Originally posted by: GrGr
Robert A Heinlein, the SF author, predicted back in the 60's or 70's I think that the Christian Fundamentalists would at some point take over the government but that there would be a grassroot movement to oppose them.
looks like he had it backwards. the atheists are using the government to force state sanctioned non-theism in direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: GrGr
Robert A Heinlein, the SF author, predicted back in the 60's or 70's I think that the Christian Fundamentalists would at some point take over the government but that there would be a grassroot movement to oppose them.
looks like he had it backwards. the atheists are using the government to force state sanctioned non-theism in direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Hows that?
Good going, RedDawn. Make a caricature out of them and reduce them to the status of lesser humans.
ahh red dawn, i see you provide more of the usual sterotypical ignorance i have come to expect you.
actually depending on the tactical situation many would not have "Squirrel Guns" but 7mm magnums, 30-06's and 308's with with to choose which eye socket they want the bullet to go in from a few hundred yards.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: GrGr
Robert A Heinlein, the SF author, predicted back in the 60's or 70's I think that the Christian Fundamentalists would at some point take over the government but that there would be a grassroot movement to oppose them.
looks like he had it backwards. the atheists are using the government to force state sanctioned non-theism in direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Hows that?
you have to ask? scroll up.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: GrGr
Robert A Heinlein, the SF author, predicted back in the 60's or 70's I think that the Christian Fundamentalists would at some point take over the government but that there would be a grassroot movement to oppose them.
looks like he had it backwards. the atheists are using the government to force state sanctioned non-theism in direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Hows that?
You can't tell from Boston. You'd have to come down here and see and hear for yourself. Atheists working as Lawyers, Judges and in some cases even Ministers of Churches (which is wild) have infiltrated the system with the mission of ridding God from everything. It has awakened the Church going folk, that's for sure.
Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
Originally posted by: GrGr
Robert A Heinlein, the SF author, predicted back in the 60's or 70's I think that the Christian Fundamentalists would at some point take over the government but that there would be a grassroot movement to oppose them.
looks like he had it backwards. the atheists are using the government to force state sanctioned non-theism in direct violation of the 1st amendment.
Only if you believe that atheism is a religion. You may mistake an atheist's passion about the subject for a psuedo-religious belief system, but it's clearly not a religion. I'm not an atheist, but at least I take the time to understand that it's quite the opposite: A person who does not believe there is a God. See, those key words there? does not believe It's like claiming an empty glass is really full.
Civil war or no, I'm just glad that removing religious items from government/government property doesn't get me all hot and bothered...even to the point of talking about possible war. If it were up to me I'd say fine, let the quacks have their pictures and statues displayed wherever they want. Bunch of weirdos.
i never said it was a religion in general, Atheism is a religious viewpoint making the definitive statement that there is no God, just as theism makes the definitive claim there is a(are) God(s) it is as much an established religious view as any theistic view. thank you for re-iterating this point for me!
atheism also is a matter of faith, the "fact" there is no God can no more be proved than the "fact" there is one. so each group beleives something which cannot be proved...they take it as a matter of faith they are right.
you must also however realize there is an atheistic religion, buddhism.
you also illustrate a point i made in another thread, they say government stance of nontheism(same thing as atheism) is somehow "neutral" i still have not seen anyone on this board show me with any amount of logic how an opposing viewpoint is "neutral" considering the other...especially when the opposing view is the primary catalyst for the other view to not have the right to exercise it's religion.
No, an atheist is a person who believes that there are no gods, just as much as a Judeo-Christian believes that the god of Abraham exists and all other gods are false gods and a Hindu believes that there are dozens of gods, all with their own powers.
You still haven't explained how you need the government to display your religious propaganda in order for you to exercise your religion. Religious fundamentalists like you claiming that "you're either with us or against us" are what cause crap like we've been having in Europe and the Middle East for the past couple millenia. I'd really like to know how you think that having the government promulgate your religious beliefs is somehow religiously neutral.
<<... for the other view to not have the right to exercise it's religion.>>
When did this happen?
When did this happen?
Well, you can twist the semantics around any way you please, but it still doesn't make atheism a religion. Most atheists would say that there is no proof that God exists, therefore I don't believe in God. It's a distinct LACK of faith that atheists believe what they do. Sure it's a "religious viewpoint" but everyone has some kind of opinion concerning religion, it doesn't necessarily make them religious.
Further, atheism doesn't qualify for tax breaks, doesn't have any churches, and certainly isn't recognized as a religion by the government. Can you say that about true religions like Christians, Muslims or Judaism? Nope.
Finally, you cannot prove a NEGATIVE. I don't know how many times that is stressed around here. Therefore an atheist could NEVER prove that God doesn't exist. On the flip side, you could certainly prove that God did exist, assuming you had some sort of evidence - like him manifesting himself in an unquestionable way. Until he does, or some other irrefutable proof surfaces, most atheists are going to assume there is no God.
DM: there's a difference between an agnostic and an atheist. An atheist makes a negative statement that we KNOW that no gods can exist. A theist makes a positive statement that we KNOW that there must be gods. An agnostic simply searches for information so that we can better understand which statement is more accurate.
ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
**************************
a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
**************************
the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
n.
One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
**************************
a·the·ist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-st)
n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
**************************
the·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (thzm)
n.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
Thank you, Gaard. Now Shadohawk, how is being noncommittal showing a preference to one side or the other? We are simply asking the government to not commit to supporting one side or another of a debate (and slaughter) which has raged on ever since Moses did his thing with his drug of choice.
The way I see it, religion is about belief, not about proof. Unfortunately, I'm an agnostic. I don't care about models that aren't predictive, because whether they are accurate or not, they don't help us actually do anything. The beliefs I have are that some theory or another will be validated or is a theory worth putting the time and effort into validating. As a non-predictive (and in some ways, anti-predictive) set of models, the theistic debate is irrelevant to anyone's life.Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, maybe atheists have a logic problem then, considering you can't prove a negative.
yes i did... SCROLL UP. as usual you totally ignore what you cannot refute and muddy the issue with a straw man instead. i never claimed "your with us or against us"
my whole point is the government is bound by it's own laws, that includes ALL the first amendment. you basically ignoring my question then throwing it back at me hoping no one notices you never answer it yourself.
"I'd really like to know how you think that having the government promulgate your religious beliefs is somehow religiously neutral"
well rjain, so would i! if you scroll up a bit you will notice i posed the same question...you should have noticed, you quoted it...
the only way for the government to be neutral is to show no favortism to one religious view, including atheism is to let local communities decide and pay for whatever they decide for themselves. that way no federaly mandated religious view is foited on people who do not want it.
Rjain, I'm a practicing apathetic. But, a belief in God is a fabulous predictive model. Wherever you are, that's where God intended you to be. Man, you can't do better than that; you're always in sync with the force of the universe. My problem has always been, what do you do when God says, "Whitling, take your son up on that mountain and sacrifice him." Now there have been times when I've been ready, but as he moves away from being a teenager, those times are fewer.
Shad0whawk - I know we've been at odds over this issue, but I would like to answer your question that everyone seems to be ignoring:
The fact is, NONE of these atheists are asking the government to place THEIR beliefs on government property. If the atheists were asking for the government to place plaques or monuments that read "THERE IS NO GOD" in our nation's courthouses and public squares, then you're right - they would be no better and the government, assuming it acquiesced, would still have a First Amendment issue on its hands.
Instead, the "atheists" are asking that government take a neutral stance on the religious issue. When they say "neutral," by definition, that means "not taking any side in a dispute." Which means, government buildings would not promote ANY religion. The absence of religion ensures that one religion isn't inadvertently promoted over another.
The act of being neutral, in this case of not showing any preference for one religion, ensures compliance with the First Amendment establishment clause.
EDIT: Spelling...
The fact is, NONE of these atheists are asking the government to place THEIR beliefs on government property. If the atheists were asking for the government to place plaques or monuments that read "THERE IS NO GOD" in our nation's courthouses and public squares, then you're right - they would be no better and the government, assuming it acquiesced, would still have a First Amendment issue on its hands.
Instead, the "atheists" are asking that government take a neutral stance on the religious issue. When they say "neutral," by definition, that means "not taking any side in a dispute." Which means, government buildings would not promote ANY religion. The absence of religion ensures that one religion isn't inadvertently promoted over another.
The act of being neutral, in this case of not showing any preference for one religion, ensures compliance with the First Amendment establishment clause.
EDIT: Spelling...
No, atheism is the absence of belief, or faith, in a god, or gods. or religious systems or religious world views. To claim that atheism is a religious viewpoint is a logical fallacy. You are ascribing something to atheism which it by definition cannot have. Atheists do not believe there is no god, they are convinced there is no god. The word belief does not come into the argument for atheist since their view is the equal of absence of belief in any religious sense. Ok? An atheist can believe in abstracts like justice, truth, fair play, common sense etc. That does not mean that they believe in the absence of God. You cannot believe in the absence of something that does not exist. That would be like believing in a double negation, in other words absurd.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter