Christian or Jew or a Muslim?
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Friday13

  2. #32
    One
    One is offline
    10 Year Survivor One's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    8,724
    Thanks
    6210

    From
    ----> X <----
    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.
    Yet you are a paradigm of tolerance? No, your post says you are as intolerant as those you accuse of intolerance.
    You didn't think about your reply before you started typing, did you?
    Thanks from Humorme and Friday13

  3. #33
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    44,013
    Thanks
    20525

    From
    Vulcan
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    When one looks at original intent, they can easily dispel the myths you rely on.
    No, it cannot. The fact that laws can be made which respect an establishment of religion, and that such laws can be forbidden, means it is possible to make laws that do not respect an establishment of religion. The intent of the authors of the Establishment Clause is clear from the document they produced, not from emotional appeals that lead to the establishment of an official religion - which is exactly the appeal you are making.

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    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.
    The phrase was adopted by the Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), and was reaffirmed in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (which cited Reynolds). It is mandatory authority, irrespective of initial authorship.
    Thanks from Friday13 and OldGaffer

  4. #34
    New Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    883
    Thanks
    132

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by Czernobog View Post
    Not at all. There are many spiritual beliefs systems that do not require divinity.
    As far as I can see only the spiritual belief "atheism" denies divinity.

    There is a difference between spiritualism, and theism. ...
    Everytime we use any word there's a difference because the context is always different. Panta rhei. Nevertheless the word "theism" is a word only atheists are using. But no one is baptized to be a theist for example. A religion "theism" is not existing. This word is an empty phrase without reality for spiritual people. It makes only sense for atheists who define themselves by being not an a-atheist = theist. Only atheists need this word, so they can put everything what they are not into this empty phrase. What they are not is terrible - so theists are terrible. But someone who is attributed from atheists with the label "theist" has nothing to do with this game. He knows nothing about. If a Christian calls someone - Mr. Anis Amri for example - a "godless person", then this has nothing to do with atheism or theism.

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 27th December 2016 at 12:03 AM.

  5. #35
    New Member zaangalewa's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    883
    Thanks
    132

    From
    Germany
    Quote Originally Posted by cpicturetaker12 View Post
    YOU GOT IT!

    Get YOUR fucking religion out of my schools ...
    You visited a school?

    Last edited by zaangalewa; 27th December 2016 at 12:16 AM.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,104
    Thanks
    4413

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    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.
    As George Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language, bad writing is written in abstractions. Good writing is written in concrete language. And what you have there is very abstract. So give me some specific examples of "intolerant, ignorant" atheists.

    Quote Originally Posted by Snikitz View Post
    To be an atheist is to express a level of immorality and a lack of personal integrity that I simply can not accept.
    Morals don't exist. They're nothing more than arbitrary, socially-constructed regulations on human behavior, and they'll change exponentially over time.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism
    Thanks from Friday13

  7. #37
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,104
    Thanks
    4413

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Politics is nothing more than religion in action.
    Politics can be involved in many scenarios other than religion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    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.
    As George Orwell wrote in Politics and the English Language, bad writing is written in abstraction, good writing in concrete language. Your argument is nothing more than an abstract Argument by Assertion.

    Societies are cannibalistic if they're not Christian.
    Societies are cannibalistic if they're not Christian.
    Societies are cannibalistic if they're not Christian.
    ----
    Therefore, Societies are cannibalistic if they're not Christian.

    Name one atheist or non-Christian who condone cannibalism

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    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.
    This is the False Dichotomy fallacy at its finest. You assume that government is endorsing atheism if it doesn't endorse Christianity. That's like saying I'm a Democrat if I don't go to the Republican National Convention.

    False dilemma - RationalWiki

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    Secular humanism advocates that man does not need a god in order to good or just.
    Humans don't need God in order to be good or just. Atheists have a lower divorce rate than theists do. They also aren't the ones pressuring public school districts to teach Creationism in science courses.
    Thanks from Friday13

  8. #38
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Posts
    1,543
    Thanks
    276

    From
    under a rock near NC / GA
    I've noticed the atheists aren't too secure in their philosophy, so they come at your from half a dozen different angles, all at once, refusing to acknowledge the fact that their interpretation of the subject is flawed.

    America was founded by people that wanted the freedom to worship and not be subject to a mandatory form of prayer. They wanted freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. Did that mean we could outlaw Christianity as per the atheists argument? I think not.

    The legal community has stipulated to what I said earlier. In one court decision, the court stated:

    "With equal truth may it be said from the dawn of civilization, the religion of a country is a most important factor in determining its form of government, and that stability of government in no small measure depends upon the reverence and respect which a nation maintains toward its prevalent religion." State v. Mockus 113 Atl. Rep. 39, 42; 120 Maine 84 (1921)

    In order to understand our nation's relation to Christianity, we go back into America's earliest history. In the book History of Plymouth Plantation 1620 - 1647, Vol I, The Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston 1912) on page 55 William Bradford is quoted:

    "Lastly (and which was not least) a great hope, and inward zeall they had of laying some good foundation, (or at least to make some way thereunto) for the propagating, and advancing the gospell of the kingdom of Christ in those remote partsof the world; yea, though they should be but stepping stones, unto others for the performing of such so great a work."

    If we look at the Letters of Patent, the Charters, and other early documents of the colonial period - when the first of our founders arrived, we begin to see what our foundational principles really are. The earliest document I can find is the Letters Patent to Sir Humpfrey Gylberte dated 11 June 1578:

    "And forasmuch, as upon the finding out, discovering and inhabiting of such remote lands, countreys and territories, as aforesayd, it shall be neeessarie for the safetie of all men that shall adventure themselves in those journeys or voiages, to determine to live together In Christian peace and civil quietnesse each with other, whereby every one may with more pleasure and profit, enjoy that whereunto they shall attaine with great Paine and perill: wee for us, our heires and successours are likewise pleased and contented, and by these presents doe give and graunt to the sayd sir Humfrey and his heires and assignee for ever, that he and they, and every or any of them, shall and may, from time to time, for ever hereafter within the sayd mentioned remote lands and countreys, and in the way by the Seas thither, and from thence, have full and meere power and authoritie to correct, punish, pardon, governe and rule by their, and every or any of their good discretions and policies, as well in causes capitall or criminall, as chill, both marine and other, all such our subjects and others, as shall from time to time hereafter adventure themselves in the sayd journeys or voyages habitative or possessive, or that shall at any time hereafter inhabite any such lands, countreys or territories as aforesayd, or that shall abide within two hundred leagues of any sayd place or places, where the sayd sir Humfrey or his heires, or assignee, or any of them, or any of his, or their associate or companies, shall inhabite within sixe yeers next ensuing the date hereof, according to such statutes, lawes and ordinances, as shall be by him the said sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, or every, or any of them, devised or established for the better governement of the said people as aforesayd: so alwayes that the sayd statutes, lawes and ordinances may be as neere as conveniently may, agreeable to the forme of the lawes & pollicy of England: and also, that they be not against the true Christian faith or religion now professed in the Church of England."

    Avalon Project - Letters Patent to Sir Humfrey Gylberte June 11, 1578

    We have hundreds of these kinds of documents from Letters Patent to Charters through the Mayflower Compact and going through the earliest state constitutions and hundreds of other things we can include in this thread to dispel they myths being perpetuated by the atheists. They cannot even admit that their first so - called "proof" was debunked.

    Nobody is trying to force them to believe in any religion. They don't have to join one. Yet, this nation was founded on Christian principles. With each new post I do, you gain context as to exactly what that means.

  9. #39
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,104
    Thanks
    4413

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    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.
    The 1st Amendment plainly states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means the U.S. Congress cannot enact laws dictated to them by sectarian religions.

    Look at the U.S. Supreme Court cases, Kitzmiller vs. Dover, Engel vs. Vitale, and numerous others. There is most certainly separation between religion and state.

    U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

    The founders of this country were anti-Christian Freemasons. Jefferson's letters call the book of Revelations the work of madmen. Freemason publications list Franklin and Washington as their active members. Washington, D.C. is filled with Masonic symbols in the Capitol Building and White House. Watch the documentary, Secret Mysteries of America's Beginning and you will see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    If I begin dismantling your arguments on this thread, my posts are going to get long winded. You really want to go there?
    You can't dismantle arguments with Chewbacca Defenses, and so far that's all you've given.

    Chewbacca Defense - RationalWiki
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Friday13

  10. #40
    Senior Member Michael J's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,104
    Thanks
    4413

    From
    Washington
    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    America was founded by people that wanted the freedom to worship and not be subject to a mandatory form of prayer. They wanted freedom OF religion, NOT freedom FROM religion. Did that mean we could outlaw Christianity as per the atheists argument? I think not.
    Freedom of religion is not possible without freedom from religion. All Americans are free from a state-sponsored religion.

    Name one atheist who wishes to outlaw Christianity. Not one of them has attempted to get that abstract noun removed from the English dictionary, and no atheist has ever prevented Christians' free religious expression in the private sector.

    Quote Originally Posted by Humorme View Post
    In order to understand our nation's relation to Christianity, we go back into America's earliest history. In the book History of Plymouth Plantation 1620 - 1647, Vol I, The Massachusetts Historical Society (Boston 1912) on page 55 William Bradford is quoted:

    "Lastly (and which was not least) a great hope, and inward zeall they had of laying some good foundation, (or at least to make some way thereunto) for the propagating, and advancing the gospell of the kingdom of Christ in those remote partsof the world; yea, though they should be but stepping stones, unto others for the performing of such so great a work."

    If we look at the Letters of Patent, the Charters, and other early documents of the colonial period - when the first of our founders arrived, we begin to see what our foundational principles really are. The earliest document I can find is the Letters Patent to Sir Humpfrey Gylberte dated 11 June 1578:

    "And forasmuch, as upon the finding out, discovering and inhabiting of such remote lands, countreys and territories, as aforesayd, it shall be neeessarie for the safetie of all men that shall adventure themselves in those journeys or voiages, to determine to live together In Christian peace and civil quietnesse each with other, whereby every one may with more pleasure and profit, enjoy that whereunto they shall attaine with great Paine and perill: wee for us, our heires and successours are likewise pleased and contented, and by these presents doe give and graunt to the sayd sir Humfrey and his heires and assignee for ever, that he and they, and every or any of them, shall and may, from time to time, for ever hereafter within the sayd mentioned remote lands and countreys, and in the way by the Seas thither, and from thence, have full and meere power and authoritie to correct, punish, pardon, governe and rule by their, and every or any of their good discretions and policies, as well in causes capitall or criminall, as chill, both marine and other, all such our subjects and others, as shall from time to time hereafter adventure themselves in the sayd journeys or voyages habitative or possessive, or that shall at any time hereafter inhabite any such lands, countreys or territories as aforesayd, or that shall abide within two hundred leagues of any sayd place or places, where the sayd sir Humfrey or his heires, or assignee, or any of them, or any of his, or their associate or companies, shall inhabite within sixe yeers next ensuing the date hereof, according to such statutes, lawes and ordinances, as shall be by him the said sir Humfrey, his heires and assignee, or every, or any of them, devised or established for the better governement of the said people as aforesayd: so alwayes that the sayd statutes, lawes and ordinances may be as neere as conveniently may, agreeable to the forme of the lawes & pollicy of England: and also, that they be not against the true Christian faith or religion now professed in the Church of England."

    Avalon Project - Letters Patent to Sir Humfrey Gylberte June 11, 1578

    We have hundreds of these kinds of documents from Letters Patent to Charters through the Mayflower Compact and going through the earliest state constitutions and hundreds of other things we can include in this thread to dispel they myths being perpetuated by the atheists. They cannot even admit that their first so - called "proof" was debunked.

    Nobody is trying to force them to believe in any religion. They don't have to join one. Yet, this nation was founded on Christian principles. With each new post I do, you gain context as to exactly what that means.
    It wasn't founded in the least on Christian principles. Technically, the first inhabitants of America were the Native Americans, and they didn't find Christianity until the Pilgrims met them, and then the Christian statists threw them in boarding schools and forced them to convert.

    The U.S. Constitution and the Holy Bible are antipodal. The latter says you must worship no God other than Yahweh, and the former says you can worship any God you wish or no God at all.

    The founders of America were anti-Christian Freemasons. George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's letters expressed disdain for the religion. 18th Century Freemason publications list Franklin and Jefferson as their members, and Washington D.C. is filled with Masonic symbols, not Christian ones. Watch the documentary, Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings.

Page 4 of 59 FirstFirst ... 234561454 ... 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