Author Topic: Atheists discriminated against (Read 2759 times)

crowMAW · « **Reply #75 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:12:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have an issue if they go just due to all the legal costs in this stupid issue. I think the next judge should rule that the complaintant gets a thicker skin and a life. There are many more important issues.

If we always took that philosophy then some minorities would still be riding in the back of the bus and using separate but "equal" facilities.

Booz · « **Reply #76 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:19:32 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
sorry RTR but you are wrong...

an agnostic is one who says... 'maybe, maybe not.. the evidince is not strong enough for me to say"

[/B] Yet they don't "believe". whaddya call em?

Everyone is an atheist of some sort. Athiests just disbelieve in ONE less god than you do Lazs, when you figure out why you don't believe in Zeus, Mars, Thor, and a thousand other gods, you'll know why an atheist doesn't believe in yours.

weaselsan · « **Reply #77 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:20:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Booz
Yeah, the bannana, what a wonderful fruit, it fits my hand!!!

I'll fix it......

"a person who believes in god does so out of nothing more than his faith, indoctrination or ignorance"

Ignorance is for blind progressives (Liberals)...sooo. it would be impossible for an intellegent race (Conservatives) to travel to a distant Planet, Albeit in the far future, and create life on that planet...Holy Chit...that would make us get ready now "THE CREATOR". Of course Liberals on that planet would be running to the ACLU (Aliens civil liberties union) and demand they stop teaching the possibility of a CREATOR. They all know they came from "Gunk Soup".

crowMAW · « **Reply #78 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:22:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
as for "in god we trust" on the money... this violates nothing and at worse... should be put to a vote of the people. If more people want it than not.... fine... this would not violate a constitutional democracy in my opinion.

So if the day comes when the majority of Americans want strict gun control, then it would be OK with you if a law is passed requiring all guns be turned into the government...even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Or would you prefer that the courts be activist and strike down that law because it is unconstitutional?

Suave · « **Reply #79 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:30:34 PM »

Are atheists conservatives or liberals? And what about creationists, are they liberal or conservatives ?

Bush is a liberal ****, yet his campaign message was "A vote for me is a vote for Christ".

Does asking this question make me a liberal or a conservative or what ?

Suave · « **Reply #80 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:31:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
So if the day comes when the majority of Americans want strict gun control, then it would be OK with you if a law is passed requiring all guns be turned into the government...even though the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Or would you prefer that the courts be activist and strike down that law because it is unconstitutional?

Of course he would, can't you read what the man typed?

RTR · « **Reply #81 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:32:47 PM »

Agnostic:
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a god
2. One who is skeptical about teh existance of god, but does not profess
true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommital about something.

Atheist:
- One who disbelieves or denies the existance of god, or gods

Quote

A person who says that there is no god even tho he can not prove that to be true and has no real evidense... is basing his belief in athiesm in nothing more than pure faith.

Quote

Now,it has been my experiance that those who profess a belief in athiesm are doing so in order to make a statement. It is not enough for them to simply say 'there is not enough evidense for me to decide"

Sorry Lazs, unless you are an atheist, it aint gonna make sense to you.
Much as believing in a deity makes no sense to me.

As for evidence, my tiny acorn was satisfied years ago that there is a multitude of evidence to how we all arrived where we are now. To me this evidence is empirical and irrefutable. (SP?)

I don't have, or need, faith. It is just a truth to me. I don't take the absence of a deity on faith. I just know that it is not the right answer.

I watched David Blaine levitate on TV the other night. It was plain as the nose on your face. Do I believe he really levitated? Not a chance. There is sound evidence that this is, in fact ,not something us humans can do.

I guess I don't believe in magic.

RTR

weaselsan · « **Reply #82 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:34:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
I have no problem with being exposed to people practicing faith. I frequently pass a huge billboard asking if I've "Got God?"...got no problem ignoring it. I used to have a co-worker who prayed before each meal...I would respectfully wait for him to finish before we would eat lunch together.

But when it comes to government, I expect neutrality so that there is no question that I will be treated equally eventhough I am a minority in faith.

Help me understand the purpose of "In God We Trust" and "under God". Why would you have an issue if they were removed? Do you think that it is supressing your religion if they were removed?

They have been there since the founding of the nation. The whole idea of
God in our political system is that our rights are God Given "Endowed by their (Creator)with certain inaliable rights. Not given by man. Man can not take rights given by God.But can take rights given by man.

crowMAW · « **Reply #83 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:39:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
If where to believe the constitution is a valid document Gay marriage is legal in all 50 States.

Legal in that the marriage of a gay couple granted by one state is recognized in another. At least that is my opinion...this hasn't been tested yet by the Supreme Court and theirs is the only opinion that counts. The Court has so far refused to hear the only case that has been submitted on the subject. And until the Court rules, States and local governments can, and often do, enforce laws that they prefer.

BTW, this does not mean that a state cannot refuse to grant a marriage to a gay couple at this time.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #84 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:44:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
If we always took that philosophy then some minorities would still be riding in the back of the bus and using separate but "equal" facilities.

So you equate bumps on a coin with not being served at a lunch counter due to the color of your skin.

Okay....

crowMAW · « **Reply #85 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:49:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So you equate bumps on a coin with not being served at a lunch counter due to the color of your skin.

No...I'm saying that the concept of not going to court in order to settle a constitutional question because it is expensive is silly.

It is obviously important enough to someone to foot the expense of going to court...but if it really isn't that important of an issue, the government can always decline to fund a defense. Is that OK?

lada · « **Reply #86 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:49:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by tikky
Didnt Hitler and Nazis hate Christians too?

Neg. their enemy were "Jews" so when they wanted to get rid of you, you became a jew.

For example Slovakia, had majority of christians , orthodox christians and they were ally of Germany during WW2 with own Nazi regime. So as far as church supported them, or didnt make any troubles to them, they had no problems at all.

Even after assasination of Haidrich, when German were kinda pathetic and they shot death all males from several vilages, they usualy offered life to pastor.
Actualy in Lidice pastor deny their offer and ask them to be shot with his friends.
Later on, when real terrorist ... ohh sorry i mean freedom fighters were find, they has been killed and all those who were involved in the church where they were hiding were also executed.

Hitlers goal had 2 legs. Superrior race and evil jews. That was enough to point on whoever.

weaselsan · « **Reply #87 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:51:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
Legal in that the marriage of a gay couple granted by one state is recognized in another. At least that is my opinion...this hasn't been tested yet by the Supreme Court and theirs is the only opinion that counts. The Court has so far refused to hear the only case that has been submitted on the subject. And until the Court rules, States and local governments can, and often do, enforce laws that they prefer.

BTW, this does not mean that a state cannot refuse to grant a marriage to a gay couple at this time.

But you Quoted the 14th ammendment as a reason why States do not have the power to deny the right of Atheists to hold office. And I agree...it is spelled out clear as a bell. I am demonstrating that the Constitution (Since the last half century) is no longer a valid document. The Full faith clause leaves not one shred of doubt...a legal marriage in one State is legal in all. We are using the Supreme Court in an attempt at Social engineering and it is coming back to bite us. The Supreme Court has become 5 (majority) appointed for life dictators.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #88 on:** December 30, 2005, 05:54:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RTR
I don't have, or need, faith. It is just a truth to me. I don't take the absence of a deity on faith. I just know that it is not the right answer.

Using logic, prove the existance or nonexistance of God.

If you cannot, then your belief in the existance or nonexistance of God is not based on logic.

Here is an example of the use of logic.

By your definition, Faith is "2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence"

Yet you provide no evidence or logic to your belief in the nonexistance of God. It is just your gut feeling, or as you say, "I just know that it is not the right answer."

Therefore, even though you say you are faithless, you have a belief that does not rest on logical argument.

You have faith.

RTR · « **Reply #89 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:02:45 PM »

You missed the part where I said that there was enough empirical evidence to convince me of the non-existance of a deity.

As for the rest...uhhh no, I don't think I need to do that.

How about you show me irrefutable proof that a god exists. I mean hard evidence, something you can actually touch.

RTR