Why should atheists give a shit about theists?

[koshergrl]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

Why do atheists think their viewpoint is the only one that matters? I'm an agnostic but I have to say the only time I get into an argument with a religious nutter is with a militant atheist. You guys are truly obnoxious. Why don't we try this. You respect the religious viewpoint of others. Acknowledge that it is every bit as valid as your own viewpoint, and leave it at that? Why must you impose your world view on others?

Reread the first two paragraphs. If it were just a questrion of you have your beliefs, and I have mine, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, theists are satisfied with that. They are constantly trying to use the government to impose those beliefs - or at least dictate behaviour based on those beliefs - on everyone, including those who do not share those beliefs.

I do not wish to dictate that anyone believe, or not believe as it were, the same as I do, or that anyone must, as a matter of law, behave the way I do. I do not want anyone else to be allowed to do that, either.

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

 

[Czernobog]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

 

[Skull Pilot]

e Trust

Law? Demand? What in hell are you talking about?

Which part didn't you understand?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your English not too good? Where do find the absurd conclusion that "law" and "demand" have anything to do with it?

Really? You see no laws that dictate that people behave in accordance with religious ideology? Seriously? Or do you find the idea that laws dictate behaviour to be absurd?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think you've lost grip on the subject.

Nope. That was the subject. I'm sorry that you were incapable of grasping that when you read the OP. That would explain your nonsensical responses, though...

Funny how no one but the rabid atheists think we live in a theocracy
It's almost as funny as the people whining about living in a police state

 

[Czernobog]

e Trust

Which part didn't you understand?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your English not too good? Where do find the absurd conclusion that "law" and "demand" have anything to do with it?

Really? You see no laws that dictate that people behave in accordance with religious ideology? Seriously? Or do you find the idea that laws dictate behaviour to be absurd?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think you've lost grip on the subject.

Nope. That was the subject. I'm sorry that you were incapable of grasping that when you read the OP. That would explain your nonsensical responses, though...

Funny how no one but the rabid atheists think we live in a theocracy
It's almost as funny as the people whining about living in a police state

Did I say we live in a Theocracy? I said that theocrats use the government to force compliance with their faith-based morality. I further posited that if that were allowed to continue, unchecked, that they would succeed in turning us into a Theocracy.
Do keep up...

 

[Correll]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

 

[Czernobog]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

 

[westwall]

Why do atheists think their viewpoint is the only one that matters? I'm an agnostic but I have to say the only time I get into an argument with a religious nutter is with a militant atheist. You guys are truly obnoxious. Why don't we try this. You respect the religious viewpoint of others. Acknowledge that it is every bit as valid as your own viewpoint, and leave it at that? Why must you impose your world view on others?

Reread the first two paragraphs. If it were just a questrion of you have your beliefs, and I have mine, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, theists are satisfied with that. They are constantly trying to use the government to impose those beliefs - or at least dictate behaviour based on those beliefs - on everyone, including those who do not share those beliefs.

I do not wish to dictate that anyone believe, or not believe as it were, the same as I do, or that anyone must, as a matter of law, behave the way I do. I do not want anyone else to be allowed to do that, either.

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Name a law in the western world that does the same vis a vis religion.

Prostitution bans, gambling bans, abortion bans, The Blue Laws in Alabama, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia...

Shall I go on?

Those are morality laws and while some have a root in religion, most don't. Many of the laws like that, the drug laws specifically, are purely for government control and profit.

 

[Czernobog]

Reread the first two paragraphs. If it were just a questrion of you have your beliefs, and I have mine, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, theists are satisfied with that. They are constantly trying to use the government to impose those beliefs - or at least dictate behaviour based on those beliefs - on everyone, including those who do not share those beliefs.

I do not wish to dictate that anyone believe, or not believe as it were, the same as I do, or that anyone must, as a matter of law, behave the way I do. I do not want anyone else to be allowed to do that, either.

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Name a law in the western world that does the same vis a vis religion.

Prostitution bans, gambling bans, abortion bans, The Blue Laws in Alabama, Indiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia...

Shall I go on?

Those are morality laws and while some have a root in religion, most don't. Many of the laws like that, the drug laws specifically, are purely for government control and profit.

Actually, most do. You'll notice I specifically did not include drug laws in my list. While drug laws are annoyingly morality based, they are not specifically faith-based. I have issues with drug criminalisation, too, but as it is not faith-based, I saw no reason to enter into that debate in this topic.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[hobelim]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

Why do atheists think their viewpoint is the only one that matters? I'm an agnostic but I have to say the only time I get into an argument with a religious nutter is with a militant atheist. You guys are truly obnoxious. Why don't we try this. You respect the religious viewpoint of others. Acknowledge that it is every bit as valid as your own viewpoint, and leave it at that? Why must you impose your world view on others?

Reread the first two paragraphs. If it were just a questrion of you have your beliefs, and I have mine, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, theists are satisfied with that. They are constantly trying to use the government to impose those beliefs - or at least dictate behaviour based on those beliefs - on everyone, including those who do not share those beliefs.

I do not wish to dictate that anyone believe, or not believe as it were, the same as I do, or that anyone must, as a matter of law, behave the way I do. I do not want anyone else to be allowed to do that, either.

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Sure, everyone wants to be in control, but who would you rather be in a position of authority determining right from wrong and establishing laws and customs waging or refraining from war?


Someone who believes that a three in one God diddled a virgin to father himself so he could become fully human without a human father while remaining fully God? The person who thinks rock and roll is evil and marijuana is demon weed? The person who thinks that eating or abstaining from certain food is the way to holiness and anyone who eats a cheeseburger is unclean? The person who believes that homosexuality is an abomination of the damned? The person who thinks that Mohammed is the greatest prophet, role model, and child rapist who ever lived? Any believer of any so called faith who thinks that all unbelievers are evil and deserving of condemnation?

Or the person who doesn't believe in and whose mind is not addled by any of that crap?

I don't care what a persons religious beliefs are as they go about the job they are supposed to do. I only care that they do that job to the best of their ability and that they do it in accordance with the laws of the land. Some of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen have been extremely religious. Some of the best scientists likewise. The same can be said of atheists. And, some of the worst of both types have been atheists and theists.

It is the PERSON, not their belief system, that matters. You ignore that at your peril.

My point was that if they can't think rationally enough to realize that God never became a man or that Jesus never floated up into the sky except figuratively then how could they possibly be qualified to think rationally enough to do any government job, except the ones that require no thinking at all, or decide the best course to take on any lesser issue?

You dimwits think mexicans are a threat to national security..

You think that God is about to smite the united states because homosexuals can now marry legally and unless you overturn that supreme court decision and repress them some more God will smite you.

Thats a whole lot of fucked up going on in your collective head..

 

[koshergrl]

e Trust

Your English not too good? Where do find the absurd conclusion that "law" and "demand" have anything to do with it?

Really? You see no laws that dictate that people behave in accordance with religious ideology? Seriously? Or do you find the idea that laws dictate behaviour to be absurd?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think you've lost grip on the subject.

Nope. That was the subject. I'm sorry that you were incapable of grasping that when you read the OP. That would explain your nonsensical responses, though...

Funny how no one but the rabid atheists think we live in a theocracy
It's almost as funny as the people whining about living in a police state

Did I say we live in a Theocracy? I said that theocrats use the government to force compliance with their faith-based morality. I further posited that if that were allowed to continue, unchecked, that they would succeed in turning us into a Theocracy.
Do keep up...

Morality is faith based.

Tough shit. Applying the law in a moral fashion is not the same as using the government to establish a religion. You should take some critical thinking classes. Or better yet, a history class or two.

Further, our constitution does not protect you from the morality of a government and a people that look to ANY source, including the bible, as a divining rod when it comes to determining right, vs. wrong. You don't get to throw out laws and overthrow government because you don't like the fact that the men and women who created those laws and built that government are CHRISTIAN in their faith and outlook. The fact that they are does NOT make the government they establish a THEOCRACY, and there is NOTHING in our constitution or in our government that makes it some sort of violation for politicians to be guided by God.

Fucking moron.

 

[Skull Pilot]

e Trust

Really? You see no laws that dictate that people behave in accordance with religious ideology? Seriously? Or do you find the idea that laws dictate behaviour to be absurd?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I think you've lost grip on the subject.

Nope. That was the subject. I'm sorry that you were incapable of grasping that when you read the OP. That would explain your nonsensical responses, though...

Funny how no one but the rabid atheists think we live in a theocracy
It's almost as funny as the people whining about living in a police state

Did I say we live in a Theocracy? I said that theocrats use the government to force compliance with their faith-based morality. I further posited that if that were allowed to continue, unchecked, that they would succeed in turning us into a Theocracy.
Do keep up...

Morality is faith based.

Tough shit. Applying the law in a moral fashion is not the same as using the government to establish a religion. You should take some critical thinking classes. Or better yet, a history class or two.

Further, our constitution does not protect you from the morality of a government and a people that look to ANY source, including the bible, as a divining rod when it comes to determining right, vs. wrong. You don't get to throw out laws and overthrow government because you don't like the fact that the men and women who created those laws and built that government are CHRISTIAN in their faith and outlook. The fact that they are does NOT make the government they establish a THEOCRACY, and there is NOTHING in our constitution or in our government that makes it some sort of violation for politicians to be guided by God.

Fucking moron.

morality is not faith based.

 

[turzovka]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

You have as much to worry about religion being materially imposed upon any part of your daily life or concerns by the government as you do that your carbon footprint is going to cause you and your loved ones to evaporate in the next 20 years.

There are 50 major issues and crises, both domestic and international, that are 100 times potentially more affecting to your livelihood, personal pursuits or survival than any "religious law" now on the books. They have pretty much been eviscerated have they not? (legal abortion, porn on demand, our kids being so over-sexed and encouraged to be a pervert of sorts, it's grotesque) Outside of some areas still having trouble finding a liquor store on Sunday, I cannot see all this finger pointing at believers being justified.

 

[Czernobog]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

Why do atheists think their viewpoint is the only one that matters? I'm an agnostic but I have to say the only time I get into an argument with a religious nutter is with a militant atheist. You guys are truly obnoxious. Why don't we try this. You respect the religious viewpoint of others. Acknowledge that it is every bit as valid as your own viewpoint, and leave it at that? Why must you impose your world view on others?

Reread the first two paragraphs. If it were just a questrion of you have your beliefs, and I have mine, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, theists are satisfied with that. They are constantly trying to use the government to impose those beliefs - or at least dictate behaviour based on those beliefs - on everyone, including those who do not share those beliefs.

I do not wish to dictate that anyone believe, or not believe as it were, the same as I do, or that anyone must, as a matter of law, behave the way I do. I do not want anyone else to be allowed to do that, either.

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

On sorry. Could you reference that case for me. I know of no Baker who was threatened with prison for not baking a cake. As for the lawsuit, it is your contention that bigotry is a religious ideal? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Spare_change]

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

Perhaps you can give us a US law that you think is theologically based. You know, just one ...

 

[Czernobog]

It all comes down to politics. Were politics not infused with religious ideology, I would not give so much as a single shit what any individual's personal theology was. We could live, and let live. I like blue, you like red, mix nox.

However, when governments create, and are encouraged to create, laws that incorporate the religious views of one group of citizens into the enforced policies that affect the entire population, then it becomes a concern for me, and other atheists. Now, your beliefs affect me. Government creates a problem when it imposes, through enforced laws, your religious positions on me. I'm certain that Christian, Muslim, or other theists would very much understand this position

The United States, in spite of the First Amendment designed to separate Church and state, is a highly religious country, ruled by increasingly aggressive religious political leaders. The globe is littered with examples of failed attempts to incorporate religion with governance. My concern is that one day America might be counted among them.

It is for this reason that, as an atheist, the beliefs, and actions of theists concern me.

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.

Inaccurate. I did not say that my issue was with dictating behaviour. I said my issue is with dictating behaviour that does no harm to others based on theistic moral preferences. Laws against theft protect me from you.

Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.

Again, you seem to conflate a secular law designed to protect people from harm that happens to align with religious morality and laws that only dictate personal behaviour based on one group's personal religious morality.

Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

That does seem to be the newest argument of the moralists - "Your need to oppose bigotry is bigotry, "

Sorry, I reject your bigoted deflection.



Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

Perhaps you can give us a US law that you think is theologically based. You know, just one ...

I listed several.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

Why do atheists think their viewpoint is the only one that matters? I'm an agnostic but I have to say the only time I get into an argument with a religious nutter is with a militant atheist. You guys are truly obnoxious. Why don't we try this. You respect the religious viewpoint of others. Acknowledge that it is every bit as valid as your own viewpoint, and leave it at that? Why must you impose your world view on others?

Reread the first two paragraphs. If it were just a questrion of you have your beliefs, and I have mine, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, theists are satisfied with that. They are constantly trying to use the government to impose those beliefs - or at least dictate behaviour based on those beliefs - on everyone, including those who do not share those beliefs.

I do not wish to dictate that anyone believe, or not believe as it were, the same as I do, or that anyone must, as a matter of law, behave the way I do. I do not want anyone else to be allowed to do that, either.

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

On sorry. Could you reference that case for me. I know of no Baker who was threatened with prison for not baking a cake. As for the lawsuit, it is your contention that bigotry is a religious ideal? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a liar, you know exactly what I'm talking about...and you are pushing a false narrative, trying to force me to argue to points never made, and which do not follow.

For that you get the ignore button.

Court Rules Baker Can’t Refuse to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple

"Does The Bureau of Labor and Industry truly believe that Christians who want to follow the teachings of their faith are bigots?

It certainly seems to me the only entity guilty of unfettered bigotry is the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry.

Since the day they turned away the lesbian couple’s business, the Kleins have suffered greatly. Their business was subjected to boycotts and pickets. LGBT activists and their supporters threatened any wedding vendor that did business with Sweet Cakes By Melissa.

Mrs. Klein told me her five children were subjected to death threats -- death threats for simply refusing to participate in a same-sex wedding. That doesn’t sound very tolerant to me."

Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians

 

[Spare_change]

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

Perhaps you can give us a US law that you think is theologically based. You know, just one ...

I listed several.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No, actually you didn't ... you listed several that, with your altered atheistic distortion, you PERCEIVE to be theologically based. In reality, each of those you listed are societal driven, not theologically based.

Your confusion is understandable, but seriously misguided. Most laws were written when the church was the dominant social organism, and, as such, the law was perceived to be theologically based, and were, in fact, mandated thru the church. However, those laws dictated societal convention. Based on your skewed viewpoint, I can understand how you might make such an elementary mistake.

So, let me ask again - can you give us a US law that is theologically based?

(PS. I've been waiting for this opportunity. I've got 2 hours )

 

[Czernobog]

Reread the first two paragraphs. If it were just a questrion of you have your beliefs, and I have mine, I would agree wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, theists are satisfied with that. They are constantly trying to use the government to impose those beliefs - or at least dictate behaviour based on those beliefs - on everyone, including those who do not share those beliefs.

I do not wish to dictate that anyone believe, or not believe as it were, the same as I do, or that anyone must, as a matter of law, behave the way I do. I do not want anyone else to be allowed to do that, either.

Let me give you a clue. So do atheists.

Really? Name a single law that demands that theists behave as if they are atheist.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

the law that was used to force a Christian bakery out of business and threatened the owners with prison for declining to create a cake slated to be used to mock the Christian sacrament of marriage.

On sorry. Could you reference that case for me. I know of no Baker who was threatened with prison for not baking a cake. As for the lawsuit, it is your contention that bigotry is a religious ideal? Really?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

You're a liar, you know exactly what I'm talking about...and you are pushing a false narrative, trying to force me to argue to points never made, and which do not follow.

For that you get the ignore button.

Court Rules Baker Can’t Refuse to Make Wedding Cake for Gay Couple

The only liar here is you. The case you referred to with your link was a civil case, not a criminal one. No prison sentence was ever threatened. Thanks for putting me on ignore. That means I wont have to muddle through any more of your irrational, untrue rants. I always appreciate it when fuckwits remove themselves from my discussions, and save me the trouble.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[koshergrl]

You are attempting to marginalize their moral and ethical beliefs, because they are religious based, while maintaining the right to interject YOURS into law.

You are engaging in discrimination.

Care to offer any examples of atheists attempting to dictate individual behaviour?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your complaint about was not limited to laws or policies "dictating individual behavior".

You can discuss it as a generality or use specific examples.

YOU are the one who is looking to marginalize those who are different than you, and to cast aspersions on their involvement in the political process because their belief system is different than yours.


If someone supports laws against theft based on religious grounds, is that less valid than the godless heathen standing next to him that is opposed to theft on the grounds of fairness?

And how do you think those behaviours are dictated? I said it right in the OP: "...through enforced laws...".

I am trying to marginalise those who have a different belief system than me in their use of the political process, if their use of that process is to use the government to enact laws based on their belief system. I do not deny that. In fact, in order to protect the First Amendment, the Constitution demands that I do that.

Th law against theft dictates peoples behavior.


Some people support that law based on their religious beliefs.

Some people support that law based on other reasons, such as a personal belief in fairness.


Your belief that you are required to oppose those who have a different belief system than you, is just you rationalizing your discrimination.

A sophomoric argument. Laws protecting us from each other are not faith-based. Simply because a law happens to coincide with a religious belief, does not make it "faith-based" There are excellent arguments that can be made, regarding the protection of ourselves from each other for nearly all secular laws that happen to coincide with religious beliefs: theft, murder, assault, etc.

Tell me, how are you protecting "Bob", by demanding that I not be allowed to visit my favourite whore? How are you protecting "John" by demanding that I not be allowed to buy a bottle of bourbon on Sunday? How are you protecting "Mark" by dictating that I not be allowed to go to a local casino, and play Blackjack tonight?

See? That is the difference between secular laws that protect you from me that just happen to align with religious morality, and laws that are just designed to dictate that everyone behave as if they agree with some faith-based moral code.

It's very simple:

If you think that abortion is "wrong", don't have one.
If you think that gay marriage is wrong, don't marry someone of the same sex.
If you think prostitution is immoral, don't pay for one.
If you think that gambling is a sin, don't go to one.

However, if you think you have the self-righteous right to use the government to dictate that I am not allowed to participate in any of these activities, just because you think they are "wrong", then please do feel free to fuck off!

And he descends into gibbering leftist incoherency and progressive babbling.