Why is it always Atheists vs Christians?

[koshergrl]

As to the OP -

Jews, Muslims and Hindus aren't trying to legally enforce their religions on me. I can't say the same about Christians.

Yeah, those Christians and their Sharia...

You leftists sure are smart....

If anyone tried to subject me to Sharia law, I'd be just as upset. But that hasn't happened.

But laws are proposed all over the country based on Christianity.

Who cares what they're based on? The only thing our constitution requires is that a law not establish a particular religion. It doesn't tell us where the thoughts that motivate us to favor a particular law must come from.

I mea, that's what you're saying here. That laws shouldn't be based on Christianity...by which I presume you mean Christian morality. Well that's ridiculous. Of course people are going to propose laws based on their own perception of good and bad. And of course their faith system is going to be the first place they look for definition. And that is right and good. Also legal.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I read what you posted. It was silly tripe.

Stay stuck on ignorant. It has served you so well.

Continue with avoidance and side-stepping. It's easier for you when thinking is avoided.

Grow up.

 

[Hollie]

Stay stuck on ignorant. It has served you so well.

Continue with avoidance and side-stepping. It's easier for you when thinking is avoided.

Grow up.

Support your argument.

 

[koshergrl]

*yawn*

 

[Hollie]

*yawn*

For one of your limited abilities, practice some more with single syllable words. Next, we'll help with assembling simple sentences... for you simple minded types.

I guess that Christian madrassah education didn't work out so well.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Continue with avoidance and side-stepping. It's easier for you when thinking is avoided.

Grow up.

Support your argument.

After you.

 

[FA_Q2]

You didn't read it neither.

It was about a debate that happened when former Anglican Archbishop Rowan Williams took on the best known name in contemporary atheism, Richard Dawkins.

They were debating whether religion has a role in the 21st century.

Dawkins said it didn’t.

Williams said it did.

In the end, Williams was handed a decidedly strong victory with more than two times as many votes from the audience as the infamous atheist, Dawkins. It was a triumphant day for the faithful and a shameful one for the irreligious.

Dawkins defeated in Cambridge Union religion debate

And that is a surprise? Dawkins is a religious idiot. As I explained earlier, he makes the affirmation that god cannot exist, period. THAT makes his ideas a matter of faith. That also does not mean that all atheists are anti-thists like Dawkins. He is a self-proclaimed atheist yet he is not lacking a belief in god – he has a belief that god is impossible.

I have yet to see one of the people here that are demanding that atheists are something they are not actually addresses this. Kosher just declared herself victorious while ramming words down my throat that I never said and looking like an elitist ass while doing so and the rest have simply ignored it. A lack of belief does not make one religious even if there are claimed ‘atheists’ that actually are religious zealots in their hatred of other religions. Dawkins is hardly representative of atheists.

Dawkins is an atheist and calling him a religious idiots confirms that you believe atheism to be a religion.

He has stated that he cannot be sure that God doesn't exist. That's a long ways from saying "he is not lacking a belief in god".

Well, no, not exactly.

I have seen Dawkins on a few occasions and if he has changed then I would retract my earlier statement BUT on the 2 interviews that I have seen he states unequivocally that god is simply impossible and cannot exist. THAT is exactly what I was calling anti-theist. The BELIEF that god is simply impossible and that even if ‘evidence’ were presented he would not change his mind. His words.

There is a big difference between a person such as myself who simply does not believe and someone who chooses to believe that god is impossible – namely that I still allow the possibility as I don’t know. There simply is not enough evidence for me to say god exists though ergo, at this moment, I have to say that he does not.

I could be thinking of the wrong person though but I doubt it.

 

[FA_Q2]

I think that nit-picking over definitions of, or "levels" of disbelief in alleged supernatural agents tends to shift the ultimate burden of proof from religionists who, ultimately, are incapable of offering even the most basic of proofs for their various gods.

It is not the nitpicking of ‘levels’ that is frustrating. It is the DEMAND that I am religious by those that are religious in a futile attempt to declare that my worldview and ‘unbelief’ is somehow the same as their belief. They place themselves in a superior platform by painting atheists with a ‘that’s faith too’ brush so they can declare that their views are superior. It is asinine. Look at koshers posts in this very thread where she acts so damn smug while declaring that all atheists here (even those of us that have stated otherwise) think they are superior to them. Who, I ask, believes they are superior when they demand they know what you believe better than you. It halts any type of rational discussion because they devolve all things into a matter of faith that cannot be challenged.


It continues to get worse because once they label atheism as a ‘faith’ they start putting things into the dogma category that is not dogma. It dominates scientific discussions here when you try and address things like evolution. Again, it makes rational discussion impossible when one side decides that all things are a matter of faith and there is no basis for fact or science.

Just wait: the insults and attacks are coming against that last statement to just to illustrate that point.

Explain how simply stating that your non-"belief" is the exact same thing as my believing, placing me superior to you?
Wouldn't that be equating with you?

No, it’s not because the people many of the people that do this are demanding that I, and others lkike me, are just as faithful but idiots who have taken that faith in an asinine direction. After all, it is stupid to have a faith of nonbelief. Mainly because that is not faith at all.


I did point out directly where this leads to problems btw when trying to have decent conversations and people continually try and make scientific pursuits into some kind of dogma. There is more to this than just demanding that I am faithful like they are – it goes to the point that they start demanding that atheists have some sort of asinine dogma based on that non-belief. That is impossible by the way if there is no faith to begin with.

As a Christian I feel SOME atheists around here place themselves in a superior position because they're not a 'mouth-breathing idiot that believes in an "invisible man in the sky zombie"'.

And you would be correct that those claiming you are a mouth breather because you believe in the sky zombie do think they are superior. This is a 2 way street though – I invite you to go back over koshers posts in this thread and you see the EXACT same bullshit superiority. No all atheists are in this category – I for one do not have any issues with faith or those that are faithful. Superiority is NOT a case of faith, atheism or any set of specific belief systems, it is a case of arrogance and anyone can be infected with it.

But, please continue to feel persecuted.

You had to screw it all up with this bullshit though, dint you. That’s condescending and your putting words into my mouth. Never stated that I was prosecuted, just annoyed at others demanding that I have to be like them – it’s asinine.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yeah, those Christians and their Sharia...

You leftists sure are smart....

If anyone tried to subject me to Sharia law, I'd be just as upset. But that hasn't happened.

But laws are proposed all over the country based on Christianity.

Who cares what they're based on? The only thing our constitution requires is that a law not establish a particular religion. It doesn't tell us where the thoughts that motivate us to favor a particular law must come from.

I mea, that's what you're saying here. That laws shouldn't be based on Christianity...by which I presume you mean Christian morality. Well that's ridiculous. Of course people are going to propose laws based on their own perception of good and bad. And of course their faith system is going to be the first place they look for definition. And that is right and good. Also legal.

Well, no. That is where this country has gone astray. Laws are not supposed to be there to make sure we all are good and not bad. They are not there to ensure that your morality is forced on others. When you start making laws like you are suggesting (and we are doing it now) you go down the road of liberal utopia. That fairytale that always ends badly.

That is where laws like Obamacare come from. It is not what this country represents.

Laws exist, and should only be passed, to ensure that your rights are protected. Not because it is ‘good.’ I can take care of that myself. It is moral do gooders getting into our laws that is mucking the system up, demanding that we do as THEY see right.

I hate to tell you but Christianity is not always going to be in the driver seat and if you support laws based on nothing more than moral objectivity, you are going to be in one hell of a place later down the line.

 

[MaryL]

Well, in Myanmar it was Buddhists VS Muslims, and so far the Muslims aren't doing well. To me, that is a rather odd situation, when a group of self-proclaimed pacifists gets so riled up that they break one of their basic beliefs sets out in mobs and murder their fellow humans AND burn down religious temples. We might get a little hot under the collar on this board and rant, but at least we aren’t setting out to murder each other. By the way, as far as the situation in Myanmar goes, I am not sure what that says about pacifists, Muslims or humanity in general.

 

[koshergrl]

If anyone tried to subject me to Sharia law, I'd be just as upset. But that hasn't happened.

But laws are proposed all over the country based on Christianity.

Who cares what they're based on? The only thing our constitution requires is that a law not establish a particular religion. It doesn't tell us where the thoughts that motivate us to favor a particular law must come from.

I mea, that's what you're saying here. That laws shouldn't be based on Christianity...by which I presume you mean Christian morality. Well that's ridiculous. Of course people are going to propose laws based on their own perception of good and bad. And of course their faith system is going to be the first place they look for definition. And that is right and good. Also legal.

Well, no. That is where this country has gone astray. Laws are not supposed to be there to make sure we all are good and not bad. They are not there to ensure that your morality is forced on others. When you start making laws like you are suggesting (and we are doing it now) you go down the road of liberal utopia. That fairytale that always ends badly.

That is where laws like Obamacare come from. It is not what this country represents.

Laws exist, and should only be passed, to ensure that your rights are protected. Not because it is ‘good.’ I can take care of that myself. It is moral do gooders getting into our laws that is mucking the system up, demanding that we do as THEY see right.

I hate to tell you but Christianity is not always going to be in the driver seat and if you support laws based on nothing more than moral objectivity, you are going to be in one hell of a place later down the line.

Oh so you're going to continue to pretend that some unnamed "Christians" are pushing un-specified "laws" that establish Christianity as the state religion.

Got it.

 

[uscitizen]

I always saw it as Christians vs Atheists.

 

[Hollie]

Who cares what they're based on? The only thing our constitution requires is that a law not establish a particular religion. It doesn't tell us where the thoughts that motivate us to favor a particular law must come from.

I mea, that's what you're saying here. That laws shouldn't be based on Christianity...by which I presume you mean Christian morality. Well that's ridiculous. Of course people are going to propose laws based on their own perception of good and bad. And of course their faith system is going to be the first place they look for definition. And that is right and good. Also legal.

Well, no. That is where this country has gone astray. Laws are not supposed to be there to make sure we all are good and not bad. They are not there to ensure that your morality is forced on others. When you start making laws like you are suggesting (and we are doing it now) you go down the road of liberal utopia. That fairytale that always ends badly.

That is where laws like Obamacare come from. It is not what this country represents.

Laws exist, and should only be passed, to ensure that your rights are protected. Not because it is ‘good.’ I can take care of that myself. It is moral do gooders getting into our laws that is mucking the system up, demanding that we do as THEY see right.

I hate to tell you but Christianity is not always going to be in the driver seat and if you support laws based on nothing more than moral objectivity, you are going to be in one hell of a place later down the line.

Oh so you're going to continue to pretend that some unnamed "Christians" are pushing un-specified "laws" that establish Christianity as the state religion.

Got it.

Not at all. It's just a case that many will point and laugh at Christians who claim they are being "persecuted" when their attempts to force Christian dogma into the public school system under the guise of "intelligent design" are shot down.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, that's exactly what he was doing. Pretending that unnamed Christians are proposing un-specified laws that allegedly will establish Christianity as the state religion.

Still waiting for specifics. Know I'll be waiting a while, since it's a lie.

 

[hortysir]

It is not the nitpicking of ‘levels’ that is frustrating. It is the DEMAND that I am religious by those that are religious in a futile attempt to declare that my worldview and ‘unbelief’ is somehow the same as their belief. They place themselves in a superior platform by painting atheists with a ‘that’s faith too’ brush so they can declare that their views are superior. It is asinine. Look at koshers posts in this very thread where she acts so damn smug while declaring that all atheists here (even those of us that have stated otherwise) think they are superior to them. Who, I ask, believes they are superior when they demand they know what you believe better than you. It halts any type of rational discussion because they devolve all things into a matter of faith that cannot be challenged.


It continues to get worse because once they label atheism as a ‘faith’ they start putting things into the dogma category that is not dogma. It dominates scientific discussions here when you try and address things like evolution. Again, it makes rational discussion impossible when one side decides that all things are a matter of faith and there is no basis for fact or science.

Just wait: the insults and attacks are coming against that last statement to just to illustrate that point.

Explain how simply stating that your non-"belief" is the exact same thing as my believing, placing me superior to you?
Wouldn't that be equating with you?

No, it’s not because the people many of the people that do this are demanding that I, and others lkike me, are just as faithful but idiots who have taken that faith in an asinine direction. After all, it is stupid to have a faith of nonbelief. Mainly because that is not faith at all.


I did point out directly where this leads to problems btw when trying to have decent conversations and people continually try and make scientific pursuits into some kind of dogma. There is more to this than just demanding that I am faithful like they are – it goes to the point that they start demanding that atheists have some sort of asinine dogma based on that non-belief. That is impossible by the way if there is no faith to begin with.

As a Christian I feel SOME atheists around here place themselves in a superior position because they're not a 'mouth-breathing idiot that believes in an "invisible man in the sky zombie"'.

And you would be correct that those claiming you are a mouth breather because you believe in the sky zombie do think they are superior. This is a 2 way street though – I invite you to go back over koshers posts in this thread and you see the EXACT same bullshit superiority. No all atheists are in this category – I for one do not have any issues with faith or those that are faithful. Superiority is NOT a case of faith, atheism or any set of specific belief systems, it is a case of arrogance and anyone can be infected with it.

But, please continue to feel persecuted.

You had to screw it all up with this bullshit though, dint you. That’s condescending and your putting words into my mouth. Never stated that I was prosecuted, just annoyed at others demanding that I have to be like them – it’s asinine.

Sometimes the snarky-force is overwhelming


Truce

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, that's exactly what he was doing. Pretending that unnamed Christians are proposing un-specified laws that allegedly will establish Christianity as the state religion.

Still waiting for specifics. Know I'll be waiting a while, since it's a lie.

No, that is not what I claimed at all. I never specified Christians and I even gave you an example that was secular. The point was against moral busy bodies basing proposed legislation on ‘moral’ grounds that might not be shared and that laws should never be based on morality but rather the protection of our rights. YOU might prefer the government telling you what is right and wrong but I don’t need that overstepping of authority.

Further, there are plenty of laws that are pushing religious tenants that are completely off base:

Blue laws in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Blue laws are the easiest to point out. They enforce Sabbath on businesses and exist all over the country. DOMA is another good example on a federal level. Such laws are proposed all the time but rarely passed because it is wrong but some still get though. It is not the ones that are directly related to religion that are the worst – they are usually weeded out and are outright unconstitutional. The other laws that are not connected to Christianity are worse though because they are not unconstitutional BUT they are wrong and an overstep of government powers.


Laws like Bloomberg’s ban on soda fit into this category and are the worst type of laws – those where the government pretends that it knows better than you and should run your life accordingly.

 

[Sallow]

Yeah, those Christians and their Sharia...

You leftists sure are smart....

If anyone tried to subject me to Sharia law, I'd be just as upset. But that hasn't happened.

But laws are proposed all over the country based on Christianity.

Who cares what they're based on? The only thing our constitution requires is that a law not establish a particular religion. It doesn't tell us where the thoughts that motivate us to favor a particular law must come from.

I mea, that's what you're saying here. That laws shouldn't be based on Christianity...by which I presume you mean Christian morality. Well that's ridiculous. Of course people are going to propose laws based on their own perception of good and bad. And of course their faith system is going to be the first place they look for definition. And that is right and good. Also legal.

 

[Sallow]

"Why is it always Atheists vs Christians?"

Because Christians won't rise up and cut their heads off.

That, historically, is not true.

Christians have chopped off millions of human heads. And with glee.

 

[Sallow]

Right, Christians are always cutting peoples heads off, stoning women, and honor killing..

Oh wait, you're a ******* retard.

Mostly because you're a bigot.

Oh wait..yeah..they were and are..

And oh yeah..when compared to you? I'm a ******* genius.

See, here's sallow, arguably one of the dirt-dumbest posters here, certainly not well educated...maintaining that he has the magical intelligence that is granted to all atheists, no matter how humble their scholarly background or low their native intelligence.

Go figure.

I have a college degree in addition to multiple technical certifications.

That pretty much qualifies as well educated, academically.

I drove a truck to get through college, owned my own business in Atlanta,Georgia and now work in the IT field for a huge financial corporation. I own a co-op in Manhattan which I rent out..and live in a huge duplex apartment in Brooklyn.

Nothing "magical" about my intellect. It comes from years of life experience and time spent in school.

I'll hold that up to your life experience and academic accredation. Which I am sure you are proud enough to post.

Go

 

[koshergrl]

I won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1989 and teach physics at MIT.

Internet credentials mean so much, lol.