- Banned
- #21
Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth
Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.
What's a sky fairy? A fag on an airplane?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth
Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.
I don't see how teaching people about religion is indoctrinating. Are you suggesting that no one has the freedom to agree or disagree with something they learn about?
I don't see how teaching people about religion is indoctrinating. Are you suggesting that no one has the freedom to agree or disagree with something they learn about?
Teaching an adult about religion is not indoctrination. But teaching a child, who is unable to form their own opinions, is - at least IMHO.
That's not true.One doesn't exist w/o the other
Because you said so?
If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?
The Atheist says the cross "It does not represent Jews, Muslims, Mormons or atheists."
Sure it does. The God Damned Jews put Jesus on the Cross. The Muslims believe Jesus survived the Cross. Mormons believe Jesus died on the Cross. And, Atheists are just Jews. See, the Cross represents everyone.
Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth
Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.
Yet, clearly dumb enough to not realize that God isn't a sky fairy. He's your father and mine.
I don't see how teaching people about religion is indoctrinating. Are you suggesting that no one has the freedom to agree or disagree with something they learn about?
Teaching an adult about religion is not indoctrination. But teaching a child, who is unable to form their own opinions, is - at least IMHO.
Atheists Are Some Of The Dumbest People On Earth
Yet strangely not dumb enough to believe in sky fairies. Go figure.
Yet, clearly dumb enough to not realize that God isn't a sky fairy. He's your father and mine.
My father is none of your damned business. It is clearly against USMB rules to bring family into a debate. Knock it off.
Yet, clearly dumb enough to not realize that God isn't a sky fairy. He's your father and mine.
My father is none of your damned business. It is clearly against USMB rules to bring family into a debate. Knock it off.
So I cant talk about God the Father now? Im pretty sure that's not the intention of the rule your citing.
My father is none of your damned business. It is clearly against USMB rules to bring family into a debate. Knock it off.
So I cant talk about God the Father now? Im pretty sure that's not the intention of the rule your citing.
I don't give a rats ass what you say about "your father". Keep talking about "mine" and you will get a war the outcome of you will not like.
So I cant talk about God the Father now? Im pretty sure that's not the intention of the rule your citing.
I don't give a rats ass what you say about "your father". Keep talking about "mine" and you will get a war the outcome of you will not like.
God is your Father in Heaven. It's true whether you like it or not. And it's not against the rules to say it.
How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!" (1 John 3:1a).
Not what I said, so that's nothing but straw.That's not true.One doesn't exist w/o the other
Because you said so?
If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?
Not what I said, so that's nothing but straw.That's not true.
Because you said so?
If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?
Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Period. The government has nothing to do with that - as they shouldn't.
If the non-religious and/or non-believers are offended because those who practice their CONSTITUTIONAL right to freedom OF religion, too fucking bad for the non-believers. There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended.
I covered this above. The right to have no faith at all is covered by the constitution.
Protecting fragile eyes from images they deem associated with one faith or another however is not.
Especially in a museum that is not owned or operated by the state which is the basis of the opposition to the suit.
It isn't about "protecting fragile eyes". It's about government not being allowed to indoctrinate our kids or foster an "approved" religion or any religion.
Sorry Jillian. Was simply attempting to stay on topic.
You're right, government does not have a right to impose religion on anyone.
And that's not what's happening in this case.
How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!" (1 John 3:1a).
The opposite is true, they cannot coexist at all.Not what I said, so that's nothing but straw.Because you said so?
If someone wants to teach their kid that there is no G-d, does government have the right to pick a religion and subject the child to it?
Freedom OF religion is not the same as freedom FROM religion. Period. The government has nothing to do with that - as they shouldn't.
If the non-religious and/or non-believers are offended because those who practice their CONSTITUTIONAL right to freedom OF religion, too fucking bad for the non-believers. There is no constitutional right NOT to be offended.
One can't exist without the other.
It isn't about "protecting fragile eyes". It's about government not being allowed to indoctrinate our kids or foster an "approved" religion or any religion.
Sorry Jillian. Was simply attempting to stay on topic.
You're right, government does not have a right to impose religion on anyone.
And that's not what's happening in this case.
ok fair enough. so i'll try to do the same. for what it's worth, i don't particularly mind if they display that 'cross'. it doesn't affect me one way or the other. i certainly wouldn't have filed suit over it. but i stand by my view of the 1st amendment. i don't think it applies here, though. if they fabricated a cross to put in the memorial, my view of it would change. but i remember when those buildings came down and that was left standing. it comforted some people. nothing more, nothing less.