Why The Atheists Fight

[LittleLightShining]

I would like to draw attention away from Theocrat, Allyinoh, Familydog, and Hiki.

 

[TER]

"I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. " (Revelation 3:15-16)

As spoken by the Lord. Many interepret this to mean that those who will be judged the most will be those who know the commandments of Christ, go around preaching and pretending to live the Christian Way, but only outwardly and as a show. Those who have rejected Christ outright because of their doubts or upbringing will be judged less.

This is also referred to by Christ in one of the Gospels. Unfortunately, I'm at work and can't stay in front of the computer too long to search for it!

'Talk' to you guys soon!

 

[Theocrat]

Finland Reasoning?

Well you're just avoiding here. If you say that somebody cant make sense of those rights in an right and true way, THEN HE BLOODY HELL CANT MAKE SENSE OF THEM! Mere playing with words, you either say yes or no.

I'm not avoiding anything here. The implications of my saying that "atheists" cannot make sense of rights in a final, right, true, and consistent way is that they still try to make sense of those rights in accordance with their own naturalistic religion. For instance, some "atheists" believe that rights come from our evolutionary animal instincts that we possess in ourselves as more evolved animals. Other "atheists" believe that rights are what the electrochemical processes in our brain interpret for us. Other "atheists" suggest that rights are just whatever society and culture dictate to us based on norms and values agreed upon within society and cultures. In short, "atheists" have no universal agreement about the nature of rights and where they come from, and this proves my point. "Atheists" cannot objectify human rights in a rational way because, in the spirit of egalitarianism, every "atheist" has their own version and conception of what those rights are; therefore, there is no consistent way for them to make sense (justify) those rights I mentioned to you.

So basically I have no morals for judging anyone? Listen mate. I have every single fucking reason in the world to judge those people. I saw the documentary "Fall from Grace" and found those people to be lowlife. And for the record they thanked God for last year's school shooting here in Finland ending with 9 dead people. So that alone gives me all the right to judge them.
And isn't that just arrogant, you have the morality to judge them and I dont. And please no more playing with ambiguous adjectives.

So let me get this straight. Because you saw a documentary, that gives you an absolute moral standard to judge the members of Westboro Baptist Church based on how it made you feel in their assessment of a school shooting in Finland? With all due respect, Hiki, that is the type of irrationality that I'm talking about which "atheists" will use to make their own subjective arguments and judgments on an issue. You saw a documentary; therefore, you can rightly judge a group of people to be morally deficient. That's simply nonsense, "mate." I can't believe this is how an "atheist" fights to establish moral standards and common ground for human liberty and dignity.

 

[Hiki]

Ok, so I think we should add Hiki to that list, too. I have yet to see him make any kind of statements pertaining to liberty and freedom.

I respect everyone's freedom of choice in whatever they do, be it religion, relationships, you name it. Everyone has the liberty to train their beliefs.
I thought these were automatic and dont even need to be mentioned?

If you got the other impression from my posts, well I'm just debating Theocrat who seems to support a religious test to hold public offices which I'm strongly against. Religion and government should have almost nothing in common. Anyone can be in a leading position regardless of their personal beliefs.

 

[Theocrat]

The Cycle Continues

Please, let's not argue the bible. I know you guys care greatly for it, and my degrees and knowledge of it will never be enough to convince you. So let's drop it.

I care more about the cause of liberty, freedom of all religious persuasions, then I do to persuade you against your faiths. Just please don't use the bible to persuade me, I reject it absolutely and without excuses. I am a man of laws and literature, and good arguments, the bible will never apply to me because I refuse in all manner of my being to accepting what I consider man-made ancient literature.

I would like to draw attention away from Theocrat, Familydog, and Allyinoh, and arguments about religion, and focus this back on a mutual understanding of principles.

I know you and I have a mutual understanding of principles as it relates to limited government and equality before the law for all (otherwise we both wouldn't be supporting Congressman Paul and conversing on these forums). I've asked you to justify your principles, and all you continue to post are subjective opinions on the subject. You state that you are a man of laws, but how as an "atheist" do you justify immaterial things such as "laws" in your materialistic beliefs? You believe in "good arguments," but how do you make sense of the laws of logic in order to judge what a "good argument" is?

You want a "mutual" discussion between Christians and "atheists" on principles, yet you do not allow the Christian to use the Bible as the standard by which he establishes those principles. What type of discussion are we supposed to have on this thread then, Kade, if you're going to just "stack the deck," so to speak? You claim to care about the cause of liberty and freedom of all religious persuasions, yet you deny the freedom of the religious to persuade others in establishing their own views liberty, even if it entails using the Bible. Can you see the hypocrisy in that?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

I'm not avoiding anything here. The implications of my saying that "atheists" cannot make sense of rights in a final, right, true, and consistent way is that they still try to make sense of those rights in accordance with their own naturalistic religion. For instance, some "atheists" believe that rights come from our evolutionary animal instincts that we possess in ourselves as more evolved animals. Other "atheists" believe that rights are what the electrochemical processes in our brain interpret for us. Other "atheists" suggest that rights are just whatever society and culture dictate to us based on norms and values agreed upon within society and cultures. In short, "atheists" have no universal agreement about the nature of rights and where they come from, and this proves my point. "Atheists" cannot objectify human rights in a rational way because, in the spirit of egalitarianism, every "atheist" has their own version and conception of what those rights are; therefore, there is no consistent way for them to make sense (justify) those rights I mentioned to you.

Erhm, atheists can find their own personal base for morality just fine. Seems like your trying to pigeonhole atheists in their views. Morality does not have to come from the supernatural, its natural and can be discovered by every human being. Your delusional mate. Saying that a supernatural god established rights, and that morality only makes sense when referring back to a deity, is absurd.

You can even ask a theist to find the ultimate reason why they think there are certain rights in this world, and they won't even be able to answer you. Most will just say, "because that is whats right".

 

[Hiki]

So let me get this straight. Because you saw a documentary, that gives you an absolute moral standard to judge the members of Westboro Baptist Church based on how it made you feel in their assessment of a school shooting in Finland? With all due respect, Hiki, that is the type of irrationality that I'm talking about which "atheists" will use to make their own subjective arguments and judgments on an issue. You saw a documentary; therefore, you can rightly judge a group of people to be morally deficient. That's simply nonsense, "mate." I can't believe this is how an "atheist" fights to establish moral standards and common ground for human liberty and dignity.

Yes. In the video they showed how the Wesboro-guys went into a military funeral waving signs saying "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Thank God for IED's". I find that absolutely horrific and no mourning relative should tolerate behavior like that. They also showed how the WB-guys were loudly bashing gays, they showed absolutely no respect for gay people just because they feel attracted to the same gender. And yes they cheered for those dead pupils.
Therefore, I have absolutely no respect for people like this, and if you do, well I respect your opinion even though I would find it disturbing.

 

[Hiki]

Erhm, atheists can find their own personal base for morality just fine. Seems like your trying to pigeonhole atheists in their views. Morality does not have to come from the supernatural, its natural and can be discovered by every human being. Your delusional mate. Saying that a supernatural god established rights, and that morality only makes sense when referring back to a deity, is absurd.

You can even ask a theist to find the ultimate reason why they think there are certain rights in this world, and they won't even be able to answer you. Most will just say, "because that is whats right".

Yeah, take monkeys for example. They live in communities, they love and respect each other and take care of the young. They work together and so on... So monkeys seem to have the same basic moral values as humans, even though they are a bit primitive still. Did God give monkeys a Holy Book with moral values?

 

[Theocrat]

Fundamental Disagreement

Erhm, atheists can find their own personal base for morality just fine. Seems like your trying to pigeonhole atheists in their views. Morality does not have to come from the supernatural, its natural and can be discovered by every human being. Your delusional mate. Saying that a supernatural god established rights, and that morality only makes sense when referring back to a deity, is absurd.

You can even ask a theist to find the ultimate reason why they think there are certain rights in this world, and they won't even be able to answer you. Most will just say, "because that is whats right".

Morality does indeed proceed from the supernatural or immaterial because morality is itself supernatural and immaterial in nature. You claim that the idea of a supernatural God to establish rights is absurd, but I ask you, on what grounds is it absurd, and are those grounds you use to judge universal and absolute?

Christian theists know where rights come from. They come from God. I've not heard any Christian theist suggest that rights are certain just because they are. Other theists may reason that way about the nature of rights, but one would not expect that from a Christian theist.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Morality does indeed proceed from the supernatural or immaterial because morality is itself supernatural and immaterial in nature. You claim that the idea of a supernatural God to establish rights is absurd, but I ask you, on what grounds is it absurd, and are those grounds you use to judge universal and absolute?

Morality may not be able to be pin pointed in this material world, but that does not mean its not natural. You could say I have a different definition of what is natural.

On what grounds? On the grounds of obvious common sense, and not perverted extremist thinking that a pro-theocracy type of guy would hold. You seem to fear a world without a supernatural deity, because then we supposedly wouldn't have an excuse to be good human beings. Well, thats a delusion that you won't be able to convince ANYONE here of.

Christian theists know where rights come from. They come from God. I've not heard any Christian theist suggest that rights are certain just because they are. Other theists may reason that way about the nature of rights, but one would not expect that from a Christian theist.

Yeah, I'm almost 100% positive I can go out and ask around 10 Christians where rights and morality come from. Some of them will imply that morality comes from the heart/soul, others might say the bible. I can then ask them who wrote the bible, and the ones with functioning brains will tell me that the bible was not written by god.

 

[Theocrat]

My Andrew-Austin Argument

Morality may not be able to be pin pointed in this material world, but that does not mean its not natural. You could say I have a different definition of whats natural.

If morality cannot be "pinpointed" in the material world, then, rationally speaking, doesn't that assume that morality is immaterial?

On what grounds? On the grounds of obvious common sense, and not perverted extremist thinking that a pro-theocracy type of guy would hold. You seem to fear a world without a supernatural deity, because then we supposedly wouldn't have an excuse to be good human beings. Well, thats a delusion that you won't be able to convince ANYONE here of.

So because you believe it's a delusion for someone to assume a supernatural deity in order to establish morality and rights, that makes it common sense? I can turn the argument around and say the opposite of what you just claimed, too, and conclude that my view is based on common sense. You'll have to do better than just name-calling and your own uncomfortable feelings on the subject, Andrew-Austin.

Why the fuck are you apart of this forum anyways? Ron Paul is clearly for separation of church and state, hes a wise enough fellow to know better.

Congressman Paul is clearly for "separation of church and state," huh? I guess you haven't read Dr. Paul's column in which he addresses this faulty notion. Oh, "wise man," how foolish of you to presume...

 

[Theocrat]

A Thread Challenge

Yeah, I'm almost 100% positive I can go out and ask around 10 Christians where rights and morality come from. Some of them will imply that morality comes from the heart/soul, others might say the bible. I can then ask them who wrote the bible, and the ones with functioning brains will tell me that the bible was not written by god.

Prove your point. Start a thread/poll asking Christians where rights and morality come from, and you might convince me that you'd be correct in what you've asserted above.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

If morality cannot be "pinpointed" in the material world, then, rationally speaking, doesn't that assume that morality is immaterial?

Sure. Like I said I have a different interpretation of the word "natural". Just because something is not material does not mean it is super natural. Morality could partly stem from the material world though, I'm no expert on the subject matter.

So because you believe it's a delusion for someone to assume a supernatural deity in order to establish morality and rights, that makes it common sense? I can turn the argument around and say the opposite of what you just claimed, too, and conclude that my view is based on common sense. You'll have to do better than just name-calling and your own uncomfortable feelings on the subject, Andrew-Austin.

Well first of all, what argument have you provided that morality and rights cannot exist without a supernatural deity? Fuck the idea of morals making sense, thats not even all that relevant of a question. Sure you can rant on and on about how rights and morality "make sense" when a god supposedly "says so". But do rights and morality already exist for atheists and people of all different faiths? Yes of course they do, and it is only in your subjective view/ opinion that their base for morality is not good enough.

And I don't feel "uncomfortable" about this subject at all, I'm just kind of bewildered by your extremist bull crap.

Congressman Paul is clearly for "separation of church and state," huh? I guess you haven't read Dr. Paul's column in which he addresses this faulty notion. Oh, "wise man," how foolish of you to presume...

And this proves what, that Paul endorses the idea of a theocracy?! LOL

Its not my fault your incapable of interpreting what he wrote there in the proper context. He is for separation of church and state to a certain degree. He is just against the government infringing upon public religious expression, in this case expression in a government building.

Prove your point. Start a thread/poll asking Christians where rights and morality come from, and you might convince me that you'd be correct in what you've asserted above.

Haha, how about no. Its enough for me to know that my point is valid, I don't care to prove it. Fuck I don't even care what the supposedly "correct Christian view" is supposed to be.

You seem to assume that all Christians believe every word and dogma in the bible, which in my personal experience they do not.

 

[sophocles07]

I would like to draw attention away from Theocrat, Allyinoh, Familydog, and Hiki.

Sorry, I gotta respond to this stuff. By the way, I agree entirely with original post.

First of all, you just called me an ogre in your last reply, but time and space don't permit me to go back into the archive of forums where you've, admittedly, used all sorts of expletives against me and my views.

You are an ogre/Theocrat. I said I use this kind of language with those who wish to impose their irrationality on me.

Second of all, I've never claimed to subvert the U.S. government to work like that of Saudi Arabia. You've said this about me before, and I challenged you to locate any thread or post where I made that preposterous claim. To this day, you have not proven my saying that, so I wish you would evade from lying on me.

You want a theocracy. Period. That’s the government model in Saudi Arabia. Whatever little “differences” you have, it’s still “based on the law of God”.

Third of all, if I'm wrong for believing that Jesus Christ is the only way for establishing absolute truth in life, then your problem is with God, not me. As a Christian, I cannot afford to compartmentalize my faith by dividing certain aspects of it to the private arena and others to the public arena. No, my beliefs require that I maintain a totality of faith in how I understand government, politics, law, etc. I will not give that up for anybody, especially in this relativistic, postmodern culture that's eroding America today. If you "atheists" want to fight fairly (as suggested in the original post), then you must deal with this from your theistic partners in the freedom movement.

Blah blah blah

I never said anything about this; I’m talking about theocracy. As I said, my family is mostly Christian. I don’t persecute or even bring it up with them.

Since you and Hiki seem reluctant to read the Bible about the true tenets of Christendom, then let me recommend you read this summarization of Christianity as a start in your thinking about what it really stands for.

So you don’t believe in the fall from Eden? Ok.

Let me tell you that I would believe murder and rape were wrong "outside" of God's revelation. The point is I could never justify why murder and rape were wrong because I would have no absolute standard to judge and know with irrefutable certainty that they were wrong. After all, knowledge is "justified belief." I know non-believers believe murder and rape are wrong, but they can't justify why it's wrong; therefore, they could never know in an absolute sense that these two atrocities were immoral.

Right. You’ve created God; then he tells you not to kill and murder. Good job.

I don't want to stir up more debate about the Truth of Christianity, but the ridiculously oversimplified version of Christianity which Hiki posted continues to rear it's ridiculously oversimplified head and I would like the opportunity to address some of these points and why they offend me. I take my faith very seriously and unless you can prove to me that God absolutely does not exist, which you cannot, I will continue in my faith. I will continue to try to show the love and forgiveness which God has so gracefully given to me.

Here is the New Oxford Annotated Bible’s translation:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.” ETC

Gen 3:1-7

No matter if it says “apple”—it says “FRUIT”. They eat of fruit and are “enlightened” then sent out of Eden: (3:14-24; which also involves a “flaming sword” held by cherubim).

SO: Hiki did not “simplify”. It’s a folktale. It is obviously metaphor. BUT Theocrat (&co.) take it literally, so it’s not uncalled for to say –this is the literal, “Absolute truth” they want to enforce on the whole society.

If you want to take it as metaphor and symbolism, that’s fine; I have absolutely no problem with believers who interpret it that way. To say it is literal is...SIMPLY: insane. And, just a note: it seems to me that once you admit the non-literal truth (metaphor or symbolism) as an interpretive tool in reading the Bible, the whole Bible is open to analysis that way (Jonah, Job, etc.).

I'm not avoiding anything here. The implications of my saying that "atheists" cannot make sense of rights in a final, right, true, and consistent way is that they still try to make sense of those rights in accordance with their own naturalistic religion. For instance, some "atheists" believe that rights come from our evolutionary animal instincts that we possess in ourselves as more evolved animals. Other "atheists" believe that rights are what the electrochemical processes in our brain interpret for us. Other "atheists" suggest that rights are just whatever society and culture dictate to us based on norms and values agreed upon within society and cultures. In short, "atheists" have no universal agreement about the nature of rights and where they come from, and this proves my point. "Atheists" cannot objectify human rights in a rational way because, in the spirit of egalitarianism, every "atheist" has their own version and conception of what those rights are; therefore, there is no consistent way for them to make sense (justify) those rights I mentioned to you.

You should be aware that you have no universal notion of morality fr. the Bible—you just CLAIM to have one.

Morality does indeed proceed from the supernatural or immaterial because morality is itself supernatural and immaterial in nature.

Why? You are a Platonist. A good act has no immaterial form, that’s an imaginative construct. A good act or a beautiful object are so materially. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. AND you can’t explain why it has to; or prove that it does.

Christian theists know where rights come from. They come from God. I've not heard any Christian theist suggest that rights are certain just because they are. Other theists may reason that way about the nature of rights, but one would not expect that from a Christian theist.

You say the rights come from God because the Bible is from God. When a skeptic says “How do you know?” the reply is “CUZ IT IZ”.

If morality cannot be "pinpointed" in the material world, then, rationally speaking, doesn't that assume that morality is immaterial?

I don’t like the use of the word “pinpointed” (I am aware it is not yours). Killing an innocent child is wrong, that’s a purely material situation requiring no supernatural law. That’s pinpointed, if you want to use the word.

You just have a book written by tribes people telling you its wrong that you think is supernatural.

So because you believe it's a delusion for someone to assume a supernatural deity in order to establish morality and rights, that makes it common sense?

Yes.

 

[Kade]

Sorry, I gotta respond to this stuff. By the way, I agree entirely with original post.



You are an ogre/Theocrat. I said I use this kind of language with those who wish to impose their irrationality on me.



You want a theocracy. Period. That’s the government model in Saudi Arabia. Whatever little “differences” you have, it’s still “based on the law of God”.



Blah blah blah

I never said anything about this; I’m talking about theocracy. As I said, my family is mostly Christian. I don’t persecute or even bring it up with them.



So you don’t believe in the fall from Eden? Ok.



Right. You’ve created God; then he tells you not to kill and murder. Good job.



Here is the New Oxford Annotated Bible’s translation:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.” ETC

Gen 3:1-7

No matter if it says “apple”—it says “FRUIT”. They eat of fruit and are “enlightened” then sent out of Eden: (3:14-24; which also involves a “flaming sword” held by cherubim).

SO: Hiki did not “simplify”. It’s a folktale. It is obviously metaphor. BUT Theocrat (&co.) take it literally, so it’s not uncalled for to say –this is the literal, “Absolute truth” they want to enforce on the whole society.

If you want to take it as metaphor and symbolism, that’s fine; I have absolutely no problem with believers who interpret it that way. To say it is literal is...SIMPLY: insane. And, just a note: it seems to me that once you admit the non-literal truth (metaphor or symbolism) as an interpretive tool in reading the Bible, the whole Bible is open to analysis that way (Jonah, Job, etc.).




You should be aware that you have no universal notion of morality fr. the Bible—you just CLAIM to have one.



Why? You are a Platonist. A good act has no immaterial form, that’s an imaginative construct. A good act or a beautiful object are so materially. It has nothing to do with the supernatural. AND you can’t explain why it has to; or prove that it does.



You say the rights come from God because the Bible is from God. When a skeptic says “How do you know?” the reply is “CUZ IT IZ”.



I don’t like the use of the word “pinpointed” (I am aware it is not yours). Killing an innocent child is wrong, that’s a purely material situation requiring no supernatural law. That’s pinpointed, if you want to use the word.

You just have a book written by tribes people telling you its wrong that you think is supernatural.



Yes.

Sophocles, I laughed so loud reading this post, my boss asked if I needed to go home...

 

[LittleLightShining]

Here is the New Oxford Annotated Bible’s translation:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other wild animal that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat from any tree in the garden’?” The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, nor shall you touch it, or you shall die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die; for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves.” ETC

Gen 3:1-7

No matter if it says “apple”—it says “FRUIT”. They eat of fruit and are “enlightened” then sent out of Eden: (3:14-24; which also involves a “flaming sword” held by cherubim).

SO: Hiki did not “simplify”. It’s a folktale. It is obviously metaphor. BUT Theocrat (&co.) take it literally, so it’s not uncalled for to say –this is the literal, “Absolute truth” they want to enforce on the whole society.

If you want to take it as metaphor and symbolism, that’s fine; I have absolutely no problem with believers who interpret it that way. To say it is literal is...SIMPLY: insane. And, just a note: it seems to me that once you admit the non-literal truth (metaphor or symbolism) as an interpretive tool in reading the Bible, the whole Bible is open to analysis that way (Jonah, Job, etc.).

I think it's kind of silly to take the entire Bible literally, especially when Jesus used parables to teach. Also especially in prophetic visions, we see descriptions of things that we might not today describe in the same way with our familiarity with different sorts of technology.

Another thing is, as I think you and other atheists have pointed out, the language is not always translated accurately. Which is part of why my understanding of the Adam and Eve story doesn't quite jive with Hiki's whole ribwoman magic apple approach. It is ridiculously oversimplified as I said before. And even if it isn't, even if (and you know I don't believe this) it was just a folktale myth, his whole point in posting it is to instigate and offend (and he admitted such when he posted it again here in this thread. He directed it at someone in hopes to add fuel to an already blazing fire).

However, this is neither here nor there. I will not pick and choose who deserves liberty based on their faith (or lack thereof). If I heard Ron paul speak and I saw his positions on the issues and I never read a statement of faith it wouldn't matter. I would vote for him. If I read his views and they were all the same and he came out and said he was an atheist, I would vote for him. He understands the Constitution and freedom and liberty and that is the kind of president I want.

To be honest, I think the amount of Christians who wouldn't vote for an atheist simply because he/she was an atheist would be a small fraction. People just don't give it that much thought. I really don't think people care that much. The only thing is that the ones that do care are the loudest. And then you'd have to see where the media would be on it, too. I mean, if Ron Paul was an atheist, he would have gotten some more smear time, but he would be marginalized just the same. I would venture to guess that Obama would have already won the Democratic nomination if he was an atheist.

 

[allyinoh]

I don't know a single atheist who would not fight for your right to speak publicly about anything you wanted, including your faith.

By turning this around, you and Familydog have ignored the point. I am accusing your side of refusing to side with us when it matters, both on libertarian principles and on principles of religious freedom. We may disagree on most things, but when the arm of the government is used to discriminate and stripmine these freedoms, I believe most of you should be more vocal.

You didn't read the two articles I posted I suspect.. nor really read the whole post.

I understand what you're saying. And I'm not trying to make this thread about me, where you would get that from, I'm not sure.

I agree with you. On the things that really matter right now which are our liberties and freedoms, we should work together. I can only speak for myself, not other Christians. I wouldn't be part of this revolution if I didn't feel that way.

So, like I said, I agree with you that we should come together as AMERICANS and not separate each other based on our religious views. However, I am willing to work with people who remain respectful towards others, and that is more than just religion.

Maybe my point didn't come across earlier, but I agree with you that we all shoudl work together. And as I said early, I can only speak for myself and my actions, not other people's.

 

[sophocles07]

To be honest, I think the amount of Christians who wouldn't vote for an atheist simply because he/she was an atheist would be a small fraction. People just don't give it that much thought. I really don't think people care that much. The only thing is that the ones that do care are the loudest. And then you'd have to see where the media would be on it, too. I mean, if Ron Paul was an atheist, he would have gotten some more smear time, but he would be marginalized just the same. I would venture to guess that Obama would have already won the Democratic nomination if he was an atheist.

I really, really doubt this. I mean about Christians voting for Atheists. I would imagine it would be the more enlightened (less extreme) Christians that would do this. A large portion would not. There are probably polls on this.

 

[familydog]

To be honest, I think the amount of Christians who wouldn't vote for an atheist simply because he/she was an atheist would be a small fraction. People just don't give it that much thought. I really don't think people care that much. The only thing is that the ones that do care are the loudest. And then you'd have to see where the media would be on it, too. I mean, if Ron Paul was an atheist, he would have gotten some more smear time, but he would be marginalized just the same. I would venture to guess that Obama would have already won the Democratic nomination if he was an atheist.

I agree. I haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise. When we get past all the attacks and stereotypes of Christians on this board, there is no evidence to suggest that it is the norm of Christians to not vote for an atheist. People can say they won't vote for one all they want, but we all know saying something is one thing, doing something is what counts. I can specifically speak for Catholics on this, and as a whole, they don't really care.

 

[sophocles07]

I mean, just look at this page that has Gallup polls:

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheistSurveys.htm

I think people here need to realize the actual bigotry involved in Christian choices for candidates; you're living in a fantasy world if you think "most" Christians would vote for someone who does not believe in their God.