Author Topic: Atheists discriminated against (Read 2763 times)

weaselsan · « **Reply #90 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:07:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Suave
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 ?

ROTFLMAO.. you don't know a Liberal from a conservative. Listen to Air America then listen to rush Limbaugh....Bush is a Liberal:

Gunslinger · « **Reply #91 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:07:53 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RTR
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

well the actual touching part might be a little difficult but definatly "hard" evidence.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #92 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:08:29 PM »

I am agnostic. I don't believe in God. I believe in evidence and logic.

crowMAW · « **Reply #93 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:10:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
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.

OK...so for the sake of argument lets say that God does give those rights. Then that was the case back 100 years ago too...but "In God We Trust" was not the national motto, and "under God" was not in the Pledge. So why do we need it? And why would it bother you if it were removed?

weaselsan · « **Reply #94 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:12:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by RTR
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

Show me empirical evidence...irrefutable proof that life sprang from a primordial soup. You use the word deity..how about the Creator.
Have at it, let all the best scientific minds in the world today, the best scientific labs anything they need...now create a living cell.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #95 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:18:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Have at it, let all the best scientific minds in the world today, the best scientific labs anything they need...now create a living cell.

They are just a few steps away. Synthetic RNA has been produced.

weaselsan · « **Reply #96 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:21:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
OK...so for the sake of argument lets say that God does give those rights. Then that was the case back 100 years ago too...but "In God We Trust" was not the national motto, and "under God" was not in the Pledge. So why do we need it? And why would it bother you if it were removed?

Since we accept that our rights come from God (Creator) can be anyones God not just the Christian one even though God is the same in all great religions. We need it to remind us where are inaliable rights come from. Having our rights as free people coming from God in no way impedes your right to not believe in anything. Why does it bother you if it stays? Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?

weaselsan · « **Reply #97 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:24:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
They are just a few steps away. Synthetic RNA has been produced.

Life can only come from life. They also falsified stem cell research..Snuppy ring a bell.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #98 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:24:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?

In one of my previous lives, the Pope had me put under house arrest because I espoused heliocentricity.

Chairboy · « **Reply #99 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:25:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Incidently can you think of anytime in your life religion has denied your rights to do or say anything you believe?

I've been staying away from most posts that aren't directly related to my original question, but this is a doozy.

Weaselan: You're... you're joking, right? Religion has been behind almost every large scale censorship drive in this country. When you adopt the concept of morality as being inextricably linked to religion, then use morality as the measure for whether something should be censored or not, religion is the motivating force behind preventing people from doing and saying things.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #100 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:27:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
Life can only come from life.

I think you assertion may need some basis.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #101 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:36:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think you assertion may need some basis.

I think therefore I am?

weaselsan · « **Reply #102 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:37:05 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?

Crowmaw you know better than that...They can't pass a law requiring all guns be turned in. First they would have to ammend the Constitution. You know the feds, then the States by 2/3. Then pass any anti-gun law you
like. An activist Court is one that would ignore the fact that it violated the Constitution. Non activists judges read the Constitution...activist judges get "Vibes" They smoke a doobie and get eminations.

weaselsan · « **Reply #103 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:43:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I think you assertion may need some basis.

How's this for basis....No one has ever created life without life. The reason, because it takes life to create life. You think that might be basic enough.

crowMAW · « **Reply #104 on:** December 30, 2005, 06:59:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by weaselsan
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.

I'm not sure I understand the problem. The Supreme Court has always acted in the way that is does now. It interprets the Constitution. Not just over the past 50 years...but for the past 200 years.

It has always been the case that sometimes laws are passed that are unconstitutional. They stay on the books, and sometimes enforced, until a case is submitted and the SCOTUS agrees to render a decision with its opinion. Unconstitutional laws exist so long as no one has enough of an interest to file a judicial complaint...or if the SCOTUS refuses to hear the case.

The SCOTUS may refuse to hear a complaint for several reasons...but usually because they are too intimidated by the politics of the issue, or if they believe that a remedy may be possible. In the case of gay marriage, it was probably a combination that it is a political hot potato and because there was talk of a constitutional change that would leave no doubt about the definition of marriage.