Atheists on the march in America

Aug 26, 2009 Full story: TurkishPress.com 70,979

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

Full Story
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#2571 Sep 9, 2009
NoGod Needed wrote:
Ok kids, isn't that a nice story?!
And remember kids, if you don't like the story god says mom and dad should stone you to death! Isn't this fun?
NoGod Needed

Liberty, ME

#2572 Sep 9, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
<quoted text>
So you are saying that god is really Charles Manson?
Well lets see, God likes to kill, he lets his angels rape women and get them pregnant,If a woman is raped, then the rapist can pay for the crime by taking care of the woman by marrying her,He likes to watch people suffer, even though he can cure their problem but won't because he is insecure, and jealous, and wants their worship, even though he knows the future of their actions before they are born. did I mention he likes to kill?

No, I think Manson would be a better person on a moral level then the God of the bible. By my morals, I find the bible immoral.
NoGod Needed

Liberty, ME

#2573 Sep 9, 2009
A story with a moral from the bible.......

The sons of god looked down on earth and saw these beautiful women. So being a supernatural creatures, they created tallywackers for themselves and had sex with these women and got them pregnant. God was pissed even though he knew they were gonna do it (because he knows the future) so he made them hang out with the evil one he created, Satan.

So what is the moral of the story?
There are horny angels watching you when you are nakid!
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2574 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
There is only one area where God has created the exercise of free will; To believe in Him…… or to reject Him.
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Is this the Gospel according to Charlie? Because I've got to say, you're the first one in my experience to espouse this doctrine. According to you, the rest of my decisions, which is about ... all of them, only appear to be free will. Pure genius, Charlie. Pure genius.
Where are you going with this heresy?
And you thought you would find nothing new from Christians!

God gave to man in the Garden of Eden story that one opportunity to exercise free will. That is the same choice offered to us. We have our whole lives to come to a decision about it.

All other exercise of free will is an illusion. When you choose to go down one road or some other, your only choice is to either stay on course or to turn away. The destination is predetermined, your choice is not. All other choices are subordinate to these.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2575 Sep 9, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
LOL. Charlie, that argument was terrible. Any argument made to a freethinker that depends on religious belief, like that one, is ridiculous.
What's also ridiculous is engaging in Middle Ages-type scholasticism, an effete philosophical system. You're just a twister full of illogic and unteachability. Santa. How can Santa help you, given how many people believe in him or did until someone told them not to?
Plus, you still don't know what hinders me from belief.
You failed to appreciate the argument because you did not understand it. The point being, that it is not the perceived lack of moral qualities that hinder someone from believing in the Biblical God, because such an atheist would not believe in a god, anyway, even if this god did possess all the moral qualities that would satisfy the atheist's requirements.

The above is simply a dishonest argument and gratuitous attack on Christianity. Atheists should just stick with the blind lack-of-evidence argument if they want to maintain any credibility that they do not have any particular anti-Christian agenda.

The bit about Santa Claus was a joke, of course.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#2576 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
But I'll pose the problem once again for the benefit of other readers: How can one realistically keep the religious worldview out of the public sector without resorting to non-democratic means? Because, one is faced with the problem of classification. Would you advocate that ALL philosophical worldviews be kept out as well? How can a government or society function if no worldview is permitted? No declaration of the rights of man, no glorification of democracy and the American way, no instruction of moral values, humanistic or otherwise, etc., etc. None of this could be taught in schools.
The problem with the above assertion about religious worldview should be part of the public sector is that it assumes that morals and ethics are the exclusive providence of religion. From this faulty premise the writer erroneously concludes that without a religious worldview then there can be no discussion in society about morals and ethics.

However, the writer ignores the fact that that in ancient Greece, philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle grappled with questions of morality and ethics hundreds of years before the Christian era. Moreover, The ethic of reciprocity, more commonly known as the Golden Rule, was a common Greek philosophy, as stated by Pittacus (640 B.C.-586 B.C.)“Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.”

Albert Einstein understood that a person’s ethical behavior should not be based on religion when he wrote "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." “Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930.
ScienceRules

Plainfield, VT

#2577 Sep 9, 2009
".....it is not the perceived lack of moral qualities that hinder someone from believing in the Biblical God.."

Agreed. It is the lack of actual existence that hinders someone from believing.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2578 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
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"?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Pig.
Because you think so? That's hardly relevant to my morals. Call it what you need to.
LOL! Does the truth hurt, or what? This is the third or fourth time you've called me pig. Every time you do the bell clangs and I score another point! I love it when that is the best you can come up with!

Oh! Yes! Your morals! How about calling them your whims? Or how about calling them your "behavioral preferences at the moment if these are not too much of an inconvenience in your quest to party, get wasted and have all the sex with as many people as you can all guilt free"?

Really! You're an atheist! Why not? There's nothing stopping you except the law. And there are always ways to get around those. LOL!

But maybe it's something else?! Maybe you take your pleasure not in those carnal pleasures, but in the pleasure of your own conceit that you are a moral person.

It's funny about humans. That morality is such a preoccupation of theirs. That they need to believe in their own moral worth. That even atheists have spiritual needs and need to believe, also, in their moral worth.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2579 Sep 9, 2009
Jammercolo wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly what are they teaching now that you have a problem with?
Secular humanism!
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2580 Sep 9, 2009
Another "gotcha" moment from keltec 9mm……
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
And scientifically correct to say that it ends at abortion.
<quoted text>
So?
<quoted text>
Abortion can be neat.
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
zzzzzzzz
<quoted text>
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.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2581 Sep 9, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I only support Republicans for their sole virtue of NOT being Democrats. That's all!

I told you, if I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I would choose dishonesty over hypocrisy.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#2582 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
What you don't understand is that in a free and democratic society people have the right to petition the government. This means they even have the right to petition the government to promote or institute their particular values, even if these are religiously based, such that these are reflected in public policy.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, in part:
Congress shall make no law respecting establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.....

Can you explained as to how your "religious based" petitions to institute or promote ones particular brand of religious values would not be conflict with the First Amendment's Establishment Clause?
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2583 Sep 9, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What they need is a CLASSICAL liberal education. What they are getting is the political liberal one. That's what sucks!

When did liberalism get such a bad name? It used to be a virtue!

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#2584 Sep 9, 2009
Charlie wrote:
<quoted text>
The credibility of the Bible is supported by historical and archeological evidence. The credibility in the Biblical God is arrived at by an examination of the stories and records of the prophets, by the prophetic record and their meaning and symbolism, by the life of Jesus and the remarkable claims about him, the eyewitness testimony and the inexplicable events surrounding him.
All these things may be doubted and debated, but nonetheless, they are several levels above any hypothesis about pixies.
That's the difference.
1. What archaeological evidence directly supports biblical fables?

2. What "records of the prophets"?

3. Can you prove Jesus actually lived? How about some record of Herod's supposed atrocities? Considering how well both the Hebrew and the Romans kept records during the period, there should be some mention of this? How about some record of the agreement between the Romans & Hebrew about releasing a felon in celebration of Passover? Considering how much the Romans loved the Hebrew I'm sure there is some record of this "tradition". Nothing?

4. What "eyewitness testimony". All the gospels were written at least 70 years after the supposed life of Jesus.

5. How come these "inexplicable events" are pretty much the same as previous man-god fables?
john

United States

#2585 Sep 9, 2009
Well, well, well, the nothinkers continue to babble about a God they don't believe in. What's the over on 10,000 posts? It is fitting for me to wander into this world of spin, ad hominem, emotion based bluster (ironic) and flat out lies after watching the fraud in office read what was on the teleprompter. No agenda? Sure little nothings sure. I did get to cross one more thing off my list that confirmed my assumptions of him; excepting the whole empty atheist thing. Wait that's redundant. Where was I: bitter anti-american that fled to Mexico, member of a Grateful Dead cover band, abortion advocate, and now pot smoker. Complete the picture quack, do you have a little Darwin fish on the back of your Volkswagen? This is your spokesperson? Shower me with hate nothings it means I'm on the right track. LOL

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#2586 Sep 9, 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>
The above position is a typical position by those who believed that atheists and non-believers couldn’t possibly be moral since according to this position only those who are religious have morals.
However, this position is untenable by the mere fact that in ancient Greece, philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle grappled with questions of morality and ethics hundreds of years before the Christian era. Moreover, the Spanish Inquisition, Salem Witch trials were conducted by men of morals derived from their christian background. Furthermore, the Holocaust was done in a "christian" nation (Germany) where the christian sheep allowed Jews to be slaughtered.
If Germany had more atheists and Freethinkers during the rise of Hitler then it would have been likely that the Holocaust would not have occurred.

“Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction” Blaise Paschal
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2587 Sep 9, 2009
ScienceRules wrote:
".....it is not the perceived lack of moral qualities that hinder someone from believing in the Biblical God.."
Agreed. It is the lack of actual existence that hinders someone from believing.
It is the lack of EVIDENCE on which you base your argument. The actual existence is still under debate…… among reasonable people.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2588 Sep 9, 2009
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Why are you blaming religion? Take that away and there would still be human nature!

The real culprit is human nature. Christianity's explanation is that this is a fallen nature, fallen to the level of beasts, and from which God will deliver us.
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2589 Sep 9, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
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 naďve clergy. Boy were they fooled! And just by seeing a bible in Bush's hands, which you didn’t 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.
Whoa…… hold on cowboy! What, really, did George Bush do that was so terrible?

Other than displease the leftwing loonies?
Charlie

Papeete, French Polynesia

#2590 Sep 9, 2009
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that you're a pig.
I think that you're projecting.
A projecting pig.
Cland clang clang………

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
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 7 min ChristineM 6,056
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min One way or another 16,847
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 14 min ChristineM 4,873
The Consequences of Atheism 39 min Uncle Sam 806
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 42 min Patrick n Angela 235,736
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 2 hr ChristineM 1,661
Turkey blocks website of its first atheist asso... 4 hr Thinking 1
More from around the web