Atheist / Theist Reconciliation Thread

[Arjay81]

Tell me where I'm wrong, I have yet to see a law that could stop someone. If it doesn't prevent something, how can it be a preventive measure? All you can say about any law is that society will do x to you if you break one of our rules.

Do you know all who consider criminal acts and their reason for not following thru? That is called prevention.

 

[soylentgreen]

not to someone who lacks rationale.
yes your pigheadedness and bigotry is exactly why. There can be no reconciliation until you learn to let it go. I'm not going to lump in all atheists with you because I'm not that much of a bigot. so the only rational way to live this to be a nihilist.

Such a bitter pointless existence does not appeal to me so have fun in your hatred and stew in your own vitriol it makes no difference to me I feel sorry for you but your own stubbornness keeps you there.

I do not lack rational. In fact i have given you a rational. You of course have failed to back your claim of a rational by giving one. If the shoe fits it fits on you.

There is no bigotry. Your name calling is all you can do to hide behind the fact that you fail to show any rational explanation.

Nihilist!! How laughable. You do not have a clue what a nihilist is.

Once again you demonstrate that the best you can do is fling mud in a pitiful attempt to hide the fact that you cannot give even the most simplest rational for theism. I really am laughing at you.

 

[CLAX1911]

I do not lack rational. In fact i have given you a rational. You of course have failed to back your claim of a rational by giving one. If the shoe fits it fits on you.

You stated that I can't be rational. So it would be a waste of time to try and prove otherwise.

You have preconvinced notions and sweeping generalizations. Somehow I'm supposed to believe this is rational.

I don't, so when you say you are to me it's just based on ignorance and prejudice, therefore a lie.

There is no bigotry. Your name calling is all you can do to hide behind the fact that you fail to show any rational explanation.

Nice try.

Nihilist!! How laughable. You do not have a clue what a nihilist is.

sure.

Once again you demonstrate that the best you can do is fling mud in a pitiful attempt to hide the fact that you cannot give even the most simplest rational for theism. I really am laughing at you.

You refuse to even accept the possibility. So what would be the point in attempting?

Tell me again how rational you are. Maybe you'll eventually convince yourself.

 

[rwee2000]

Do you know all who consider criminal acts and their reason for not following thru? That is called prevention.

So prove it was the law that stopped them.

If someone says I'm going to kill someone and then doesn't it doesn't mean the law stopped them.

 

[Arjay81]

So prove it was the law that stopped them.

If someone says I'm going to kill someone and then doesn't it doesn't mean the law stopped them.

You are making the allegation, prove your version.

 

[JustHanging]

No, he is just trying to justify his bigotry and hate of anything that he does not approve of.

After reading this post, I watched more closely. I see you were right. Thank you, I stand corrected.

 

[bluesmoke]

it's not. Look right under my screen name. My title is "Supreme knower of all". Next time read the bio and know who you're talking to.
Nothing I say is debatable, it's Supreme knowledge. So I will never say anything that is debatable.

How dare you!? I am the Supreme knower of all. You don't look for illogical things in my statements my statements are logical and if they're not to you you readjust your logic.

This is a debate forum. If nothing you say is debatable, there is no sense in exchanging post as that would be illogical. It is not logical for you to be on this forum. Or, the forum needs to change it's name to reflect something more operatively in keeping with your pretentious omniscience.

 

[CLAX1911]

This is a debate forum. If nothing you say is debatable, there is no sense in exchanging post as that would be illogical.

Feel free not to exchange posts with me at anytime.

It is not logical for you to be on this forum. Or, the forum needs to change it's name to reflect something more operatively in keeping with your pretentious omniscience.

speak with the moderators.

 

[wolfsgirl]

As I said, this is not a thread about whether or not God, or gods, is real. I accept that you don't believe, and I do not feel compelled to try to change your mind.

This is about getting two groups of people, with very different opinions, to stop fighting. Is proving my beliefs are real the only way you'll accept my right to hold them, unharassed? Should I wait for you to prove the non-existence of God before I accept your decision to withhold belief?

The only way to stop the fighting is for people to keep their religion or non religion to themselves. I once saw a quote that said something like "your religion is like your penis. It's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around, and don't try to shove it down my throat". Your religion is yours, mine is mine, don't try to make laws based on yours, I won't try to make laws based on mine.
The problem is I really haven't seen very many cases where atheists or agnostics were trying to pass laws based on their beliefs, but we all see cases where prayer in schools is being pushed, and we all know that it isn't just any prayer but Christian prayer. I have no problem with kids praying, but being led in only one religions prayer is a no go have a moment of silence and let them use it as they choose.
Then there are the ones that are pushing to tell women what they must do with their bodies. I get it some think abortion is horrible, but not everyone believes that. Unless you are the one that has to live with the decision you don't get to make the decision.
Gay marriage, as a lesbian in the deep south I can tell you all about religious people trying to remove the right to civil marriage that we finally got passed. My marriage has nothing to do with anyone else, so why try to make it null and void by force of law?

Other than a couple of religious monument cases have atheists pushed for any law that requires others to live by atheist beliefs? What are atheist beliefs other than I don't believe in any God? As for the monument cases I think that if one religious icon is allowed, then they should be required to allow all.

See, I don't care who you are, but when you use your beliefs to intrude on another persons life we have an issue.

 

[Glitch]

The problem is I really haven't seen very many cases where atheists or agnostics were trying to pass laws based on their beliefs

Funny, but not surprising, that you left out the anti-thiests, or the vehement religion haters. Because I see them trying to force their lack of belief on everyone else, including using government to persecute other religions.

Other than a couple of religious monument cases have atheists pushed for any law that requires others to live by atheist beliefs? What are atheist beliefs other than I don't believe in any God? As for the monument cases I think that if one religious icon is allowed, then they should be required to allow all.

It depends on the context of the monument. The frieze within the Supreme Court building contains a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, along with all the other historic law givers from Menes, to Solomon, to Confucius, all the way up to Charlemagne, John Marshall, and Napoleon. Therefore, in the case of the Supreme Court frieze the Ten Commandments are depicted with historical law-givers and has no religious context. Monuments that are erected for remembrance purposes are also acceptable considering the context, even if they are religious depictions. Context determines everything.

What is not acceptable is for any public monument to advance or promote any one religion over any other. The US must be either inclusive with all religions, or exclude all religions. Either way it must be done equally.

 

[OlNate]

The only way to stop the fighting is for people to keep their religion or non religion to themselves. I once saw a quote that said something like "your religion is like your penis. It's fine to have one, it's fine to be proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and start waving it around, and don't try to shove it down my throat". Your religion is yours, mine is mine, don't try to make laws based on yours, I won't try to make laws based on mine.
The problem is I really haven't seen very many cases where atheists or agnostics were trying to pass laws based on their beliefs, but we all see cases where prayer in schools is being pushed, and we all know that it isn't just any prayer but Christian prayer. I have no problem with kids praying, but being led in only one religions prayer is a no go have a moment of silence and let them use it as they choose.
Then there are the ones that are pushing to tell women what they must do with their bodies. I get it some think abortion is horrible, but not everyone believes that. Unless you are the one that has to live with the decision you don't get to make the decision.
Gay marriage, as a lesbian in the deep south I can tell you all about religious people trying to remove the right to civil marriage that we finally got passed. My marriage has nothing to do with anyone else, so why try to make it null and void by force of law?

Other than a couple of religious monument cases have atheists pushed for any law that requires others to live by atheist beliefs? What are atheist beliefs other than I don't believe in any God? As for the monument cases I think that if one religious icon is allowed, then they should be required to allow all.

See, I don't care who you are, but when you use your beliefs to intrude on another persons life we have an issue.

Ok, so, I agree with the notion that religious folks shouldn't be able to impose their beliefs on others, nor should their belief system influence politics by default (I say by default, because it's impossible to remove one's religion entirely from politics, as each person is allowed to vote however they want for whatever reason. But policy should most certainly not default to pandering to religion). Live and let live has been a common theme here, from both sides.

Just a point of clarification: does "keep their religion to themselves" mean strictly as it pertains to law?

 

[OlNate]

Funny, but not surprising, that you left out the anti-thiests, or the vehement religion haters. Because I see them trying to force their lack of belief on everyone else, including using government to persecute other religions.

It depends on the context of the monument. The frieze within the Supreme Court building contains a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, along with all the other historic law givers from Menes, to Solomon, to Confucius, all the way up to Charlemagne, John Marshall, and Napoleon. Therefore, in the case of the Supreme Court frieze the Ten Commandments are depicted with historical law-givers and has no religious context. Monuments that are erected for remembrance purposes are also acceptable considering the context, even if they are religious depictions. Context determines everything.

What is not acceptable is for any public monument to advance or promote any one religion over any other. The US must be either inclusive with all religions, or exclude all religions. Either way it must be done equally.

Heya, Glitch. Are there any American examples of atheists imposing laws that forces anyone into irreligion?

 

[wolfsgirl]

Funny, but not surprising, that you left out the anti-thiests, or the vehement religion haters. Because I see them trying to force their lack of belief on everyone else, including using government to persecute other religions.

It depends on the context of the monument. The frieze within the Supreme Court building contains a depiction of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, along with all the other historic law givers from Menes, to Solomon, to Confucius, all the way up to Charlemagne, John Marshall, and Napoleon. Therefore, in the case of the Supreme Court frieze the Ten Commandments are depicted with historical law-givers and has no religious context. Monuments that are erected for remembrance purposes are also acceptable considering the context, even if they are religious depictions. Context determines everything.

What is not acceptable is for any public monument to advance or promote any one religion over any other. The US must be either inclusive with all religions, or exclude all religions. Either way it must be done equally.

Can you show examples of anti- theists trying to force their lack of belief on others or the persecution you have seen?

I agree it depends on the context and have no problem with the various depictions in the Supreme Court as they are varied and show different law makers/givers from different time periods and beliefs. But like the 10 commandments statue, I believe it was in Oklahoma, they would only allow their particular religious statue to be put up. If one is allowed then others should be too. All or none.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Ok, so, I agree with the notion that religious folks shouldn't be able to impose their beliefs on others, nor should their belief system influence politics by default (I say by default, because it's impossible to remove one's religion entirely from politics, as each person is allowed to vote however they want for whatever reason. But policy should most certainly not default to pandering to religion). Live and let live has been a common theme here, from both sides.

Just a point of clarification: does "keep their religion to themselves" mean strictly as it pertains to law?

Yes in law and my front door. I don't expect churches to be shut down, or street preachers in public places to be silenced, but on my property I have the right to be left alone. I don't go door to door to try to sell others my personal beliefs don't come to my house to sell yours. (not you specifically, but anyone) If I want to seek religion there is a church on just about any corner, I can go seek it out.

 

[OlNate]

Can you show examples of anti- theists trying to force their lack of belief on others or the persecution you have seen?

I agree it depends on the context and have no problem with the various depictions in the Supreme Court as they are varied and show different law makers/givers from different time periods and beliefs. But like the 10 commandments statue, I believe it was in Oklahoma, they would only allow their particular religious statue to be put up. If one is allowed then others should be too. All or none.

Were it up to me, I'd go for the "include it all" approach. Religion is too much an aspect of humanity to erase it. I'd also include a nod to the irreligious, though you'll have to come up with a symbol. What do you think a good one would be?

 

[Glitch]

Heya, Glitch. Are there any American examples of atheists imposing laws that forces anyone into irreligion?

Atheists, no. Anti-theists, absolutely. There is a difference. In both Oregon and Colorado it is a very clear demonstration of religious persecution by the anti-theists in government.

Can you show examples of anti- theists trying to force their lack of belief on others or the persecution you have seen?

Here are two recent examples:

U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to Colorado baker in landmark clash over religion, civil rights

Supreme Court Vacates Ruling Against Oregon Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Wedding Cake

 

[OlNate]

Yes in law and my front door. I don't expect churches to be shut down, or street preachers in public places to be silenced, but on my property I have the right to be left alone. I don't go door to door to try to sell others my personal beliefs don't come to my house to sell yours. (not you specifically, but anyone) If I want to seek religion there is a church on just about any corner, I can go seek it out.

Totally reasonable. I had door knockers before. I didn't mind them, but it was a different brand of religion than I practice, and I don't like the anxiety associated with rejecting people, so I put up a sign. Can't remember exactly what it said, but something to the effect of "If you're here to discuss religion, thank you for your concern, but I've landed where I've landed". I never had a knock on the door again.

But ultimately, I would imagine that it is illegal to trespass where you live. If you are being harassed, after telling them not to bother you anymore, you should call the police.

Door knocking is pretty specific to one or two denominations, as far as I know. My understanding is that the vast majority of churches do not engage in this.

 

[OlNate]

Atheists, no. Anti-theists, absolutely. There is a difference. In both Oregon and Colorado it is a very clear demonstration of religious persecution by the anti-theists in government.



Here are two recent examples:

U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to Colorado baker in landmark clash over religion, civil rights

Supreme Court Vacates Ruling Against Oregon Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Wedding Cake

But that has nothing to do with religion, Glitch. That has to do with what discrimination laws are in effect where the business is.

I'm looking for a specific example where Christians, or Muslims, or any other brand of theist, was forced to give up their personal religious freedom. The bakers could still hold onto their opinions, go to their church, choose not to marry someone of the same sex...their personal freedoms were never in danger. Do you have an example where someone's personal freedoms were infringed upon?

 

[wolfsgirl]

Were it up to me, I'd go for the "include it all" approach. Religion is too much an aspect of humanity to erase it. I'd also include a nod to the irreligious, though you'll have to come up with a symbol. What do you think a good one would be?

I agree with the all of it approach. I have no clue, and I feel no need to have a symbol put on anything. Seeing a cross or star of David or any other religious symbol doesn't offend me if I don't like it I can walk away. What offends me is only one religion being given a place of special honor on public grounds and all others being denied the same ability to have theirs depicted.

Look at Christmas decorations, since that time is here again, People getting offended over a coffee cup design or people not saying merry Christmas for all of November through new years. Can't we just be happy with the fact that someone saying happy holidays is wishing you well or that someone saying merry Christmas is also wishing you well? Christmas decorations on public property should allow all religions or beliefs to have their decorations presented. IF you have a nativity, also have a star of David, a yule log, a festivus pole, whatever.

 

[Daisy]

This is a debate forum. If nothing you say is debatable, there is no sense in exchanging post as that would be illogical. It is not logical for you to be on this forum. Or, the forum needs to change it's name to reflect something more operatively in keeping with your pretentious omniscience.

Do you not recognize sarcasm when you see it? SMH...

 

[wolfsgirl]

Atheists, no. Anti-theists, absolutely. There is a difference. In both Oregon and Colorado it is a very clear demonstration of religious persecution by the anti-theists in government.



Here are two recent examples:

U.S. Supreme Court hands victory to Colorado baker in landmark clash over religion, civil rights

Supreme Court Vacates Ruling Against Oregon Bakers Who Refused Lesbian Wedding Cake

Those are anti discrimination laws, the same ones that include religious belief. Businesses are not religious institutions.

 

[wolfsgirl]

Totally reasonable. I had door knockers before. I didn't mind them, but it was a different brand of religion than I practice, and I don't like the anxiety associated with rejecting people, so I put up a sign. Can't remember exactly what it said, but something to the effect of "If you're here to discuss religion, thank you for your concern, but I've landed where I've landed". I never had a knock on the door again.

But ultimately, I would imagine that it is illegal to trespass where you live. If you are being harassed, after telling them not to bother you anymore, you should call the police.

Door knocking is pretty specific to one or two denominations, as far as I know. My understanding is that the vast majority of churches do not engage in this.

No solicitation signs do not apply to religious groups in my area. The only thing I can do to keep them out is have a locked access point. My front yard would cost around $10k to fence off since I live on a very large piece of property so that's a no go.

 

[OlNate]

I agree with the all of it approach. I have no clue, and I feel no need to have a symbol put on anything. Seeing a cross or star of David or any other religious symbol doesn't offend me if I don't like it I can walk away. What offends me is only one religion being given a place of special honor on public grounds and all others being denied the same ability to have theirs depicted.

Look at Christmas decorations, since that time is here again, People getting offended over a coffee cup design or people not saying merry Christmas for all of November through new years. Can't we just be happy with the fact that someone saying happy holidays is wishing you well or that someone saying merry Christmas is also wishing you well? Christmas decorations on public property should allow all religions or beliefs to have their decorations presented. IF you have a nativity, also have a star of David, a yule log, a festivus pole, whatever.

Of course. But I think that kind of sensitivity is a part of why I think this discussion is important. Nothing happens in a vacuum. One hundred years ago there was no "War on Christmas". Why do you think there is now?

I think every religion should have the opportunity to express themselves publicly. Not so much because I'm an Evangelist, but religion, for many, is culture, and I think nations should be proud of their culture. As diversity of population grows, so does diversity of culture. It's something we should be proud of. Perhaps if it were less weaponized...

 

[Glitch]

Were it up to me, I'd go for the "include it all" approach. Religion is too much an aspect of humanity to erase it. I'd also include a nod to the irreligious, though you'll have to come up with a symbol. What do you think a good one would be?

Believe it or not, I agree with you. Even though I am an atheist and couldn't care less about anyone's religious beliefs, I am also aware that I am in the minority. The overwhelming majority of the planet believes in something that I don't. It would also be incredibly hypocritical of me to deny others the right to believe anything they desire while reserving that right exclusively for myself.

All religious beliefs should be accepted by government, all should be treated equally, and no religious belief should be forced upon anyone. Everyone is free to believe, or not believe, whatever they wish.

 

[OlNate]

No solicitation signs do not apply to religious groups in my area. The only thing I can do to keep them out is have a locked access point. My front yard would cost around $10k to fence off since I live on a very large piece of property so that's a no go.

That's a huge gap. I'd support your efforts to change that law, if, indeed, that is the law.

Must you open the door?