Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth

[Ariux]

Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth


Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.

What's a sky fairy? A fag on an airplane?

 

[Noomi]

I don't see how teaching people about religion is indoctrinating. Are you suggesting that no one has the freedom to agree or disagree with something they learn about?

Teaching an adult about religion is not indoctrination. But teaching a child, who is unable to form their own opinions, is - at least IMHO.

 

[IGetItAlready]

I don't see how teaching people about religion is indoctrinating. Are you suggesting that no one has the freedom to agree or disagree with something they learn about?

Teaching an adult about religion is not indoctrination. But teaching a child, who is unable to form their own opinions, is - at least IMHO.

But parents have been doing so since the dawn of time.

btw Noomi, liked the last avi MUCH better. 'Twas hot and fun. This one is hella uptight and stuffy imo.

 

[The Irish Ram]

One doesn't exist w/o the other

That's not true.

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

Absolutely not. Which is what separation of church and state accomplishes. You can tell your child that it is your belief that there is no God, but to be tolerant of those who believe there is. The government cannot pick a religion and force you to partake of it. Nor can you or your child deny me the right to my beliefs. Seeing a cross does not prevent you or your child from believing what ever you want.

 

[The Irish Ram]

The Atheist says the cross "It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists."

Sure it does. The God Damned Jews put Jesus on the Cross. The Muslims believe Jesus survived the Cross. Mormons believe Jesus died on the Cross. And, Atheists are just Jews. See, the Cross represents everyone.

Ariux, you do realize that it was you and I that put Christ on that cross, right? If you believe in Christ you have to know that He could have turned those people into toast and hopped right down from that cross anytime He wanted.
If they had not nailed Him to the cross He would have climbed up there and nailed himself to it, because His objective was to pay the price for your sins and for mine. When He said it is finished, He was talking about His plan of redemption, not His life. If you belong to Christ, it is because you were grafted into the Jewish line. They are the root. You are the shoot. Both necessary to produce fruit. I pray He softens your heart.

 

[HUGGY]

Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth


Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.

Yet, clearly dumb enough to not realize that God isn't a sky fairy. He's your father and mine.

My father is none of your damned business. It is clearly against USMB rules to bring family into a debate. Knock it off.

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't see how teaching people about religion is indoctrinating. Are you suggesting that no one has the freedom to agree or disagree with something they learn about?

Teaching an adult about religion is not indoctrination. But teaching a child, who is unable to form their own opinions, is - at least IMHO.

um... children form their own opinions all the time.

Ask a child what he thinks about eating all his vegetables sometime.

 

[Avatar4321]

Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth


Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.

Yet, clearly dumb enough to not realize that God isn't a sky fairy. He's your father and mine.

My father is none of your damned business. It is clearly against USMB rules to bring family into a debate. Knock it off.

So I cant talk about God the Father now? Im pretty sure that's not the intention of the rule your citing.

 

[HUGGY]

Yet, clearly dumb enough to not realize that God isn't a sky fairy. He's your father and mine.

My father is none of your damned business. It is clearly against USMB rules to bring family into a debate. Knock it off.

So I cant talk about God the Father now? Im pretty sure that's not the intention of the rule your citing.

I don't give a rats ass what you say about "your father". Keep talking about "mine" and you will get a war the outcome of you will not like.

 

[Avatar4321]

My father is none of your damned business. It is clearly against USMB rules to bring family into a debate. Knock it off.

So I cant talk about God the Father now? Im pretty sure that's not the intention of the rule your citing.

I don't give a rats ass what you say about "your father". Keep talking about "mine" and you will get a war the outcome of you will not like.

God is your Father in Heaven. It's true whether you like it or not. And it's not against the rules to say it.

 

[HUGGY]

So I cant talk about God the Father now? Im pretty sure that's not the intention of the rule your citing.

I don't give a rats ass what you say about "your father". Keep talking about "mine" and you will get a war the outcome of you will not like.

God is your Father in Heaven. It's true whether you like it or not. And it's not against the rules to say it.

Fine. I'll play this out with you. Let's see what mods and admins have to say about it.

 

[The Irish Ram]

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!" (1 John 3:1a).

 

[HUGGY]

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!" (1 John 3:1a).

Bible quotes mean nothing. Your book is fiction.

 

[Si modo]

One doesn't exist w/o the other

That's not true.

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

Not what I said, so that's nothing but straw.

Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Period. The government has nothing to do with that - as they shouldn't.

If the non-religious and/or non-believers are offended because those who practice their CONSTITUTIONAL right to freedom OF religion, too fucking bad for the non-believers. There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended.

 

[nitroz]

That's not true.

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

Not what I said, so that's nothing but straw.

Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Period. The government has nothing to do with that - as they shouldn't.

If the non-religious and/or non-believers are offended because those who practice their CONSTITUTIONAL right to freedom OF religion, too fucking bad for the non-believers. There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended.

One can't exist without the other.

 

[jillian]

I covered this above. The right to have no faith at all is covered by the constitution.
Protecting fragile eyes from images they deem associated with one faith or another however is not.
Especially in a museum that is not owned or operated by the state which is the basis of the opposition to the suit.

It isn't about "protecting fragile eyes". It's about government not being allowed to indoctrinate our kids or foster an "approved" religion or any religion.

Sorry Jillian. Was simply attempting to stay on topic.
You're right, government does not have a right to impose religion on anyone.

And that's not what's happening in this case.

ok fair enough. so i'll try to do the same. for what it's worth, i don't particularly mind if they display that 'cross'. it doesn't affect me one way or the other. i certainly wouldn't have filed suit over it. but i stand by my view of the 1st amendment. i don't think it applies here, though. if they fabricated a cross to put in the memorial, my view of it would change. but i remember when those buildings came down and that was left standing. it comforted some people. nothing more, nothing less.

 

[jillian]

How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!" (1 John 3:1a).

fine if you believe it.

but you do understand for those who don't, it really has zero meaning and wouldn't convince anyone of anything.

 

[nitroz]

For example, if you wanted to have freedom of religion in what many call "this christian nation", then you will need freedom from religion first.
If you don't have freedom from religion, then you can't have freedom of religion.

It's a fairly simple to understand.

 

[FA_Q2]

Because you said so?

If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?

Not what I said, so that's nothing but straw.

Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Period. The government has nothing to do with that - as they shouldn't.

If the non-religious and/or non-believers are offended because those who practice their CONSTITUTIONAL right to freedom OF religion, too fucking bad for the non-believers. There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended.

One can't exist without the other.

The opposite is true, they cannot coexist at all.

Methinks you are misunderstanding what people mean when they use that statement. You have the freedom OF religion. This is clear. When people say that you do not have freedom FROM religion is that you have no right or freedom to not be exposed to religion. That does not give the government the right to sponsor a religion but it certainly does not give you the right to STOP me from openly practicing my religion in front of you.

Of course, the debate gets more complex when you bring public ground into the mix but the OP is a good example of the asinine attempt to whitewash religion out of any public place. It seems no one has actually posted on the OP though so, do those that keep saying that they must exist together have an opinion on the OP? Personally, I find the fact that they are being sued repulsive. It is nuts that someone thinks they have the standing to remove anything that even resembles a religious symbol from any public place. Of course, it helps that Christianity has such a simple symbol. I wonder what would have happened had some metal managed to fall in the shape of David’s cross LOL.

As far as the thread title; I call bullshit. Christians have Phelps firmly in their camp. They have no standing to claim that atheists are the dumbest anything.

 

[IGetItAlready]

It isn't about "protecting fragile eyes". It's about government not being allowed to indoctrinate our kids or foster an "approved" religion or any religion.

Sorry Jillian. Was simply attempting to stay on topic.
You're right, government does not have a right to impose religion on anyone.

And that's not what's happening in this case.

ok fair enough. so i'll try to do the same. for what it's worth, i don't particularly mind if they display that 'cross'. it doesn't affect me one way or the other. i certainly wouldn't have filed suit over it. but i stand by my view of the 1st amendment. i don't think it applies here, though. if they fabricated a cross to put in the memorial, my view of it would change. but i remember when those buildings came down and that was left standing. it comforted some people. nothing more, nothing less.

Agreed.
And if you read the article, the plaintiffs are claiming that the steel beams are a "shrine".
Just more knee-jerky bullshit from those who believe their "freedom of religion" should allow them to outlaw the faith of others.