Why are "atheists" offended by "G-d" ?

[Newby]

It was about 10 years ago that Judge Roy Moore installed a 2 ton monument of the 10 Commandments in the lobby of the Alabama State Supreme Court lobby, and refused to allow any other displays. That is hardly ancient history.

And that forced you to practice a religion how?

It is creating an official gov't religion, or at least having one religion given major preference.

It is not forcing anyone to practice a religion. But then, that was not the statement I quoted. But it is, at the very least, forcing anyone going into that courthouse to consider one religion favored over all others.

But now that you brought up force and practicing religion, how do all the laws forbidding official prayer in schools, religious displays on public property ect, prevent anyone from practicing their religion?

No, it's not creating anything, let alone legislation or law. Why are people so stupid??

 

[AVG-JOE]

The Capitol Building in Florida recently allowed a Nativity Scene to be set up.

Now they have to let a guy set up a Festivus for the Rest of Us pole, a couple of athiest banners, and they're reviewing an application from a Satanic group as well.

As long as the government lets EVERYBODY play, it's all good.

(Insert your preferred Deity here) help them if they turn down the request from the Satanists.

 

[daws101]

The point was that if people are using blue laws (which have been around before most here were born) as an example of being subjected to christian morals/religious morals, then their argument is lost. Atheists and other secular groups are always spouting about christians pushing their views on everyone via law yet can't name one current piece of legistlation that is doing so.

And if you want to kill what brain cells you may have with smoking weed, have at it. Just don't scream later that your neighbor should be paying for your electric, your phone, your rent, etc.. because you're not motivated or intelligent enough to go out and earn a living to support yourself.

ANOTHER FINE EXAMPLE OF CHRISTIAN FAUX INTELLECTUALISM ...and plain old ignorant assumption.

Go smoke your weed dude, nobody gives a damn...

nice tantrum!

 

[daws101]

And that forced you to practice a religion how?

It is creating an official gov't religion, or at least having one religion given major preference.

It is not forcing anyone to practice a religion. But then, that was not the statement I quoted. But it is, at the very least, forcing anyone going into that courthouse to consider one religion favored over all others.

But now that you brought up force and practicing religion, how do all the laws forbidding official prayer in schools, religious displays on public property ect, prevent anyone from practicing their religion?

No, it's not creating anything, let alone legislation or law. Why are people so stupid??

this coming from the most intentionally stupid person on this thread.
why not just accept that you're wrong with some dignity?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

They say you can't prove a negative. So I'd imagine every time an atheist hears or sees "G-d" it only reminds them their disbelief can't be substantiated.

I think G-d is one of those concepts that can be argued for, or against depending on the person. But claiming He exists implies you have proof an atheist would accept. Just as claiming He doesn't exist implies proof as well. But if He doesn't exist, you wouldn't be able to prove it. Doing so would require knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it. And if you had that kind of knowledge you might well turn out to be G-d yourself rendering your arguement moot.

 

[WinterBorn]

And that forced you to practice a religion how?

It is creating an official gov't religion, or at least having one religion given major preference.

It is not forcing anyone to practice a religion. But then, that was not the statement I quoted. But it is, at the very least, forcing anyone going into that courthouse to consider one religion favored over all others.

But now that you brought up force and practicing religion, how do all the laws forbidding official prayer in schools, religious displays on public property ect, prevent anyone from practicing their religion?

No, it's not creating anything, let alone legislation or law. Why are people so stupid??

So installing a 2 ton stone monument to one religion, and not allowing any other displays is harmless? (I'll ignore the unconstitutional part for now)

I notice you elected to ignore my question. Seems to me to be a legit question, considering so many claim atheists are interfering with their right to worship.

 

[WinterBorn]

They say you can't prove a negative. So I'd imagine every time an atheist hears or sees "G-d" it only reminds them their disbelief can't be substantiated.

I think G-d is one of those concepts that can be argued for, or against depending on the person. But claiming He exists implies you have proof an atheist would accept. Just as claiming He doesn't exist implies proof as well. But if He doesn't exist, you wouldn't be able to prove it. Doing so would require knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it. And if you had that kind of knowledge you might well turn out to be G-d yourself rendering your arguement moot.

Atheism, like theism, is about belief rather than proof.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

They say you can't prove a negative. So I'd imagine every time an atheist hears or sees "G-d" it only reminds them their disbelief can't be substantiated.

I think G-d is one of those concepts that can be argued for, or against depending on the person. But claiming He exists implies you have proof an atheist would accept. Just as claiming He doesn't exist implies proof as well. But if He doesn't exist, you wouldn't be able to prove it. Doing so would require knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it. And if you had that kind of knowledge you might well turn out to be G-d yourself rendering your arguement moot.

Atheism, like theism, is about belief rather than proof.

In theory I'd agree with that. But as long as theists try to get their religious BELIEFS into secular laws, then they should be able to prove their BELIEFS are empirically valid. If theists wanna chant and pray and exercise their faith in the privacy of their homes (like Yeshua suggested by the way) then what they believe in matters not at all to me. Wanna believe Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah (he wasn't,) a relative of G-d, or G-d incarnate more power to ya. Wanna impose that belief onto me though and we'll be rolling around in the dirt real quick.

 

[WinterBorn]

They say you can't prove a negative. So I'd imagine every time an atheist hears or sees "G-d" it only reminds them their disbelief can't be substantiated.

I think G-d is one of those concepts that can be argued for, or against depending on the person. But claiming He exists implies you have proof an atheist would accept. Just as claiming He doesn't exist implies proof as well. But if He doesn't exist, you wouldn't be able to prove it. Doing so would require knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it. And if you had that kind of knowledge you might well turn out to be G-d yourself rendering your arguement moot.

Atheism, like theism, is about belief rather than proof.

In theory I'd agree with that. But as long as theists try to get their religious BELIEFS into secular laws, then they should be able to prove their BELIEFS are empirically valid. If theists wanna chant and pray and exercise their faith in the privacy of their homes (like Yeshua suggested by the way) then what they believe in matters not at all to me. Wanna believe Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah (he wasn't,) a relative of G-d, or G-d incarnate more power to ya. Wanna impose that belief onto me though and we'll be rolling around in the dirt real quick.

I agree. The burden of proof should lie with those who wish to make their religious beliefs part of our laws or our gov't.

 

[Newby]

It is creating an official gov't religion, or at least having one religion given major preference.

It is not forcing anyone to practice a religion. But then, that was not the statement I quoted. But it is, at the very least, forcing anyone going into that courthouse to consider one religion favored over all others.

But now that you brought up force and practicing religion, how do all the laws forbidding official prayer in schools, religious displays on public property ect, prevent anyone from practicing their religion?

No, it's not creating anything, let alone legislation or law. Why are people so stupid??

So installing a 2 ton stone monument to one religion, and not allowing any other displays is harmless? (I'll ignore the unconstitutional part for now)

I notice you elected to ignore my question. Seems to me to be a legit question, considering so many claim atheists are interfering with their right to worship.

It's not legislating anything, it's not forcing you to believe or do anything, so save your histrionics for someone else.

I've never personally made such a claim, so perhaps aim your question at someone who has.

 

[Newby]

They say you can't prove a negative. So I'd imagine every time an atheist hears or sees "G-d" it only reminds them their disbelief can't be substantiated.

I think G-d is one of those concepts that can be argued for, or against depending on the person. But claiming He exists implies you have proof an atheist would accept. Just as claiming He doesn't exist implies proof as well. But if He doesn't exist, you wouldn't be able to prove it. Doing so would require knowledge of the entire universe and everything in it. And if you had that kind of knowledge you might well turn out to be G-d yourself rendering your arguement moot.

Atheism, like theism, is about belief rather than proof.

In theory I'd agree with that. But as long as theists try to get their religious BELIEFS into secular laws, then they should be able to prove their BELIEFS are empirically valid. If theists wanna chant and pray and exercise their faith in the privacy of their homes (like Yeshua suggested by the way) then what they believe in matters not at all to me. Wanna believe Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah (he wasn't,) a relative of G-d, or G-d incarnate more power to ya. Wanna impose that belief onto me though and we'll be rolling around in the dirt real quick.

No one is trying to impose their beliefs on you...

 

[Newby]

Atheism, like theism, is about belief rather than proof.

In theory I'd agree with that. But as long as theists try to get their religious BELIEFS into secular laws, then they should be able to prove their BELIEFS are empirically valid. If theists wanna chant and pray and exercise their faith in the privacy of their homes (like Yeshua suggested by the way) then what they believe in matters not at all to me. Wanna believe Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah (he wasn't,) a relative of G-d, or G-d incarnate more power to ya. Wanna impose that belief onto me though and we'll be rolling around in the dirt real quick.

I agree. The burden of proof should lie with those who wish to make their religious beliefs part of our laws or our gov't.

Except those who would fall into that category are a small, minute minority who pose no threat to you or anyone else. Apparently there's a bunch of chicken little's around here who believe the sky is falling... Yet they laugh at those who believe in God... figure that one out.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Religious activists impose their beliefs a little bit at a time. They got smoking removed from tv shows and movies unless it carries an 'R' rating (curiously, not drinking alcohol,) they got mandatory condom use implmented for pornography made in California (and are trying to add eye-protection now, their ultimate goal either banning porn or making it so unprofitable producers leave the state,) and are continuing to challenge and obstruct any attempt to legalize homosexual marriage.

The sky isn't falling all at once to be sure, but then, that's not how to get your will into law. If you try it all at once it's like dropping a frog into a pot of boiling water - it'll jump out. But if you raise the temperature slowly it'll stay put and boil to death.

 

[Newby]

Religious activists impose their beliefs a little bit at a time. They got smoking removed from tv shows and movies unless it carries an 'R' rating (curiously, not drinking alcohol,) they got mandatory condom use implmented for pornography made in California (and are trying to add eye-protection now, their ultimate goal either banning porn or making it so unprofitable producers leave the state,) and are continuing to challenge and obstruct any attempt to legalize homosexual marriage.

The sky isn't falling all at once to be sure, but then, that's not how to get your will into law. If you try it all at once it's like dropping a frog into a pot of boiling water - it'll jump out. But if you raise the temperature slowly it'll stay put and boil to death.

What religious activists would those be?

 

[WinterBorn]

Atheism, like theism, is about belief rather than proof.

In theory I'd agree with that. But as long as theists try to get their religious BELIEFS into secular laws, then they should be able to prove their BELIEFS are empirically valid. If theists wanna chant and pray and exercise their faith in the privacy of their homes (like Yeshua suggested by the way) then what they believe in matters not at all to me. Wanna believe Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah (he wasn't,) a relative of G-d, or G-d incarnate more power to ya. Wanna impose that belief onto me though and we'll be rolling around in the dirt real quick.

No one is trying to impose their beliefs on you...

So there is no need for displays for a single religion on gov't property, is there?

If there is no attemptto sway the masses, there is no point in a 2 ton monument in a courthouse lobby.

 

[amrchaos]

The reason I maybe offended by the term "G_D" is because I read it as "God damn"

There is nothing wrong with the spelling of God--so please stop acting like I am a 5 year old that interpret God as a dirty word.

Typing G_D for god because you think I am offended by the spelling? I tend to find that act a bit insulting.

 

[Newby]

In theory I'd agree with that. But as long as theists try to get their religious BELIEFS into secular laws, then they should be able to prove their BELIEFS are empirically valid. If theists wanna chant and pray and exercise their faith in the privacy of their homes (like Yeshua suggested by the way) then what they believe in matters not at all to me. Wanna believe Yeshua was the Jewish Messiah (he wasn't,) a relative of G-d, or G-d incarnate more power to ya. Wanna impose that belief onto me though and we'll be rolling around in the dirt real quick.

No one is trying to impose their beliefs on you...

So there is no need for displays for a single religion on gov't property, is there?

If there is no attemptto sway the masses, there is no point in a 2 ton monument in a courthouse lobby.

Bitch all you want, placing a cement monument somewhere isn't imposing anything on you, forcing anything on you, or requiring you under law to do anything. Those are the facts.

What's far more dangerous is the left with their 'feelings', and so called 'morals', who don't seem to have any problem enforcing them via government force on the rest of us. I can name far more legistlation being passed that forces the left's concept of 'morals' on all of us than you can religious ones. Starting with Obamacare, which will effect just about every family in the country. As long as your 'morals' aren't tied to religion, then they're free to be imposed on everyone, right? Isn't that why people like you try so desparately hard to tie the right's 'morals' to religion, where yours are just born of man, so they're legitimate to enforce? So, to sit in your glass house and throw stones is very stupid on your part. Don't give me bullshit about having morals enforced on the populace via legislation when your own side does it daily.

 

[longknife]

I think the majority of so-called atheists are really socialists and progressives who are trying to further their agendi through lies and other tactics.

Tyrants always fear organized religions as they provide an outlet for the masses under their control.

Ever notice how the same people who cry about "separation of church and state" are the same ones who demand more handouts for minorities and other "disadvantaged" groups?

 

[hangover]

Why are "atheists" offended by "G-d" ?

Because they put their "faith" in NO GOD, which allows the negative energy to take over the souls. It's not until their last breath that they realize what they've done. Uh-oh.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think the majority of so-called atheists are really socialists and progressives who are trying to further their agendi through lies and other tactics.

Tyrants always fear organized religions as they provide an outlet for the masses under their control.

Ever notice how the same people who cry about "separation of church and state" are the same ones who demand more handouts for minorities and other "disadvantaged" groups?

I'm not really going to take sides here too in depth, however isn't separation of church and state a good thing?

Is it a great thing for a government - who has taxes paid by athiests, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, etc - to be representative of a single religion, and to create laws that would not otherwise be created if not for a belief/fear of a specific god? I don't think so.

It's best to keep Gov't as religion-neutral possible (in my opinion). If you fail to do this, you are opening the door to authoritarianism and a government that will eventually want to control even the most private areas of our life, including bedroom practices, marriage practices, etc.