Atheists the scum-dogs of the universe...apparently

[strawman]

Here's a neat trick - most people will let go of the object they are giving to someone else once the object moves.

So when someone puts out a book or literature to hand you, reach out as if to grab it, miss it by a few inches and push it with the back of your hand sideways. Many people will release the object, it will tumble to the ground, and you can go on your merry way as they are distracted in picking the object up.

Not that I would ever engage in such tomfoolery myself, but perhaps others will find this funny and/or useful.

---------- Post added at 02:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:54 PM ----------

I think a lot of what is happening is the loosening of the term "Freedom of Religion" and "Separation of Church and State." It basically mean that you are free to believe in what faith you choose or to choose not, and that the State is not going to point you to a particular Church. It is not the State's job to act as though there is no God, just not to keep you from what you believe.

This is something so many people misunderstand, and I'm glad you point this out. All "separation of church and state" dictates is that there is no state religion. It essentially points back to England (at the time it was created) where if you were not a member of the church, you were as good as not a citizen as well.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Back in the Dark Ages... about 1988, some one tried to hand my one of those tiny Gideon New Testaments. I told him not thanks and kept walking. He protested a bit, and I told him I had one at home.

 

[SpecialKO]

I always thought it was interesting to "swear before God" or hand on the Bible before testifying.

You don't have to use the Bible, actually.

US legal oaths have two purposes.

1) To make it a matter of public record that you are legally declaring your statement to be the truth.

2) To impress upon you the legal and moral implications of making that declaration.

As such, many legal jurisdictions in the United States allow the witness to swear on a recognized religious text of their choice as befits #2, and all of them allow a non-religious legal affidavit/affirmation, because that's all #1 actually is.

 

[makare]

If we allow the state to acknowledge God in anyway it chooses it is a short path to state religion. If it is acknowledging God fairly and impartially it would have to manage to acknowledge all manner of God AND that God does not exist all at the same time. It is just easier to not have the stuff in the first place.

 

[sixpackshaker]

God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?

 

[makare]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.

 

[Bones]

its a firestorm!

 

[makare]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]

maybe not but that is pretty much how the courts have tried to interpret it over the years, in an effort to make sure state and belief do stay separate.

 

[MindDetective]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]

Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.

 

[strawman]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]

Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]

Technically that's true, however a lot of people use the term incorrectly to describe their agnosticism, so unfortunately I don't think your statement is true for many people that call themselves atheists.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]

Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]

It's a circular argument.

 

[@Li3n]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

It is not the separation of lack of belief and state.[/QUOTE]

Atheism is a belief, not a lack of belief.[/QUOTE]

Technically that's true, however a lot of people use the term incorrectly to describe their agnosticism, so unfortunately I don't think your statement is true for many people that call themselves atheists.[/QUOTE]

What?! Agnosticism isn't a lack of belief either... it's a belief that you can't know... (unless you're just about saying you don't know, which is somewhere in between i guess).

 

[sixpackshaker]

What is there to "believe" in if you don't believe in anything?

 

[makare]

Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.

 

[strawman]

What is there to "believe" in if you don't believe in anything?

To push the point further, technically you can never prove a negative. So for all intents and purposes, if you believe that there is no God, then your faith must necessarily be greater than those that believe in a God.



To simplify my statement for non-logisticians:

Proving that God absolutely and provably does not exist is, by definition, infinitely harder than proving God does exist.

 

[MindDetective]

What is there to "believe" in if you don't believe in anything?

To push the point further, technically you can never prove a negative. So for all intents and purposes, if you believe that there is no God, then your faith must necessarily be greater than those that believe in a God.

[/QUOTE]

Atheists (that are rational) are not trying to prove anything about God, though. And the belief atheists hold is that there is no higher power. Since this is nothing that can be observed (just like a higher power has yet to be repeatably observed), it requires faith to believe it.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.

I am just doing this to keep the debate going.

But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.

 

[makare]

No that just means belief stays out of the governmental apparatus. It doesnt affect someone's ability to believe at home.

 

[Green_Lantern]

God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?

I think that many of Budhism sects don't give much emphasis in Gods either, seeing the path for ilumination as one that you have to achieve to yourself (so while they might believe, they don't give much emphasis about it)

Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?

 

[phil]

Can't we just have a holy war to sort this all out?

 

[Green_Lantern]

Can't we just have a holy war to sort this all out?

If you insist.

*SMITE EVIL!*

 

[sixpackshaker]

God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?

I think that many of Budhism sects don't give much emphasis in Gods either, seeing the path for ilumination as one that you have to achieve to yourself (so while they might believe, they don't give much emphasis about it)

Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?[/QUOTE]

God is a general term, his name is not known/spoken...

It is about the swearing party's god. Not the god of the person asking you to swear.

 

[phil]

Can't we just have a holy war to sort this all out?

If you insist.

*SMITE EVIL!*[/QUOTE]

Does that work on someone who is true neutral?

 

[Green_Lantern]

God is a central tenant in nearly all religious life (there are a few atheist Hindus out there.) So how is "So help me God," picking one to be the state religion?

I think that many of Budhism sects don't give much emphasis in Gods either, seeing the path for ilumination as one that you have to achieve to yourself (so while they might believe, they don't give much emphasis about it)

Note, that I put GodS, because I want to ask you, how can you say "So help me God" and not talking about a specific deity from a religion? If the states claims that is a God fearing nation, how it is not saying that it fears a specific God, a concept that can vary greatly even among the Christian/Judaism/Islamic group?

God is a general term,

If is a general term, how can it mean anything? "One nation under Ambiguious-generic-entity-that-we-don't-want-specify" sounds like nonsense and pointless.

his name is not known/spoken...

Yet people came up with a bunch of names for it/them during the course of history. You say that his not know/spoken, so I guess anyone who gave God(s) a name was wrong in your opinion?

It is about the swearing party's god. Not the god of the person asking you to swear.

I really din't understood that statement, or at least, how it makes it any better.

 

[tegid]

Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.

I am just doing this to keep the debate going.

But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]

Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?

 

[Chazwozel]

Because atheists don't believe God exists at all so the state acknowledging God at all kind of screws over their beliefs. That's not right either.

Nah, sane atheists realize the term "God" is being used in a manner to describe either events out of your hands (randomness) or just a higher order of the universe. It doesn't have to imply "invisible sky daddy".

 

[Element 117]

Some one hands you a book you dont want.If you say "no, thank you" and try to hand it back, and if they don't take it back, drop it and walk away. Don't continue talking to them, because every second you waste with them is another second you can be doing other things.

 

[sixpackshaker]

*snip

What's with the slip-shod editing crap? Have a conversation that can be continued.

The answer on being general? we are not saying The God of Abraham, Yaweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, Brahma, the Invisible Pink Unicorn... just God. And the courts don't ask you to swear to god. Just to swear to tell the truth, the whole whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The swearing party answers according to their conscience (that is what makes it better.)

Now some courts take the opinion that the only Holy Scriptures to be used for swearing the the King James Version. Those courts will likely have to change their ways once it gets to the supreme court.

I did not say that a thing that I am debating here is my opinion. I am just telling you what is happening.

---------- Post added at 09:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:06 PM ----------

Honestly I don't understand atheism or agnosticism but it would suit me fine for the government to be more courteous to those beliefs/whatever and keep as much religious refs out as possible.

I am just doing this to keep the debate going.

But if the State goes to the extreme of not acknowledging a god, then you are being discourteous to those that do.[/QUOTE]

Can you seriously not distinguish between not acknowledging god and acknowledging there is no god?[/QUOTE]

I am just doing this to keep the debate going.

For some of the things that Atheists push for, you will have to remove all references to god, as though he does not exist. You will never please everyone.

I do not want to see all the holiday decorations taken down. I'd still like to have a Christmas, New Year, Easter, Thanksgiving, ... holiday. Do we need to shut down St Patrick's Day parades because they use the streets that are payed for by taxes?

 

[Cajungal]

Lol. "Sky Daddy." Sounds more like a pimp than a deity.

 

[LittleSin]

How come I never meet religious crazies?

I used to dress like a goth...and the only harassment I got was from people in general, not religious folks.

 

[Krisken]

No.

These are the scumdogs of the universe.

 

[Cajungal]

^Yeah, I gotta say... I've come across some jerks on both sides, but most people are fairly respectful... maybe a bit uncomfortable around the opposing side at times, but respectful.

 

[makare]

Lol. "Sky Daddy." Sounds more like a pimp than a deity.

know what I'm sayin?

 

[Baerdog]

Lol. "Sky Daddy." Sounds more like a pimp than a deity.

know what I'm sayin?[/QUOTE]
Yes, I know what you are saying. You don't need to keep asking.