Why The Atheists Fight

[LittleLightShining]

You and me both brother!

Sister, but I'll take it

Note also that I completely separate someone who *claims* Christianity from someone who *lives* Christianity. In the Religion thread, I demonstrated how Adolph Hitler *claimed* Christianity but did not live it. I could never have voted for him.

On the other hand, I could easily vote for someone who had never heard of Christ yet lived life according to those principles.

Does that seemingly contradict what I said above? Possibly, but the reconciliation of what I say here and what I said above is found in Romans:

“For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” Romans 2:14-16, KJV.

So, I take that to mean that people can believe in the one true God, and not have heard of Christ or Christianity, but they express their beliefs in their *actions* (you always act out what you believe) regardless of whatever 'label' they have attached to themselves.

So I believe that many Native Americans, who believed in the "Great Spirit" were more 'Christian' than the 'Christians' who conquered them and forced them to convert or die. Ant it will be those souls who are judged righteous before their conquerers who are not.



To me, I would be denying the existence of God to vote for someone for whom God did not exist.

However, as I mention above, that is wholly unrelated to any 'labels' people wear, ie 'shaman' 'christian' 'atheist' 'jewish' etc etc

I get it, Gunny. But you and I (and a small portion of other believers) are here, in the Ron Paul camp, where we show our true colors in this war for freedom. Where are the majority of fellow believers? Not voting for the message but the man. And we're going to pay dearly for that. Mark my words.

 

[LittleLightShining]

And hell yeah I'll stay in Finland, at least we still have a bit of freedom left.

And my all-time favorite website www.hel-looks.com . You Finns sure are wacky

 

[Theocrat]

Yeah, Yeah

It has everything to do with it. You imply that we should go be intent, and not the words, so I am applying that same principles to the Establishment Clause, which, if implied by your method of understanding the Constitution implies that there is a "Wall of Separation", no?

No, there is no wall of separation between religion and state in the Constitution, as you seem wont to believe. That phrase comes from a totally different document, a letter to the Danbury Baptists. Never the twain shall that letter and our Constitution meet in understanding original intents of the First Amendment. Besides, Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the First Amendment because he was over in Europe as an ambassador when that part of the Bill of Rights was written and edited!

I am in fact a deeply religious non-believer, as Einstein once said. However, I do not hold to any dogma.

Every disagreement that you've had against my views has been dogma, Kade, so don't give me that neutrality mess.

A person who believes in bombing infidels who don't worship Allah would not get elected in our system. Do they have the right to run? Of course they do. Your bigotry is astounding and I'm surprised more people have not come after you for these views.

Oh, no! You used the "B" word! Uh, oh. I'm in a heap of trouble now. Please don't send the "Hate Crime" Police after me! I'll be a good boy, I promise!

The fact of the matter is I'm no more bigoted in my beliefs than you are, Kade. We've both said some pretty hard and narrow things on these forums about our religious beliefs, so don't even try to take a high ground now.

I think more people are going to start to notice you Theocrat for this, and realize that you are contrary to principles of a democracy and liberty.

Those who would criticize or hate me for expressing my own views are guilty of violating their own professions and philosophies of libertarian discussion and openness on these forums.

You're right. I don't believe in democracy, and neither did our Founding Fathers. America was established as a constitutional republic, not a demo(n)cracy. As for my views on liberty, true liberty comes from God, Who gives us our rights.

 

[Hiki]

And my all-time favorite website www.hel-looks.com . You Finns sure are wacky

THOSE ARE FROM HELSINKI!! The.... Whatever

 

[Theocrat]

"By What Measure Ye Mete..."

You're basically saying that atheists are lowlife and when I attack back I'm supposed to have all the respect in the world.

You said that, not me. Therefore, by your own lips shall you be judged.

 

[Hiki]

You said that, not me. Therefore, by your own lips shall you be judged.

Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
Our rights come from God. God does not give any man the right to deny His existence, especially in the face of obvious evidences. I would have a serious problem if our country had an "atheist" for a President. To me, that would be further indication that God has this country under fierce judgment. I'm serious about that.

Because "atheists" deny God's existence, they have no objective, absolute way of establishing nor accounting for human rights. One need only think of immoral dictators like Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to understand what I mean. As "atheists," they established what rights their citizens had, and they ruled over them without any divine or moral restraints. This is not to say that every "atheist" is a Hitler or Stalin, in any sense. I'm simply drawing out the point that "atheists" are philosophically, and therefore, politically arbitrary when it comes to establishing right and wrong. A society run by "atheists" will lead to either anarchy or totalitarianism.

Governments are established to protect God-given rights, and without acknowledging God's existence, one cannot make sense of rights to life, liberty, property, transportation, or anything else in a final, right, true, and consistent fashion, necessary to have a stable and enduring government. This is the fundamental problem of the belief system of "Atheism." Therefore, I could not and will not ever vote for an "atheist" to office, no matter how well he knows the Constitution or claims to honor his oath of office.

What was this then about?

 

[Theocrat]

I Can't See What You See

What was this then about?

I'm sorry, but I don't recall the sentence or paragraph where I stated that "atheists" were low-lifes. That's your interpretation of what I said, Hiki. If you read and understood my last paragraph in the post you quoted me on, you would see that I acknowledged "atheists" as being created by God with rights from God. That doesn't sound like "low-life" to me.

 

[AutoDas]

Those who would criticize or hate me for expressing my own views are guilty of violating their own professions and philosophies of libertarian discussion and openness on these forums.

You're right. I don't believe in democracy, and neither did our Founding Fathers. America was established as a constitutional republic, not a demo(n)cracy. As for my views on liberty, true liberty comes from God, Who gives us our rights.

We have our right to criticize whoever we want. What you're preaching is not in line with libertarian views. Libertarians don't hold the belief that rights (life, liberty, and property) are granted, only a collectivist soul would think that. You're a constitutionalist like Ron Paul.

 

[allyinoh]

I know many of you are a religious people. I've expressed my feelings quite clearly, and if anything, you know I am eminently willing to defend my position, something that men who fight for liberty and freedom must be able to do. I have nothing against the believer. My thinking you are wrong is not a pronouncement of who or what you are, and my questioning and debating comes from a discussion of the facts and observations of politics and public cultural policy.

I think it is important that some of you take off your blinders for a second and look at the world from a different viewpoint. I'm not asking you to give up God, I'm asking you to imagine you were on our side of the fence, just for a moment.

I don't believe in conspiracies, and I don't really travel too far on the either side of the political spectrum. I do however think there is a concentrated effort to diminish religious freedom in this country, a subversion that has promised to wipe out all tolerance of non-believers or non-Christians.

Consider this piece. Written today.

Is this what you desire? This is what "Conservatives" are pushing. A bigotry and an offensive revision of history that undermines other people's freedoms. Is it that you agree that you refuse to fight this as well? or is it because you don't consider that a freedom or a natural right?

Medved goes so far as to declare a national church.

"As Constitutional scholars all point out, the Presidency uniquely combines the two functions of head of government (like the British Prime Minister) and head of state (like the Queen of England). POTUS not only appoints cabinet members and shapes foreign policy and delivers addresses to Congress, but also presides over solemn and ceremonial occasions. Just as the Queen plays a formal role as head of the Church of England, the President functions as head of the “Church of America” – that informal, tolerant but profoundly important civic religion that dominates all our national holidays and historic milestones. For instance, try to imagine an atheist president issuing the annual Thanksgiving proclamation. To whom would he extend thanks in the name of his grateful nation –-the Indians in Massachusetts?"


This is article is not unique, it is an everyday thing among the growing conservatives and theocratic media outlets. The Heritage Foundation (Townhall is the news outlet of Heritage) Worldnet Daily, The Discovery Institute, and the Culture and Media Institute among others. These organizations are massive, and they machines of revisionism and propaganda.

Can you now for a second, just imagine an OP piece that says that we should strong resist a Christian from being President?

Who is more blind? I would never in all my life say that, even if myself am a non-believer. Why is this form of bigotry acceptable?
Why is it so prevalent on these forums?

A Democrat Illinois State Senator recently just spouted to Atheist Rob Sherman during a court hearing:

"What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous . . . it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!

"This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God," Davis said. "Get out of that seat . . . You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."


I support Ron Paul because I don't believe he would find this acceptable. I bring up these issues because they matter, and most of you take offense, as if I were insulting your religion.

The truth is that you are blind and intolerant. You allow your fellow believers to stomp all over the rights and liberties of others because you too don't apply the same principles you stand for...

I think it is a shame. And it is relevant to the conversation and the movement.

Over 40% of people my age, between 18-29 are non-believers. We are growing. This country is going to be inherited by us, and between all the things we debate about most, there is nothing more pressing and disturbing then the persecution of non-religion over religion.

I have worked hard, as a grassroots organizer and youth leader, to maintain civility and tolerance on my side. You VERY rarely hear of the growing crowds of non-believers turning violent, writing hate speech, or saying that Christians don't belong here, or that this is a "Atheist Nation".

We have engaged the system the way it was meant to be engaged. Through debate, through forums, through media, through conversation.

This appeal to the emotional impotence of the masses from these corporations and organizations, on the backs of most of you, who stand idly by, is a disgrace.

That is why we fight. That is why we are here.

Christians have been in the same position atheists are in. So have other religions. Nothing new is under the sun.

Most of the other Christians I know do not agree with atheists but would never act unkindly towards them because their faith is not about that. However, I have experienced some of the nastiest people who consider themselves atheists. They have no respect towards Christians, even the ones who are respectful towards them. (let me add though that i have met some people who were nasty who called themselves "christians," to be fair)

Me personally, I do not lump people into categories. I make my decisions on someone based on how they treat me, not what their skin color is, religious beliefs are, or sexual preferences or any other collectivist type thinking.

You can't insult people and then want them to understand where you are coming from, it doesn't work like that.

Christianity and religion is being forced into homes, meaning sooner or later we won't be able to even speak about Jesus or the Bible in public. Why would that be something an atheist wants? How is that fair?

 

[familydog]

Christians have been in the same position atheists are in. So have other religions. Nothing new is under the sun.

Most of the other Christians I know do not agree with atheists but would never act unkindly towards them because their faith is not about that. However, I have experienced some of the nastiest people who consider themselves atheists. They have no respect towards Christians, even the ones who are respectful towards them. (let me add though that i have met some people who were nasty who called themselves "christians," to be fair)

Me personally, I do not lump people into categories. I make my decisions on someone based on how they treat me, not what their skin color is, religious beliefs are, or sexual preferences or any other collectivist type thinking.

You can't insult people and then want them to understand where you are coming from, it doesn't work like that.

Christianity and religion is being forced into homes, meaning sooner or later we won't be able to even speak about Jesus or the Bible in public. Why would that be something an atheist wants? How is that fair?

+1

The entire OP, although sincere as it may have been, was meant to bait out certain people into acting like they have in this thread. This creates a self-fullfilling prophecy on the part of certain other people, which reinforces what they already believe. It's that simple.

And Hiki, with all this time your spending posting, you could be reading what I suggested. For an enlightened individual such as yourself, surely you would want to expand your wordly knowledge before you would want to debate random people online.

 

[sophocles07]

That's not Christianity, Hiki. Do some homework before you come on these forums and embarrass yourself due to your straw man arguments which display your own ignorance and irrationality. Now back to the regularly scheduled program of "Why 'Atheists' Fight."

Explain in detail why not (why that is not Christianity). Serpent/Eve; the Eucharist; purgation of sin; etc.

If you believe in the literal of the Bible, how is it untrue that a serpent (“Satan” when read backwards) persuaded/tempted/whatever Eve to eat of a forbidden tree? Thus causing the fall from Eden? This is folktale.

The Eucharist is a symbolic eating of Christ—though that is Catholic, it’s still a branch of Christianity.

Purgation of sin—there are many pedantic differences between sects on how it is done. There remains the psychological conception of “sin” (evil in the “soul”) which must be “removed” (by whatever method).

Calling Hiki’s images “immature” is simply your way of AVOIDING the issue that he is bringing up—which was, quite blatantly, in response to you claiming for your belief system the ONLY one that is “absolutely true.”

What's wrong now? That comic greatly pictures what's going on here. You're basically saying that atheists are lowlife and when I attack back I'm supposed to have all the respect in the world.

Hiki, you are entirely correct. If a CARTOON can summarize the situation better than bandying words about for pages with Theocrat (IRRATIONALIST EXTRAORDINAIRE), it should be posted. Hit the n a i l on the h e a d, you'll avoid smashing your fingers in with the wasted time of arguing over when or whether or how Jesus is coming back.

 

[yongrel]

I don't know why people bother debating with Theocrat anymore (myself included). His name makes it very clear what his aim is.

From wikipedia:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Theocrat, why are you supporting Ron Paul?

 

[kyleAF]

The idea of a "Church of America" is insanely disturbing. Trying to legislate morality is bad enough, trying to legislate faith is a whole nuther level of wickedness. It's for reasons like this that I am adamantly opposed to an amendment defining marriage. Marriage is supposed to be a church affair, not a civil affair. The Gov't should not have any business licensing marriage, conducting marriage, recognizing marriage, or not recognizing marriage. It shouldn't be any business of theirs at all.

Once we legislate one church doctrine, what's next? Will we pass laws on the proper identity of the Messiah???

The idea of the gov't involved in religion makes me want to vomit.

I was canvassing in SC one day, and we ran across a 'true believer' who just loved Bush's 'faith based initiative' programs. I posed the question to him, "Would it be OK to take tax money from Muslims to give to Christian charities?" "Absolutely!" he replied. So I asked again, "Would it be OK then, to take tax money from Christians to give to Muslim charities?" "NO WAY!" he almost screamed. Nothing I could do would convince him of the hypocrisy of his position. I assume he voted for the Huckster.

Now, you already know that I am a strong believer, but you should be able to see above how I think that should or should not influence politics and government.

The bottom line here, is that we each look at the world through our own lens. Like many of the other posters in this thread, what I see on this forum is a lot of atheists attacking Christians and Christian beliefs. And so I tend to get really annoyed when what I see is a lot of atheists attacking Christians only to turn around and complain how unfair it is to have to listen to Christians talk about their faith.

I'm willing to bet the farm on the fact that if the atheists didn't constantly attack the Christians on the forum, they wouldn't have to read so many Christians defending their faith...

And you should also know that by our simple presence here, most of us are not trying to create a Theocracy. Ron Paul may allow his faith based values to influence his concepts of governance, but he would never allow his faith to influence his government. There is a very important difference there.

You should also understand where a lot of Christians are coming from. It has been my experience that atheists become literally enraged at the simple fact that I am a believer. Not because I might share my faith, but simply because I hold it. I am nearly daily attacked, viscously attacked by atheists who scream, holler, cry, rant, and rave about how stupid, deluded, ignorant, brainwashed, etc, etc I am because I believe in God. I sure as hell don't want to come to the Ron Paul forums to try and help save my nation, only to get more of THAT!

I think Jesus was one of history's greatest anarchists. "Swear NO allegiance, make NO oath"... In fact, I think that his philosophy is necessary to live in a truly "anarchic" world (but that's another topic completely ).

It may have been the mob that killed him, but it was love of the State that convinced them.

I agree with the interpretation of the Constitution that was mentioned earlier. Religion may be found in the public sector, but it may not be forced in the public sector, any more than it may be forced in the private sector. It should certainly not be prevented within the public sector. Barring the 10 commandments from a courtroom is neither the letter nor the spirit of the law!

One's faith (or lack thereof) is the most profoundly individualistic thing there is, and should be completely without the State.

That being said, I have no problem debating why my non-belief is better from a philosophical standpoint. But it would be just that: a debate, not an attempt to force anything on anyone.

People *should* be free to believe what they deem appropriate themselves, not what someone tells them to believe.

I think we can all agree on that.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Christians have been in the same position atheists are in. So have other religions. Nothing new is under the sun.

Most of the other Christians I know do not agree with atheists but would never act unkindly towards them because their faith is not about that. However, I have experienced some of the nastiest people who consider themselves atheists. They have no respect towards Christians, even the ones who are respectful towards them. (let me add though that i have met some people who were nasty who called themselves "christians," to be fair)

Me personally, I do not lump people into categories. I make my decisions on someone based on how they treat me, not what their skin color is, religious beliefs are, or sexual preferences or any other collectivist type thinking.

You can't insult people and then want them to understand where you are coming from, it doesn't work like that.

Christianity and religion is being forced into homes, meaning sooner or later we won't be able to even speak about Jesus or the Bible in public. Why would that be something an atheist wants? How is that fair?

+++

 

[sophocles07]

Theocrat, why are you supporting Ron Paul?

We should organize a universal/group forum "ignore" of Theocrat; not ban him, just let him talk in a vaccuum without interrupting everything with irrationality.

I'm half-kidding.

 

[amy31416]

We should organize a universal/group forum "ignore" of Theocrat; not ban him, just let him talk in a vacuum without interrupting everything with irrationality.

I'm half-kidding.

No reason to ban him, but I'm already on your bandwagon. To me, it's like he's from an alternate universe.

 

[SimpleName]

I just wanted to make a comment, because statistics like these always amuse the hell out of me. As a 19 yo, I can assure you that the vast majority of people who are atheist or don't have any use/need for religion, don't do so out of some philosophical reason. (ie, 99% of those people aren't prepared to make a philosophical justification for their beliefs.) It's born out of the same apathy that dominates my generation when it comes to political matters or any issue at all. No one gives a crap, about anything. Literally, there exists nothing, except for the walls that surround us. (No outside world, if you will.)

Excellent observation. It does appear that people generally just don't give a damn. I don't know what the general "care" level was 50 years ago in this country, but it certainly does seem horrifyingly dim now. I very rarely find people who think as deeply as I do about anything. They complain and cry about all their problems, but seem to have no ability to determine why the problems are as they are. I am very worried for what my generation (I'm 18) will possibly have to offer. More apathy, more welfare, more lack of problem-solving. Even the so-called "intelligent" kids have no problem-solving skills beyond their very insignificant calculus and chemistry equations. Reason and Logic, much more important and basic necessities that will actually aid the child in their future lives, are not taught. Therefore, we have the mindless drones we currently see who can't logically explain any of their feelings for anything. Things "just are" to them. It is no different in this situation. Many kids are just atheists because they don't want to take the time to pray or read the bible so they can instead get "wasted". The same goes the other way. Young people just believe in god because "There has to be." They are so brainwashed by their parents and the rest of this horrible world that they MUST believe in God despite the fact that they would never take a moment out of their day to read a few lines from their books of worship.

 

[TER]

Originally Posted by TodaysEpistleReading
I don't consider atheists to be any bigger sinner than I or any other Christian. I do not see them as deluded. I pray for them because I wish them peace. And if I was a saint, I would die for them.

This is really off from my point my friend, and a bit dramatic. I am willing to discuss the philosophy of hellfire and the real "sacrifice" of Jesus and it's applications to morality in another thread. For now, I was making a different point.

This is not dramatic. This is the Christian message. There is no greater love than to give your life for your neighbor. This is the quintessential Christian message. This seems dramatic in light of todays modern beliefs of relativism and self-worship, but was standard in the first few hundred years of the Church. The Church spread by the blood of martyrs. Even in the past century, tens of millions of Russians were executed simply because of their Christian beliefs and way of life.

 

[TER]

The Apostles of Christ suffered constant ridicule, exile, torture, and painful executions because they preached a Risen Christ. If they had not witnessed the Resurrected Christ, why would they live this way? What would be the logic to leave your family, your home, travel far and wide under the constant eye of the ruling authorities, to preach such a message as fantastic as this, knowing full well your end could come at any moment in torture and death? Only with a certain assurance could one accomplish such feats of human will. To His disciples and millions of followers after them, it is an assurance that is more real to them than this evil and vindictive world.

 

[Theocrat]

Why I Support Dr. Paul

I don't know why people bother debating with Theocrat anymore (myself included). His name makes it very clear what his aim is.

From wikipedia:
"Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government. Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Theocrat, why are you supporting Ron Paul?

In summary, I support Congressman Paul because of this. Specifically, I support Congressman Paul because of this.