Why do the God-haters persist?

[Hollie]

There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.

Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.

Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.

Something like what? What is preventing you or blocking your ability to: "say anything I want to say in the pulpit, endorse candidates for office, support or condemn political issues and causes"

 

[Boss]

Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.

as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.

.

The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof. If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment.

You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!

 

[orogenicman]

Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.

as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.

.

The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof. If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment.

You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!

Since there are 650,000 churches, temples, synagogues, and Mosques in this country, it is quite obvious that the government is not preventing the free exercise of religion. However, the government is not involved in either of them, and by Constitutional law, Congress cannot make any law respecting the establishment of any religion. THAT IS THE WALL OF SEPARATION.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

- Thomas Jefferson

 

[HUGGY]

Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.

Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.

 

[thebrucebeat]

There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.

Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.

Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.

No there isn't.
You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
You don't want to give up the money.
There is nothing else to it.

 

[I.P.Freely]

There's nothing preventing you from doing that now.

Lose the creepy martyr complex. It's, well, creepy.

Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.

chlamydia, your on the run?

 

[I.P.Freely]

The difference is I can understand how electricity works.

Exactly, and that has been my whole point. We understand how electricity works, that's the ONLY difference here. Now.... DID electricity still work the way it does before we discovered how it worked? Of course a rational mind will conclude that it certainly did, we just didn't understand it. The fact that we can't comprehend or understand something, doesn't mean it isn't real or doesn't exist. It just means we don't understand it.

We don't understand spiritual nature. Perhaps one day we will? Theoretical Physics is now exploring the possibility of multiple universes and dimensions where our physical sciences are essentially worthless because they simply may not apply. That means the thing we call "logic" may also not apply in another universe or dimension. It's a completely mind-blowing thought, but very much on the white boards of science as we speak.

Going back to electricity, or the physics property known as "electromagnetism" in specific... Can you explain to me WHY it exists in our universe? You see, you can explain HOW things work all day long, and that is great and wonderful, it leads to knowledge and wisdom of the universe around us, but you can't really ever explain WHY. What I am always left with in any debate with someone who doesn't believe in God or Spiritual Nature, is "just because!" That seems to suffice as the cure-all answer to everything... "It just so happens that _________." To me, that is the complete and utter abandonment of the Scientific Method and an adoption of faith in disbelief.

You're missing the point. I can understand electricity because it is demonstrable. I can observe it, measure it, quantify it, build a hypothesis around it, construct a falsifiable test to see if my hypothesis is correct, and then tell other people my results. I can do none of that with God. You can't use the scientific method to back up your belief in the supernatural. It isn't the same thing.

As far as science answering the question "why" the universe is laid out like it is, you're better off asking a philosopher. Science isn't interested in why, only how. We're interested in understanding the mechanism that ended up with gravity, EM, Strong and Weak nuclear, quantum physics, particles, black holes, space-time, and a gajillion other topics, but the universe is laid out how it's laid out.

to quote Tesla "it might well have been said god has properties, he has not, only attributes and those are of man's making.

Time zones are a bugger but so I could not join in,it transpires that I was not needed for verily you tore the Boss a second one.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Most scientists who know that 99.999% chance their is no god also say the most rational position on god is to be an agnostic atheist. You don't seem to be all that sharp. I see people saying things to you like "agnostic" and you seem to be grasping for AHAH or GOTCHA moments but all you are showing us is that you do not understand or listen to what people say to you. The definition of close minded. Even an atheist can not say 100% sure there is no god just like we can't prove there are no leprechauns, devils angels or ghosts exists.

So all the organized religions you understand to be bullshit yet you refuse to let go of the concept of god for some strange reason. Because now all you have is a feeling, and the fact that primative man always believed in a higher power. Maybe they saw aliens and thought they were gods? Why not rule that possibility out?

I'm sharp enough to know the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic" and don't run around like an idiot claiming they are one in the same.

If you can't say 100% for sure there is no God, why do you all want to keep saying that? This is what doesn't make any sense to me. Here you admit that you're not 100% certain, but the thread is full of people denying any possibility whatsoever.

I've never said that all the organized religions are "bullshit" only that I didn't subscribe to them. I think they are flawed because man is flawed. That doesn't mean they are bullshit, they have proven to be an effective method of man maintaining his spiritual connection. Also, I personally have more than a "feeling". As I've said, I connect with Spiritual God daily, and God connects with me. I realize great personal gain from this connection, so I have all the evidence I need to believe the connection is real.

Now let me ask you, what am I supposed to do with that? Should I simply ignore what I know is the truth so I can fit in with the "cool" crowd here? Should I say that "I'm not sure" when I am certain? Should I refuse to acknowledge what I know is the truth and idiotically demand some sort of "physical" evidence to "prove" the spiritual?

Sorry, but that ain't how I roll.

No.
We know how you roll.
You will say absolutely anything at any given time and can't keep your arguments straight from one post to another. You trip over your shoelaces constantly.
You have said that the spiritual nature can't be known, but maybe it will be able to be proved one day.
Except, YOU know.
What makes man unique is his connection to the spiritual, unless you read another post of yours where you say the animal kingdom may connect, too.
If something exists in the animal kingdom, that proves your point, but if it doesn't, well, that proves your point, too.
There is plenty of evidence for spiritual nature if you just believe in it FIRST, but you are a big proponent of the scientific method.
You are Doctor Boss, or you are a high ranking double major preparing for his HR job.
You don't think Christians are wrong, you just don't believe in salvation or a personal intercessory god.
You think your god has no interest in you, but he will let you know if you are going to hell and all kinds of other personal interactions you claim.
You are not to be taken seriously in any way.
All people have to do is let you run your mouth and all the hard work is done.
You will embarrass yourself every single time.
I have battled few people with more of a constant barrage of inconsistencies and logical gaffs as you are freely willing to serve up.
You always top it off with your vulgarity strewn sobs when caught with your pants around your ankles and lose all kind of semblance of adult conversation, always resorting to the lie of being taken out of context, even when your entire posts are quoted.
And that's how you roll.

 

[Boss]

Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.

as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.

.

The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof. If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment.

You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!

Since there are 650,000 churches, temples, synagogues, and Mosques in this country, it is quite obvious that the government is not preventing the free exercise of religion. However, the government is not involved in either of them, and by Constitutional law, Congress cannot make any law respecting the establishment of any religion. THAT IS THE WALL OF SEPARATION.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

- Thomas Jefferson

Yes, and that letter ended in a reciprocal prayer to the good Baptists of Danbury in his official capacity as President of the United States. Exemplifying there is no wall prohibiting government from respecting religion. His assurances were that US Federal government had no intentions of interfering with their religion OR favoring the State established religion of the time... oh yes, they had an official STATE religion back then, and it wasn't Baptist.

 

[thanatos144]

Sorry but we don't live under authoritarian atheist rule... yet.

as though authoritarian religiosity isn't why the 1st amendment was written to separate church from State .... as an abatement from the brutality religion has inflicted throughout humanities existence.

.

The 1st Amendment wasn't written to separate church from state. It says nothing of the kind. Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the exercise thereof. If Congress can't prohibit the exercise, it can't disallow it in any way.... it especially can't erect a false wall to prohibit it. Congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion, anything short of that is perfectly acceptable under the 1st Amendment.

You are relying on a 1947 interpretation of the Constitution by Hugo Black, which was WRONG!

Since there are 650,000 churches, temples, synagogues, and Mosques in this country, it is quite obvious that the government is not preventing the free exercise of religion. However, the government is not involved in either of them, and by Constitutional law, Congress cannot make any law respecting the establishment of any religion. THAT IS THE WALL OF SEPARATION.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

- Thomas Jefferson

That is NOT what the constitution says.

 

[thanatos144]

Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.

Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.

Who the **** are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?

 

[Clement]

Yeah, there is something preventing me from doing it. Get a clue.

No there isn't.
You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
You don't want to give up the money.
There is nothing else to it.

Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."

Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.

Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.

Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)

 

[I.P.Freely]

Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.

Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.

Who the **** are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?

Who the **** are you nachos to say he cant?

 

[thanatos144]

Someday...certainly not in my lifetime the states will individually pass laws making it illegal to offer religious advice in stead of medical advice.

Slowly but surely the grip of the influence and fraud of religion will be understood by intelligent people and pushed back inside the walls of the churches where it belongs.

Who the **** are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?

Who the **** are you nachos to say he cant?

A free man.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Who the **** are you to tell others what they can and cant believe you fascist ?

Who the **** are you nachos to say he cant?

A free man.

nah lickspittle, you are just a map of religious woe.

 

[Montrovant]

No there isn't.
You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
You don't want to give up the money.
There is nothing else to it.

Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."

Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.

Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.

Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)

Wait, the government is oppressive if a church is not tax exempt?

 

[thebrucebeat]

No there isn't.
You don't have to claim tax exempt status to be a church.
It's a choice that has consequences. It restricts what you can do politically.
The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message.
You don't want to give up the money.
There is nothing else to it.

Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."

Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.

Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.

Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)

Why do you have to wait for the government to rescind you tax exempt status?
You look forward to that but won't voluntarily refuse it.
That is hypocritical.
If it will ruin you financially why look forward to it by government fiat?
If it won't why not do it yourself and gain your homilitic freedom that you pretend to covet?
It's pretty simple.
You don't have the courage of your convictions.

 

[Clement]

Here's another lie from Brucie: "The whining by the churches is simply their choosing mammon over message."

Everytime he sets pen to paper he offers some kind of logical fallacy, like the false dilemma above. We choose both, it's not one or the other. On one hand you need the money to keep the light and heat on, and you can still preach the Gospel. But if an oppressive government decides to revoke our tax exempt status I am all over that.

Anyway, watch for Brucie's twisted logic. He will offer you a false dilemma like the one above, and if you offer a third choice he wil stomp his feet and whine that you didn't answer his question, or that his false dilemma really isn't a false dilemma. Then he will declare himself the winner.

Ain't that right, Brucie? (This is where he attacks me personally, like he did Boss.)

Why do you have to wait for the government to rescind you tax exempt status?
You look forward to that but won't voluntarily refuse it.
That is hypocritical.
If it will ruin you financially why look forward to it by government fiat?
If it won't why not do it yourself and gain your homilitic freedom that you pretend to covet?
It's pretty simple.
You don't have the courage of your convictions.

I forgot, Brucie's other gambit is to make it about me, throwing in a few lies and half truths in the bargain.

If you had been a minister you'd know I don't live on an island. There is a huge organization behind me, and I am not in charge.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Why do you have to wait for the government to rescind you tax exempt status?
You look forward to that but won't voluntarily refuse it.
That is hypocritical.
If it will ruin you financially why look forward to it by government fiat?
If it won't why not do it yourself and gain your homilitic freedom that you pretend to covet?
It's pretty simple.
You don't have the courage of your convictions.

I forgot, Brucie's other gambit is to make it about me, throwing in a few lies and half truths in the bargain.

If you had been a minister you'd know I don't live on an island. There is a huge organization behind me, and I am not in charge.

I know nothing about your denomination.
What I do know by your post is that the hypocrisy is systemic and not personal. The bowing to mammon happens on a denominational level.
Your complicity is your membership in it.
The organization is part of why I left.
I wasn't willing to turn my faith into a business model.

 

[Newby]

Who the **** are you nachos to say he cant?

A free man.

nah lickspittle, you are just a map of religious woe.

You just had your ass handed to you and whine like a little baby...