Why are Atheists so obsessed with hating Christians?

[Train]

Well, if you are Christian, your God seems to be ok with murder:

Leviticus 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

So if you are Christian, I guess it's ok to kill your child if he talks back to you. Praise be the Lord.

Now quit changing the subject. We're talking about contraception and how moronic Christians are.

well to be fair, that's the death penalty, not murder.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are obviously clueless. A lot of hospitals are run by religious organizations, as are insurers.

So fuckin' what? That has fuck-all to do with my point.

And you are also misinformed about who stuck their nose in.

Bullshit again. It remains a fact that it is no employer's business what health care an employee seeks from their doctor.

These organizations were getting by just fine having NEVER paid for birth control until the fed tried to shove it down their throat this year.

Never? Citation please, your Fox News is showing.

The only thing that made the fed back off is that it's an election year for Obama.

Or the fact that it makes financial sense for insurance companies to supply birth control, since its cheaper than pre- and post-natal care including childbirth.

Ever wonder why auto insurance companies will gladly repair your chipped windshield for free, genius?

 

[soulcougher73]

I can't believe I watched that whole video. :thisforumneedsaheadsmackingagainstawallsmilie:

I cant believe i did as well. All that guy does is ask the same thing over and over and attempt to put words in the other guys mouth that he never actually said. That creationist is a fucking moron.

 

[sandorski]

well to be fair, that's the death penalty, not murder.

...and to be fair, talking back to your Parent never warrants a Death Penalty.

This "god", isn't worthy of being in my presence, never mind having my devotion.

 

[Train]

So fuckin' what? That has fuck-all to do with my point.


Bullshit again. It remains a fact that it is no employer's business what health care an employee seeks from their doctor.


Never? Citation please, your Fox News is showing.


Or the fact that it makes financial sense for insurance companies to supply birth control, since its cheaper than pre- and post-natal care including childbirth.

Ever wonder why auto insurance companies will gladly repair your chipped windshield for free, genius?

You are very misinformed.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ion-exemption-for-catholic-hospitals-schools/

"The Obama administration today said it would move forward with a new mandate requiring most U.S. employers – including religiously affiliated hospitals and schools – to provide health care plans that cover contraceptive services for female employees free of charge."

Do you know what the word "new" means?

 

[SlitheryDee]

The founders also left mention of any god, creator or otherwise, out of the Constitution. This was not mere oversight.

If you consider all of their other correspondence and stated opinions on the matter of religion and government, it can't be more clear how much they wanted a secular government. I would go so far to say that any mention of a "creator" was at best a nod in the direction of Deism. It may also have been inserted to be politically correct for the time. It was certainly not a reference to the Christian god.

 

[Train]

...and to be fair, talking back to your Parent never warrants a Death Penalty.

This "god", isn't worthy of being in my presence, never mind having my devotion.

Given the context, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are referring to a lot more than talking back. But don't let a little common sense get in the way of your great enlightenment.

 

[JPS35]

The founders also left mention of any god, creator or otherwise, out of the Constitution. This was not mere oversight.

No reason to when the First Amendment protects the right of its citizens regarding religion. The Constitution is the basis for "protecting 'God Given Rights'" mentioned in the Declaration through a secular government without the government "favoring" or "establishing" one religion over the other. That would defeat the purpose.

 

[soulcougher73]

Would you say outlawing murder is moronic too? I mean, it was in the Ten Commandments afterall. So was theft...

Ask yourself this: what laws aren't legislated morality?

Most likely he would say no, its not moronic. As he said. Its common sense and logical to not run around murdering people and stealing shit all the time. The smart ones amongst us didnt need to be told that those things were bad on a piece of stone..we just knew it.

 

[IronWing]

No reason to when the First Amendment protects the right of its citizens regarding religion. The Constitution is the basis for "protecting 'God Given Rights'" mentioned in the Declaration through a secular government without the government "favoring" or "establishing" one religion over the other. That would defeat the purpose.

No. The Constitution is a basis for protecting rights, period. Attempting to tie the Constitution back to the Declaration in order to insert a creator god into the meaning of the Constitution is beyond a stretch. The authors of the Constitution were very careful with the words they chose. If they had intended to tie rights back to a creator they would have done so.

 

[sandorski]

Given the context, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are referring to a lot more than talking back. But don't let a little common sense get in the way of your great enlightenment.

Then what is it, oh Common Sensical one?

 

[JackBurton]

Given the context, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are referring to a lot more than talking back. But don't let a little common sense get in the way of your great enlightenment.

Instead of "going out on a limb," why don't you try reading your own book instead of being spoon fed the cute stories every Sunday.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Given the context, I'm gonna go out on a limb and say they are referring to a lot more than talking back. But don't let a little common sense get in the way of your great enlightenment.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's no room for "common sense" when believers tout other biblical references as the literal unerring word of God.

 

[Train]

If we want to really do this right, and satisfy the immense rulebooks of all religions, we're likely going to need to cut funding to just about everything.

Hey now you're getting it. That's the sort of freedom the founding fathers envisioned. Everybody leave everybody else alone.

If you use the "but the govt pays for it" excuse, you could just stick he govt into everything, and over rule religion until theres nothing left, right? That's also why Marxists are so anti-religion, it offers an alternate authority to total rule. It's not a coincidence that the USSR and other communist countries either had state run churches or state approved churces.

 

[Train]

Instead of "going out on a limb," why don't you try reading your own book instead of being spoon fed the cute stories every Sunday.

Why so angry?

 

[Train]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there's no room for "common sense" when believers tout other biblical references as the literal unerring word of God.

So if one believer uses the bible literally (not even the same passage) you can use it against all religious?

If I find one atheist who is opposed to gay marriage will you then stop blaming the religious for banning it?

 

[SlitheryDee]

So if one believer uses the bible literally (not even the same passage) you can use it against all religious?

If I find one atheist who is opposed to gay marriage will you then stop blaming the religious for banning it?

The simple answer is no. They aren't the same thing. An atheist who is against gay marriage will not have come by his opinion by reading it in the big book of atheism. There is no such book. Abrahamic religious literature contains much that predisposes its adherents to opposing homosexuality in general. It is a safe bet that a majority of them will oppose gay marriage. There is no such safe bet with atheists. Their opinions, at least when it comes to gay marriage, will not be tied to a comparatively common source. This is just another reason why you can't equate atheism to any religion.

 

[sportage]

Op is incorrect. I'm not an atheist and when atheist had their national convention here in town, they were the nicest group of people. At first I thought ther were some republican or religious gathering because everyone was dressed as if Easter Sunday, the kids too. And everyone we passed in the skywalk smiled and gave a friendly hello. It wasnt until later that day I learned all these people were all atheist heading to the convention center and the national atheist gathering.
If only Christians were so friendly ..... And their children so well mannered.

 

[Train]

The simple answer is no. They aren't the same thing. An atheist who is against gay marriage will not have come by his opinion by reading it in the big book of atheism. There is no such book. Abrahamic religious literature contains much that predisposes its adherents to opposing homosexuality in general. It is a safe bet that a majority of them will oppose gay marriage. There is no such safe bet with atheists. Their opinions, at least when it comes to gay marriage, will not be tied to a comparatively common source. This is just another reason why you can't equate atheism to any religion.

And yet not all christians are against gay marriage. Some christian churches happily perform gay marriage. So surely you can't lump them all togther based on the interpretations of a particular group of them?

 

[AnonymouseUser]

So if one believer uses the bible literally (not even the same passage) you can use it against all religious?

Why not? Who is to say what parts are to be taken literally or not? If someone takes one passage as literal, but another doesn't take the same passage as literal, how can that be considered the "perfect" word of god? Why is any of it "open for interpretation"?

If I find one atheist who is opposed to gay marriage will you then stop blaming the religious for banning it?

No, but if an Atheist organization were to push their hate-filled agenda just as hard as the Christian hategroups do, then we could.

 

[Jeff7]

You might regret the pain that your forehead experiences from your palm. Or your jaw hitting the floor once or twice.

Just me, but I enjoyed it. Kinda, sorta... :\

Maybe I've heard that level of argument a bit too often, and I'm jaded. Or maybe I just don't have the energy right now for that kind of reaction.

...and to be fair, talking back to your Parent never warrants a Death Penalty.

This "god", isn't worthy of being in my presence, never mind having my devotion.

God's a "Do as I say, not as I do" type of overlord.

If we crafted our justice system after God, once you committed a crime, you'd be sentenced as guilty, as would all of your descendents. Forever. Until your judge's son died and then came back to life, which somehow will let you be innocent. But you and your descendents will still have to serve the sentence of punishments, until each one affected dies of something.

Hey now you're getting it. That's the sort of freedom the founding fathers envisioned. Everybody leave everybody else alone.

If you use the "but the govt pays for it" excuse, you could just stick he govt into everything, and over rule religion until theres nothing left, right? That's also why Marxists are so anti-religion, it offers an alternate authority to total rule. It's not a coincidence that the USSR and other communist countries either had state run churches or state approved churces.

So, Libertarian then?

There wouldn't be anything left for a government to do in such a situation, short of sitting in an office and doing nothing all day. (Like they do now. Ba-dum-tish.) That would probably be viewed as "sloth" though, so that's out too. What's left? Anarchy?
Not to mention that they'd have to find a way to reconcile all the contradictory aspects, both between and within, the various religions.

 

[Train]

Why not? Who is to say what parts are to be taken literally or not? If someone takes one passage as literal, but another doesn't take the same passage as literal, how can that be considered the "perfect" word of god? Why is any of it "open for interpretation"?

Maybe it's the interpretation that's not perfect. Good thing we have freedom of religion, right?

No, but if an Atheist organization were to push their hate-filled agenda just as hard as the Christian hategroups do, then we could.

Nice rationalization.

 

[PowerEngineer]

So if one believer uses the bible literally (not even the same passage) you can use it against all religious?

If I find one atheist who is opposed to gay marriage will you then stop blaming the religious for banning it?

Yes, I'm sure there's just one believer who takes the bible literally.

And since you're claiming not to be that one believer, then I'm left to conclude that you judge only parts of the bible to be the unerring word of God, and that the rest (the parts that don't appeal to you) can be discounted using "common sense". It's just a menu of beliefs you get to select from. How convenient for you.

There's actually a third possibility. You don't believe any of the bible is the unerring word of God. Maybe "common sense" needs to be applied to all the verses. But then you'd not be a believer at all, would you?

If you find the leaders or spokespersons of any group I claim association with that opposes gay marriage, please let me know. On the other hand, there are many "Christian" leaders and spokespersons who loudly proclaim their opposition to gay marriage. Rather than "blame", I'm sure they want to take credit for it. So (again) assuming you are a "Christian", I think you can lay claim to some of the "blame".

 

[SlitheryDee]

And yet not all christians are against gay marriage. Some christian churches happily perform gay marriage. So surely you can't lump them all togther based on the interpretations of a particular group of them?

Of course not, and I don't. Considering the source material, I can safely say that these churches will always be outliers of Christianity though. They are a classic example of selective interpretation. Nearly all Christians do this, but rarely to that degree. The bible is just too clear about gods opinion of gays for that to hold true for more than a small minority.

 

[sourceninja]

Why force someone ELSE to pay for it who has always been against it?

Oh man, I pay for all kinds of shit I am ethically, morally, and adamantly against.

Welfare, Social Security, Funding of "alternative healthcare" bullshit like chiropractors and homeopathy. I'm forced to pay for recycling in my county even though I am 100% against recycling. These are just a few things.

There are things that are done because the majority of people think it is good or us or because the majority of people want it. Like it or not, you have to pay for those things if you want to be part of society. If you don't want to be part of society, you can be amish.

That said, I am a very in favor of personal responsibility and freedom. This causes a cognitive dissidence issue. For us to have personal liberty and freedom of choice, we have to sometimes force things on society that might take away someone's personal choice.

For example, until all of society can say when life begins, we need to protect society's right to by birth control including the morning after pill. This may mean forcing it's sale to prevent a majority from imposing their will on women. This is the dilemma I face when deciding my stance on this. I think forcing someone to do something against their will is bad. I think taking away choice from someone because your beliefs don't match with theirs (in a sense that can't be scientifically proven their position is harmful to society) is also fundamentally wrong.

To renforce this statement, I'd use the example of our county wide smoking ban. I do not smoke, I hate smokers, and I hate being around smoke. However, I am against the smoking ban in my county because I think it should be the property owners choice. I do not think there is a 'right to smoke' like my father does, but I do think that there is a right to decide what legal activities can happen in your business.

So in the case of healthcare and birth control, because the minority of business were not allowing it (and it was not a growing trend), I am against forcing them to pay for birth control. Especially because these women could get another job, and social pressure to find good workers would eventually lead them to ether fail or re-examine their policy. I call this personal responsibility. That said, if the companies in question were paying for male birth control, then we have a gender inequality issue that should be addressed (either stop paying for male birth control (snip snip) or start paying for women birth control (pills and abortions). I would gladly allow the government to step in on behalf of women who simply want to be treated as first class citizens. Also, how is this an atheist agenda? Last I checked, the president goes to church. This is another problem with governing via religion, everyone thinks everyone else is worshiping a false god (He's not a real christian, thats not a real church, etc).

On to gay marriage. This is an issue where forcing christians has no grounds and holds no water. Legalizing gay marriage would in no way force churches to marry gays anymore than it forced churches to marry my wife and I (no church would do it, we had to find a judge). Legalization of gay marriage would simple allow two people who love each other the ability to get the same legal protections men and women get when they love each other. In fact, my personal stance on this is that legal and religious marriage should be in no way related. In fact, I would support the dissolving of legal marriage and it's replacement with some other document giving the same rights, but not using the word marriage. Perhaps married people should get no legal protections and instead should be forced to also get a civil union if they want the current protections married people get. I see no gay agenda beyond gay people wanting to be treated as first class citizens and have the same rights straight people have. I can't in good conscious entertain any moral argument that says two people who are not harming anyone else should be forced by law not have the same protections I enjoy. In fact, I find the christian argument much worse than the gay argument.

If we are enforcing the sanctity of marriage why is divorce legal? Why is premarital sex legal? Why do we let non-christians marry at all? Why can a man and woman legally live in the same house? Why does common law marriage exist? Why do we allow single mothers? Why isn't adultery a capital crime? The whole argument is flawed in that the very fact that my wife and myself are married proves marriage is not sanctified. We are two godless heathens screwing our brains out with birth control married only for the legal protections it provides and christians support that. They also support the fact that I can walk away from that marriage at any time and do the same thing with some other lady. They would support two satanists a marriage as long as they are opposite sex. This is proven in the fact that this argument does not include banning of non-faith based marriages, non-Christian marriages, or marriages of convenience. However, with two religious men who love each other it is an abomination that they would want those protections. All these "protectors of marriage" are using their religion as the sole source of their defense. This only renforces my statement that if they really were serious, they would move to ban non-christian marriage.

Then there is the silly argument made by many on tv that gay marriage would lead to men marrying sheep and turtles. If religious and legal marriage were separated, this is a non issue. Legally, you can't enter into a contract with a sheep, and legally no one should care how many people I give the legal rights marriage provides me to. Religiously, if there is a religion that will marry sheep, it would be against our very constitution to not allow that marriage. In fact, gay people have purely religious and symbolic marriages all the time in state states that do not allow gay marriage.

That last fact solidifies the reason's we should allow gay marriage. We are not talking about religious marriage, we are talking about legal protections. Religious gay marriage is already legal in all 50 states. It is constitutionally legal and no law short of a constitutional amendment can change that. Legal protections from said marriage is what is debated. There is no world where allowing gays to get those protections would ever harm the religious significance (or I would argue todays insignificance) because nothing about who could get married by a church would change.

When we talk about evolution in the classroom, again the christian argument is flawed. They want to teach religion in a science class. This is as silly as teaching science in a bible as literature class. Furthermore, evolution does not disprove or even attempt to replace god, it is a simple, logical, and actually observed phenomenon that we can document that deserves a place in science like gravity, physics, electricity, and biology do. The argument about evolution is just silly. The position of the creationists is that all things in the bible are literal and 100% correct, except in the places where they can't be literal and 100% correct because they contradict themselves are are just plain wrong to anyone with eyes. They look at a very tiny story of creation and think that somehow god was able to squeeze every detail of how he created man into it. They will on one hand say "a day to god is a thousand years", but then say "no the timeline is quite strict and he made the world in 6 days". The fact is that evolution does not say when life began or how it began. Evolution simple describes something that happens to life that allows us to thrive on this planet. This is just like the big bang theory, which doesn't describe how the universe started, but simply the means in which the observable universe can be observed and it's logal conclusions. The cause of the big bang, the origin of the first life forms, etc are not explained by these theories. Instead they explain the changes that have happend in life/universe over the period of time we can observe it and the evidence of the past we have.

Therefor, the obvious solution to this problem is somehow totally lost on everyone. Teach science in a science class, teach theology in theology class. A person's information will then be well rounded and they can make up their own minds (which seems to terrify people for some reason). The most important thing we can teach a person is critical thinking skills. Most creationists are dead set against this because critical thinking means evaluating evidence, and by their arguments all evidence must be discarded if it does not agree with their book. The explanation is simply that god allows the devil to fool us. With this taken as fact, then we can trust nothing in this world. We should not study any science, no medicine, no math, no physics. Who knows which of these things we observe is a trick by satan. A ruse planted to lead us from the path to god. This is a flawed and impossible argument. If left unchecked, it will lead to another dark age.

So to me, when it doubt of a path, we should always side with personal freedom. I support personal freedom above all other morals. I define the limits of personal freedom only when it infringes on another's or when it hurts mankind/the planet as a whole. This is my cognitive dissidence I want unlimited personal freedom, but I also know that without the EPA my water wouldn't be safe to drink, without laws and police my city wouldn't be a safe place to live, etc. So I suck it up and I pay for things that are for the greater freedom at the expensive of a little of my own.