Compare & Contrast - State vs. Sponsored Religion?

[MIPS]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

I disagree since I personally believe that there is a creator yet I do not find that I require "religion" in order to facilitate my own contemplation and understanding as to the nature of the creator. IMHO Atheism does indeed require the same sort of "faith" that believing in the existence of a creator requires since there is no evidence (currently) to support the belief that a creator doesn't exist.

But I didn't even mention religion in the point I made. You require faith in order to believe that God exists. An Atheist requires the same degree of faith in order to believe that God does not exist, Neither of you can use science or any other means to prove the validity of your faith to the other.

Of course since I am also a believer, I know that you have a much stronger basis for your belief than does the Atheist. You have the personal experience of God in your life. The Atheist has nothing to support his faith other than he does not wish to or cannot believe.

I apologize if I misunderstood your point.

But the truly nonreligious neither believes nor disbelieves. He isn't even agnostic because he doesn't contemplate whether he believes or not. He doesn't think about it.
He doesn't care one way or the other. He has no point to prove, no case to make, no questions, and no prejudices which of all people on Earth makes him the most tolerant in matters of religion and faith.

What do you mean by "nonreligious"? do you perchance mean "non spiritual", as in one who has no interest in spiritual matters? using the term "nonreligious" in the context that you're using it conveys the idea that you are equating having faith in the existence of a creator with being "religious", which I disagree with for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Have you ever visited one of the organized internet websites for Atheists? They have their own doctrine, creed

I am absolutely convinced that Atheism (capital A) is a religion as much as any other faith based concept is a religion.

You're retarded.

The true atheist, i.e. non religious person, isn't the least bit bothered by religion or any of its music, art, symbolism, history, or expressions.

Fail.


The honest and caring man is bothered by any justification people use to excuse bigotry, racism, slavery, genocide, and infanticide, as well as any system intended to ensure the masses remain ignorant and easily controlled.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Last I checked there exists neither a proof nor disproof of god.

Depends on the god. Many gods have been disproved, including Zeus (he wasn't on Mt Olympus and we know where lightening comes from, YHWH (any entity with mutually exclusive properties cannot exist), and innumerable lesser gods who were supposed to be found in holy trees and whatnot.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

Sort of like most people think of ghosts. They don't know if they exist or not and they don't care.

You're a fucking moron. The red text is a logical impossibility. Either you believe something exists or you do not.

 

[ihopehefails]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

Sort of like most people think of ghosts. They don't know if they exist or not and they don't care.

You're a fucking moron. The red text is a logical impossibility. Either you believe something exists or you do not.

Isn't it always interesting when liberals debate the fist amendment it always descends into a debate about the truthfulness of chrisitianity? What does that have to do with the first amendment?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

Sort of like most people think of ghosts. They don't know if they exist or not and they don't care.

You're a fucking moron. The red text is a logical impossibility. Either you believe something exists or you do not.

Isn't it always interesting when liberals debate the fist amendment it always descends into a debate about the truthfulness of chrisitianity? What does that have to do with the first amendment?

Well, that was a non sequitur. The fact remains that Fox is retarded.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

So it requires FAITH to know there isn't a MONSTER in your closet at night not just COMMON SENSE!!!???

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

And believing that a "creator" SPONTANEOUSLY sprang into existence IS logical?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

That is just circular. Who created the creator?

Your question goes to the nature of a creator not it's existence or non-existence, one could easily answer your question by stating (for example) that the "creator" exists outside of the dimension that we know as TIME and thus does not require a "beginning" or an "end".

And that answer would be BULLSHIT deflection.

 

[kyzr]

Well, that was a non sequitur. The fact remains that Fox is retarded.

FXN always debates both sides of issues. The other "news" outlets simply put on leftist rants, Olberman and the rug-muncher come to mind. Chris Matthews sometimes has interesting debates, but more often than not he "debates" like minded leftists.

So you prefer leftist pablum to fair and honest (balanced) debates. Sounds like FXN deserves its high ratings, and the retards watch the unstimulating/whiny left-leaning shows.

Its not a debate, many university studies have also shown that FXN is the most balanced, just ask Geraldo.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

I should have qualified my previous post that even an atheist (little 'a') is a non believer in God which does require a kind of faith. The truly non religious person doesn't believe and doesn't not believe. He just doesn't care one way or the other.

I disagree since I personally believe that there is a creator yet I do not find that I require "religion" in order to facilitate my own contemplation and understanding as to the nature of the creator. IMHO Atheism does indeed require the same sort of "faith" that believing in the existence of a creator requires since there is no evidence (currently) to support the belief that a creator doesn't exist.

No EVIDENCE is required to believe there is NOTHING where NOTHING exists.

 

[manifold]

LOL, care to explain your assertion?

Your outburst of uncontrolled laughter aside, my assertion is self-explanatory.

If I used any words you don't understand, I can recommend a remedial dictionary.

I see, so you cannot or will not elucidate with respect to your earlier assertion, which is it? and why make it in the first place? just desperate for attention or something?

I think I understand your confusion.

FYI: IMO stands for In My Opinion.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, that was a non sequitur. The fact remains that Fox is retarded.

FXN always debates both sides of issues. The other "news" outlets simply put on leftist rants, Olberman and the rug-muncher come to mind. Chris Matthews sometimes has interesting debates, but more often than not he "debates" like minded leftists.

So you prefer leftist pablum to fair and honest (balanced) debates. Sounds like FXN deserves its high ratings, and the retards watch the unstimulating/whiny left-leaning shows.

Its not a debate, many university studies have also shown that FXN is the most balanced, just ask Geraldo.

I don't think he was talking about Fox News. I thnk he was talking about me.

I decided not to respond not specifically due to my own policy not to argue with idiots, but for reasons in that neighborhood.

 

[MIPS]

Your outburst of uncontrolled laughter aside, my assertion is self-explanatory.

If I used any words you don't understand, I can recommend a remedial dictionary.

I see, so you cannot or will not elucidate with respect to your earlier assertion, which is it? and why make it in the first place? just desperate for attention or something?

I think I understand your confusion.

FYI: IMO stands for In My Opinion.

Hope that clears it up for you.

No, allow me to help YOU out elucidate means to provide clarification, as in "can you clarify the basis for your opinion", or is your opinion just baseless?

If you can't provide clarification, just say so.
If you won't provide clarification, just say so.
If you have no basis for your opinion, just say so.

... But for heaven's sake stop dancing.

 

[manifold]

I see, so you cannot or will not elucidate with respect to your earlier assertion, which is it? and why make it in the first place? just desperate for attention or something?

I think I understand your confusion.

FYI: IMO stands for In My Opinion.

Hope that clears it up for you.

No, allow me to help YOU out elucidate means to provide clarification, as in "can you clarify the basis for your opinion", or is your opinion just baseless?

If you can't provide clarification, just say so.
If you won't provide clarification, just say so.
If you have no basis for your opinion, just say so.

... But for heaven's sake stop dancing.

The same basis for which I've come to believe in God.

Clearly you're not a man of faith or you'd understand. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.

 

[MIPS]

I think I understand your confusion.

FYI: IMO stands for In My Opinion.

Hope that clears it up for you.

No, allow me to help YOU out elucidate means to provide clarification, as in "can you clarify the basis for your opinion", or is your opinion just baseless?

If you can't provide clarification, just say so.
If you won't provide clarification, just say so.
If you have no basis for your opinion, just say so.

... But for heaven's sake stop dancing.

The same basis for which I've come to believe in God.

So let me get this straight, you believe that understanding that believing no creator exists requires faith devalues the meaning of "faith" because you have faith that it does? Is that the case? or are you perhaps suggesting that "god" told you it was true? And you actually have the temerity to wonder why people laugh at you?

Clearly you're not a man of faith or you'd understand. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.

Nice straw man, got any others you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

 

[manifold]

No, allow me to help YOU out elucidate means to provide clarification, as in "can you clarify the basis for your opinion", or is your opinion just baseless?

If you can't provide clarification, just say so.
If you won't provide clarification, just say so.
If you have no basis for your opinion, just say so.

... But for heaven's sake stop dancing.

The same basis for which I've come to believe in God.

So let me get this straight, you believe that understanding that believing no creator exists requires faith devalues the meaning of "faith" because you have faith that it does? Is that the case? or are you perhaps suggesting that "god" told you it was true? And you actually have the temerity to wonder why people laugh at you?

Clearly you're not a man of faith or you'd understand. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.

Nice straw man, got any others you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

You've either completely misunderstood me or you're being intentionally obtuse.

If at some point I conclude that you're not just another doucher sock-puppet, perhaps I'll expound upon this further for your edification. Until then, I'm not interesting in wasting my time.

 

[MIPS]

The same basis for which I've come to believe in God.

So let me get this straight, you believe that understanding that believing no creator exists requires faith devalues the meaning of "faith" because you have faith that it does? Is that the case? or are you perhaps suggesting that "god" told you it was true? And you actually have the temerity to wonder why people laugh at you?

Clearly you're not a man of faith or you'd understand. Don't worry, I won't hold it against you.

Nice straw man, got any others you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

You've either completely misunderstood me or you're being intentionally obtuse.

If at some point I conclude that you're not just another doucher sock-puppet, perhaps I'll expound upon this further for your edification. Until then, I'm not interesting in wasting my time.

Feel free to scamper off then...... Adios , I'd say it was a pleasure but since you apparently felt it was beneath you to contribute anything of worth.... I'd be lying.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Well, that was a non sequitur. The fact remains that Fox is retarded.

FXN always debates both sides of issues. The other "news" outlets simply put on leftist rants, Olberman and the rug-muncher come to mind. Chris Matthews sometimes has interesting debates, but more often than not he "debates" like minded leftists.

So you prefer leftist pablum to fair and honest (balanced) debates. Sounds like FXN deserves its high ratings, and the retards watch the unstimulating/whiny left-leaning shows.

Its not a debate, many university studies have also shown that FXN is the most balanced, just ask Geraldo.

Obviously, you're retarded as well.

 

[manifold]

Upon reading through this thread I've concluded that some people here interpret the 1st Amendment freedom of religion to mean that it's ok for the government(s) to sponsor religion as much as the "people" would like, so long as they don't force anyone, Torquemada style, to convert to and practice a "state" religion. To which I have two comments:

1. You're all fucked in the head

2. Thank God the USSC disagrees with you.

 

[manifold]

So let me get this straight, you believe that understanding that believing no creator exists requires faith devalues the meaning of "faith" because you have faith that it does? Is that the case? or are you perhaps suggesting that "god" told you it was true? And you actually have the temerity to wonder why people laugh at you?


Nice straw man, got any others you'd like to share with the rest of the class?

You've either completely misunderstood me or you're being intentionally obtuse.

If at some point I conclude that you're not just another doucher sock-puppet, perhaps I'll expound upon this further for your edification. Until then, I'm not interesting in wasting my time.

Feel free to scamper off then...... Adios , I'd say it was a pleasure but since you apparently felt it was beneath you to contribute anything of worth.... I'd be lying.

Thanks for your participation in my worthless thread.