Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,983

When South Florida atheists held their first meeting, they were just five friends, having a beer at a bar.

Full Story

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2425 Sep 8, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
Bummer, right?
Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin are best known as the first astronauts to land on the moon and take that "giant leap for mankind." But you probably don't know that before they emerged from the spaceship, Aldrin pulled out a Bible, a silver chalice, and sacramental bread and wine. There on the moon, his first act was to celebrate communion.
Frank Borman was commander of the first space crew to travel beyond the Earth's orbit. Looking down on the earth from 250,000 miles away, Borman radioed back a message, quoting Genesis 1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." As he later explained, "I had an enormous feeling that there had to be a power greater than any of us-that there was a God, that there was indeed a beginning."
The late James Irwin, who walked on the moon in 1971, later became an evangelical minister. He often described the lunar mission as a revelation. In his words, "I felt the power of God as I'd never felt it before."
Charles Duke, who followed Irwin to the moon, later became active in missionary work. As he explained, "I make speeches about walking ON the moon and walking WITH the Son [of God]." Guy Gardner is a veteran astronaut who speaks in churches on the reality of God.
"To look out at this kind of creation and
not believe in God is to me impossible."
Astronaut John Glenn
Point that's relevant to the article?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2426 Sep 8, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
Why call it 'morals'? Why not just call it my "feel good philosophy that let's me feel good about myself when I act like a complete a-hole"?
Pig.
Charlie wrote:
Something you got to understand about morals. They are never personal. That's whim, or what I've described above. A set of rules, in order to qualify as morals, has to be universal in nature.
Because you think so? That's hardly relevant to my morals. Call it what you need to.
keltec 9mm

Hialeah, FL

#2427 Sep 8, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
http://snipurl.com/rnjce
we've been here already
"The Government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion." -- Treaty of Tripoli, 1798. UNANIMOUSLY approved by Congress and signed by John Adams, 2nd President of the United States"
You seem intent on arguing with yourself. I already agreed that the federal government wasn't founded on the Christian religion. That is quite obvious since the framers told Congress to keep their hands off religion. Religion, being a state power, most of the states, you know where the people actually lived, were founded on the Christian religion. Heck, even Thomas Jefferson wrote Christian based laws while governor of Virginia.
keltec 9mm

Hialeah, FL

#2428 Sep 8, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Point that's relevant to the article?
The point is theists have a tendency to express their theism, always will, despite the attempt by atheists to remove all vestiges of God/religion from government.

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2429 Sep 8, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
Please! A little realism here!
If government schools and institutions are not to teach or promote religious values because there are associated too closely with a particular religion, then they will only teach and promote government approved values.
And what will be these government approved values? Most likely, those of secular humanists, which is the same as atheists?
So why should secular humanists have a state approved monopoly on moral, ethical, social and political instruction in the public schools?
The argument of atheists and secular humanists is disingenuous. We know what they really mean to do.
I would propose no moral, ethical, philosophical, social or political instruction in the public schools at all! Just reading, writing and arithmetic. And just reading technical manuals! Nothing of a philosophical nature. That's it!
Would any of you secular humanists go for that?
Exactly what are they teaching now that you have a problem with?
john

United States

#2430 Sep 8, 2009
What gives anyone the right for anything. There is no good, no evil, no standard. Who are you to decide if I want to kill my neighbor. Can there be any lines or standards, who judges? Failure to make moral distinctions is a huge problem in secular humanists thinking and allows evil to thrive.
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
SCOTUS, Roe v. Wade, Mr. Justice Blackmun for the majority opinion - "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
So, even though "those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus" you feel you are the ultimate authority on the subject and we should all defer to you.
As Jefferson said Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe?
Note that I am NOT pro-abortion, but what gives you the right to decide for everyone?

“Invisible Pink Unicorn”

Since: May 08

Location hidden

#2431 Sep 8, 2009
john wrote:
What gives anyone the right for anything. There is no good, no evil, no standard. Who are you to decide if I want to kill my neighbor. Can there be any lines or standards, who judges? Failure to make moral distinctions is a huge problem in secular humanists thinking and allows evil to thrive.
<quoted text>
Does someone have the right to kill who ever because some god told him to kill him/her? Does that make it right and moral?

In secular humanists thinking you do not kill your neighbor because you would not like your neighbor to kill you.

In secular humanists thinking if I kill my neighbor what are my other neighbor going to think of me? Will they now want me dead thinking I may try to kill them next?
john

United States

#2432 Sep 8, 2009
Atheists are such a small percentage of the population and don't kill in the name of their nothing, but, often because there is no standard they subject themselves to. If you didn't have to fight the inherent moral law so much nonbelievers would likely have killed us off by now. Percentage wise it's not even close between believers and nonbelievers. If you knew you could steal and never get caught would you? Why, why not?
nina wrote:
<quoted text>
right, because there's so many atheist suicide bombers and atheists shooting priests and churchgoers

“www.benehrmann.c om”

Since: Nov 08

White Suburbia, CA

#2433 Sep 8, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is theists have a tendency to express their theism, always will, despite the attempt by atheists to remove all vestiges of God/religion from government.
To continue...

Following the rationalists failed attempt to keep church and state separate, the fundies then verbally persecute the rationalists for their taboo proposition and "immoral" lifestyle.

Ironically, it should be considered taboo to worship some mystical folklore.
john

United States

#2435 Sep 8, 2009
Yeah, the personification of selfish as opposed to selfless. Any scenarios when public scorn wouldn't be of consequence? All the time. Jump right in slash that throat, rape that coed, take the cash on the desk nobodies looking. Why are our standards so alike? It's not natural selection, mores, etc. They fall far short of an explanation.
Jammercolo wrote:
<quoted text>
Does someone have the right to kill who ever because some god told him to kill him/her? Does that make it right and moral?
In secular humanists thinking you do not kill your neighbor because you would not like your neighbor to kill you.
In secular humanists thinking if I kill my neighbor what are my other neighbor going to think of me? Will they now want me dead thinking I may try to kill them next?
john

United States

#2437 Sep 8, 2009
That went out the window when the ignorance of no position was exposed and you resorted to transparent snark. Thank you it' yet another weakness in nothinking. Where were you when atheists were pointing out they don't organize, congregate or meet? The article begins when south florida atheists held their first meeting....... Alex is watching your ineptitude and cringing. Ready for that Christian forum example yet doctor duck? The stump has proven you wrong on several occassions, not that it matters but it's fun to remind someone with a God complex. I like pig also, but, knowing this you might not use it. Surprise me quack, quack. What position are you defending pre bang, pre bang, pre bang,,,,,,,,,,Stump the doctor and drive him to Mexico! Vote conservative and point at the nothing.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Point that's relevant to the article?

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2438 Sep 9, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
<quoted text>
You may be a fundamental atheist if-
you use one, or more, of the following alternate spellings: GOD-"gawd" JESUS-"jeeezus" "jayzus" "jebus" "jeebers" ......
Uh-oh! Now I can't use gawd, jayzus or jebus any more because if I do, then I'm a - what was that again - oh, yeah: fundamental atheist.

Just as long as I'm not a fundamentalist (or fundie) atheist, because that insulting term would force me to stop using those words.

Whatever you do, please don't use that term. I have no power over your manipulation.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2439 Sep 9, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
Heck, atheists believe life came from a rock, so to speak, and now we are getting a lesson in logic.
YOU MIGHT BE A FUNDIE IF you feel insulted and "dehumanized " when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, and life itself evolved from a primordial soup, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt and dust by magic.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2440 Sep 9, 2009
keltec 9mm wrote:
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
And scientifically correct to say that it ends at abortion.
keltec 9mm wrote:
"I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception."
So?
keltec 9mm wrote:
"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being.[It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Abortion can be neat.
keltec 9mm wrote:
"By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."
Genius. And life was present before fertilization, too. The sperm and egg are alive.

You don't spank the monkey, do you keltec, because all kinds of life is lost on your lamp shade if you do.
keltec 9mm wrote:
"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter the beginning is conception."
zzzzzzzz
keltec 9mm wrote:
Apparently Blackmun didn't do his homework.
Damn, that's interesting.

Too bad if you don't like that or approve of abortion. Jayzus didn't have a say in writing all of the laws.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2441 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
The fact is, the country has been worse off with each succeeding administration because that is just the way things are. It's all downhill! When corpses rot, they just keep rotting! That has been the history of the world.
Yet you continue to carry water for the Republicans.

Bodies rot faster without embalming or refrigeration.

But I say, hey, let's get it over with. This is what I used to call the Dan Quayle theory. I thought that America is decaying, and no forward progress can be made until it dies, is cremated, and a new country is built from the ground up from the ashes. So why slow the process by electing Bill Clinton. Give us Quayle.

That was 1992. That was before I had ever heard of George W. Bush. Or Sarah Palin.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2443 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
I would propose no ... philosophical, social or political instruction in the public schools at all! Just reading, writing and arithmetic. And just reading technical manuals! Nothing of a philosophical nature. That's it!
How's that different? The kids graduate knowing none of those things now, and it's led to a renaissance of theistic, magical thinking and conservatisim.

They need a liberal education in the liberal arts.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#2444 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
The answer, like the question, is a paradox. You figure it out!
I mean, you can't pose an illogical, paradoxical question, and then expect a logical answer!
I thought you atheists were the realist around here!
the answer is that you have constructed your god too enthusiastically and --- ooops --- created contradictions.

and now you are too dishonest to withdraw the contradictions, so you try to explain them with mysticism

really very humorous.

but who cares, the god is a nasty, egotistical, immature, flake; anyway

you can have i'm I don wan i'm

hee's too silly for me

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#2445 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
If I were the Emperor of Rome, or just any dictator, I wouldn't need anyone else's approval, acceptance, and acknowledgment. They would need mine!
And as for any need, that's why we have therapists and atheism. Atheists make up their own morals that let them feel good about themselves. So why should the Emperor care how others feel?
<quoted text>
You're talking politics here, not morality or empathy.
<quoted text>
That "imaginary construct" establishes a code of moral conduct that will make people feel bad about themselves when they violate it. As Christians strive to please God and not man, he is held to a far higher standard than what men might demand of him. And besides, there are so many people all wanting to be pleased in different ways that one will end up being like a lying, hypocritical politician in the end.
I mean, who really likes these oily types who flatter others only to gain their favor?
Indeed some men may be controlled through religious doctrine. While this may be a fact and even a truth, that religion is a tool of control, the doctrine is rendered useful and no evidence is advance as to truth.

The usefulness of the tool (religion) is not measured but it's failure in a given case, or by it's success in another given case; but rather by the aggregate effect of it's employ.

History has the evidence of the massive moral failure of religion, of it's impedance of human advancement, in the aggregate religion has been a colossal failure as a servant of humanity.

Religion is a lie, and not even a useful lie; although one must admit that many have advanced their personal wealth and sexual prowess through religion.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#2446 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not been an example of the "good, and decent atheist" from the contempt, abuse and denigration you have heaped on others. But then, you have your own moral standard that tells you that you are perfect and have done nothing wrong. And besides, the objects of your contempt deserve it!
A good healthy dose of self-righteousness certainly soothes the soul of the secular humanist.
complaints from the rough trade in the room

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#2447 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
George Bush was the President of the United States. The United States government is secular. Therefore, the office of the president is secular.
But not necessarily the President. Point?

Are you shitting me with this, Charlie?

Obviously this verbal sleight of hand is intended to try to absolve American Christianity of George Bush. Once again, as with Hitler, it's not whether you own up to or try to distance yourself from that biblical student and disciple of Christ, George Bush.

Speaking of verbal sleights of hand, Charlie, it's precious how the US is a Christian nation whenever that suits you, and a secular nation when a Christian embarrassment like Bush shows up. That's why we treat your conclusions as we do: they're borne of sophistry.

Back to Jayzus and America: You had a huge population of American Christians that uncritically voted for Bush because their priests, pastors and ministers told them to do so. Clergy referred to Kerry as "the abortionist," and some priests were threatening excommunication for voting for him.

That's what Jesus can do for a nation: flush it. You've got a huge fraction of America pithed, and zombified: "Less brains, more faith!" The rest of the public cannot live in a democratic society when there are so many easily manipulable people mixed in among them. The rest of us throw our hands up in wonderment how America can't solve a single problem.

Having clergy choose a president is a pretty stupid move, especially with such nave clergy. Boy were they fooled! And just by seeing a bible in Bush's hands, which you didnt see or hear about again after November 2004, when the prop was no longer needed, also the time the cowboy hat disappeared.

Despite their horrible judgment in 2000 and 2004, the clergy, these charlatans and societal parasites, were out pushing for Sarah Palin in 2008. LOL. Good call, Father Pedophilus. Stupid is as stupid does.

And you can't see why we don't respect your faith? Or you for choosing it? Or why we want its influence out of our lives. You guys suck at politics, for starters.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 33 min Richardfs 2,394
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 39 min Eagle 12 232,930
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 59 min _Bad Company 157
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 1 hr _Bad Company 23,204
Yes, atheists can be fundamentalists 14 hr Thinking 3
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 23 hr Mikko 2
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... Sun Thinking 3
More from around the web