• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

I am pleased to see that you have chosen to now use the quote code correctly. I appreciate it.



  • It's not my computer;
  • The guest account I use on it does not allow downloads, so I can't just go get a word program;
  • My skill at spelling is so bad that I hardly noticed an error in any of teacher's posts, so I don't even recognize words of my own that need to be looked up;
  • Yesterday I discovered that this computer has Firefox anyway, which doesn't have as good of a spell checker as MS Office, which I use on my computer, but is at least something.

Also, you might notice that over the last week, some of my posts have horrible spelling while others are just fine. This is because the public library's computers have MS Office, while my father's computer has no word program at all.

It's so much easier to simply exorcise torrence then assume you know all the facts and begin to make assumptions.
1) I always used the system correctly. Since making an effort to stifle you whiny babies I've had to do much more work with my posts to get them to quote correctly and having to have at least 2 windows open to reference what the hell was being said. So, don't expect it much longer.
2) You didn't rephrase your response so that it's intelligible.
3)I was merely busting your balls.
 
1) I always used the system correctly. Since making an effort to stifle you whiny babies I've had to do much more work with my posts to get them to quote correctly and having to have at least 2 windows open to reference what the hell was being said. So, don't expect it much longer.
2) You didn't rephrase your response so that it's intelligible.
3)I was merely busting your balls.

Hmm...you didn't ask who teacher was....that's a tell.....
 
1) I always used the system correctly. Since making an effort to stifle you whiny babies I've had to do much more work with my posts to get them to quote correctly and having to have at least 2 windows open to reference what the hell was being said. So, don't expect it much longer.
2) You didn't rephrase your response so that it's intelligible.
3)I was merely busting your balls.

Firefox didn't pick up any errors in that post.

****
The Government is secular.

The Nation is not secular.

The secular government can recognize religious aspect of the non-secular nation. This is not a violation of the 1st amendment as there is no separation of Church and The People.

Recognition does not establish a governmental church, nor give any church governmental authority.

Therefore: Recognition is not endorsement. Recognition is not establishment.

Recognition is nothing more then saying "yup, you believe that".
 
Firefox didn't pick up any errors in that post.

****
The Government is secular.

The Nation is not secular.

The secular government can recognize religious aspect of the non-secular nation. This is not a violation of the 1st amendment as there is no separation of Church and The People.

Recognition does not establish a governmental church, nor give any church governmental authority.

Therefore: Recognition is not endorsement. Recognition is not establishment.

Recognition is nothing more then saying "yup, you believe that".

Tis true. So long as there is no actual law made on the basis of a particular religion; than there is no violation of the separation of Church and State. The display of religious symbols on public property does not suffice for a mixing of Church and State. It would be nice if people recognize other symbols as well, but there is no requirement for it. The individuals of a community own the community's public land and thus it is their choice as to what they wish to display and not. I'd go so far as to say that the 10 commandments which were displayed at a State's Supreme Court (I forget which State this was) as not violation of Church and State either. So long as that court ruled by the laws of man and not the laws of their god; then there was nothing wrong with it. Problems come in the form of actual law. Prayer in public school is fine so long as it's not forced. There can be a quiet time at the beginning of school for prayer if some wish to pray. Faculty and students can gather at the flag pole outside before or after school and pray if they wish. So long as it's completely voluntary, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, theology courses (be them general or specific) in public school is ok too so long as it is teaching and not preaching. I would go as far as to say a required world's religion course would go a long way. Theology has greatly influenced the course man has taken through its societal evolution and there is nothing wrong with studying it; even in the public school sector.

The key is the acknowledgment of the full of our rights, of which one is the right to religious belief and expression. Some atheists will bitch about certain things, some theists will bitch about certain things; it's ok, nothing illegal about bitching. But law can not be enacted which violates the innate and inalienable rights of the individual. That's the end all be all. There are many consequences and responsibilities which come along with freedom, and if we wish to remain free than we must happily shoulder them all.
 
Fine, you're absolutely right, I was too narrow by pointing to xians. This is because xianity is the majority.

Christianity is indeed the majority, and yet outside of taxes (which even the courts have upheld it as necessary) you pointed out no favoritism for any religion at all?

"In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that the exemptions did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court held that the purpose of the exemptions was to neither advance nor inhibit religion; no one particular church or religious group had been singled out to receive tax exempt status. Unlike direct subsidies, which would have unduly entangled the state with religion, tax exemptions created only "minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches." The Court noted that "benevolent neutrality" toward churches and religions was "deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life." - Oyez: Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, 397 U.S. 664 (1970), U.S. Supreme Court Case Summary & Oral Argument

Hows this then - the religious get favoritism for their religions. Feel better now that I included the other religions? :roll:

So you have not pointed out anything that is any kind of favoritism thus far.
 
Those were anti-theist government, not atheist. Atheist governments tend towards secularism.




:lol: uhm ok....


let me ask you then, the "Atheists" that have those sighns, and posters like slip slope, are they "atheists" or "anti theists"

and wouldn't an anti-theist government be filled with atheists by definition?
 
Don't bring up that Superbowl. Mother****ing Rex Grossman...I hate him almost as much as I hate Peyton Manning. Single handedly lost that Superbowl. Could not convert a damned 3rd down all game. D had Indy beat, just needed a little O for the win...nothing. And now, now I have to deal with Minn being if first place because we lost the second game to them...and they have to lose out whereas the Bears must win out to make the playoffs. God damned Vikings! I hope the lot of them burn in hell.


amen



there fixed it for you. :mrgreen:
 
But you wrongly (go figure) attribute atheism to that. Most of those deaths were due to starvation because of a bad government. Atheism has no ideals or dogma to follow, only a lack of belief in the supernatural. If I run over a squirrel with my car it's not because my car hates squirrels.




Spoken like a true believer. :roll:
 
and wouldn't an anti-theist government be filled with atheists by definition?

No, an anti-theist government would be filled with anti-theists. Anti-theists are atheists that are actually "at war" with theism. Most atheists think people are dumb for being religious, but they aren't going to go around vandalizing/bombing churches and killing people or anything like that.
 
Most atheists think people are dumb for being religious...

What's the point of that? I for one don't find belief or faith in a God as "dumb". At one time, I mistakenly thought that, yes, but I have realized that there is nothing dumb about believing in God.

What is dumb is trying to convert people to a certain point of view, or disdaining them for their views because they are different from the ones you (general "you") have.
 
:lol: uhm ok....


let me ask you then, the "Atheists" that have those sighns, and posters like slip slope, are they "atheists" or "anti theists"

and wouldn't an anti-theist government be filled with atheists by definition?

No. First off, there tend to actually be theists in the ranks, you just can't let leadership know cause they'll kill you. The people themselves tend to have many theists as well. There's probably a disproportionate number of atheists as compared to other free countries, but that isn't the main difference. Anti-theism is built on the destruction of religion, all religion. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in gods, there's nothing innate in it which makes one hostile to religion or makes one go out and try to destroy religion and remove its practice. Anti-theism is well employed by communist countries because in those countries there is to be no rival to the power of the leader and the State. Nothing can supersede it, including gods. Thus they move to physically stamp out religion and remove the practice thereof. They will not stand for anything which may be able to claim dominance over the ruling party. But all these people that die at the hands of the State, they aren't being killed in the name of "no god". Atheism isn't employed as justification for the killing. They die in the name of the State, the complete sovereignty and rule of the State is employed as justification for the killing.

Thus atheism is not to blame for the deaths caused by the anti-theist governments.
 
What is dumb is trying to convert people to a certain point of view, or disdaining them for their views because they are different from the ones you (general "you") have.
I think most people could agree with this. BTW Love the Avatar with Tim.
 
What is dumb is trying to convert people to a certain point of view, or disdaining them for their views because they are different from the ones you (general "you") have.

I agree but since Christians and many religion aren't going to back down on that tradition, why should atheists?
 
...because atheists have better things to do?

You mean like stop religious people from making stupid laws that are only based on the religious views? I agree, however, that's all part of the process of converting religious people over.
 
I agree but since Christians and many religion aren't going to back down on that tradition, why should atheists?
It's not a basic tenet of Christianity to do that, some sects of the belief do, most don't. Save your energy for the ones who deserve a good bashing, trust me, I won't stand in your way.
 
So atheists are an organized group now who espouse beliefs?

No, not really. You'll find the great majority of us don't really give a damned. It's really only the jerks who are up in arms about stuff.
 
So atheists are an organized group now who espouse beliefs?

I don't know I am not an atheist. Ask some that are that question. I just see a reason that some atheists try to convert religious people over to atheism.
 
Back
Top Bottom