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

[Luddly Neddite]

Here’s the conundrum we are faced with:
Self-declared atheists, or anti-theists, when demanding that any expression of ecumenical nature be restricted to only those places specifically set aside for the sole expression such expression of religious belief, and simultaneously insisting that nothing other than secular declarations be allowed in public venues, are in fact establishing that only their accepted expression of faith and fervor are to be uttered in any public gathering or location to the exclusion of any other utterance of faith. In other words, the anti-theists would exclude any expression of faith except those praising government as a separate entity presiding exclusively over any public gathering. Not other avocation is to be permitted as this is perceived as offensive to government and those who only accept unquestioning faith that government is the answer to all woes and misfortunes experienced by man.
Any utterance of a "god" that is anathema to those whose faith is firmly established in the secular ideology shall be thoroughly discredited and proclaimed against the interest of the population at large, and thereby not to be tolerated.

Not at all. Atheists have no objection to private citizens proclaiming their faiths wherever and whenever they want. What we dislike is public officials using public money to support superstition.

Stay off my front porch and don't accost me out in public.

If I want to know about your god, I'll ask.

Show me the same rights and respect I show you.

 

[daws101]

I'll bet you'll find that the majority of US scientists are Christians. In Israel, you'll find that the majority of scientists are Jews. In India, you'll probably find that the majority of scientists are Hindu.

Christians aren't prevented from using the rules of science to investigate our universe.

On the other hand, if some Christian wants to insist on using the rules of his/her religion to investigate the universe, then it's unlikely to pass as science for obvious reasons.

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

Yes, I've see that. However, I don't know what questions they actually asked, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, I still don't see this as particularly interesting. If Christians want to follow the rules of science, there is nobody stopping them from being eminent scientists. If they choose to spend their time in other pursuits, that's OK, too.

Science is what it is. It's not as if the rules of science can be changed to accept religious argument as science.

you've missed the point wasn't it you who said that most scientists are christian?
I posted that piece to correct your false assumption.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

They don't mind it when it's followed by "damn America".

Least they arent banging kids in the name of god..or blowing people up

Im not aware of anyone banging kids in the name of God.

Its bad enough to excuse their actions but to play word games so you can help the catholic church hide their child predators is just so far beyond mere reprehensible. You're just disgusting. You're done this before. And, right after, you preach some more.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Least they arent banging kids in the name of god..or blowing people up

Im not aware of anyone banging kids in the name of God.

Its bad enough to excuse their actions but to play word games so you can help the catholic church hide their child predators is just so far beyond mere reprehensible. You're just disgusting. You're done this before. And, right after, you preach some more.

And, in case you forgot, its not just the papes.

Some morms are known for being child predators too.

Some are even doing time in prison for child rape.

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://youtu.be/A41WZBcmnfc]Bill Maher - Atheism Not a Religion + Mitt Romney in-Law Unbaptism (Real Time New Rules 02-03-2012) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://youtu.be/WjxOVOLKkdQ]Christian Bullshit Nailed by Bill Maher - Antitheist Atheist - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Avatar4321]

Least they arent banging kids in the name of god..or blowing people up

Im not aware of anyone banging kids in the name of God.

Its bad enough to excuse their actions but to play word games so you can help the catholic church hide their child predators is just so far beyond mere reprehensible. You're just disgusting. You're done this before. And, right after, you preach some more.

If anyone is playing word games, that would be you. You can't do something "in the name of God" when you are acting completely contrary to the teachings you are giving.

But then, we all know you don't actually give a damn about the kids. You just want something to attack the Catholic Church on. But you will be the first to protest if someone attacks you as an atheist for something a bad atheist does. You're such a self righteous hypocrite.

 

[daws101]

Im not aware of anyone banging kids in the name of God.

Its bad enough to excuse their actions but to play word games so you can help the catholic church hide their child predators is just so far beyond mere reprehensible. You're just disgusting. You're done this before. And, right after, you preach some more.

If anyone is playing word games, that would be you. You can't do something "in the name of God" when you are acting completely contrary to the teachings you are giving.

But then, we all know you don't actually give a damn about the kids. You just want something to attack the Catholic Church on. But you will be the first to protest if someone attacks you as an atheist for something a bad atheist does. You're such a self righteous hypocrite.

bullshit! history is full of examples of believes committing heinous acts in the name of god..

 

[Avatar4321]

Its bad enough to excuse their actions but to play word games so you can help the catholic church hide their child predators is just so far beyond mere reprehensible. You're just disgusting. You're done this before. And, right after, you preach some more.

If anyone is playing word games, that would be you. You can't do something "in the name of God" when you are acting completely contrary to the teachings you are giving.

But then, we all know you don't actually give a damn about the kids. You just want something to attack the Catholic Church on. But you will be the first to protest if someone attacks you as an atheist for something a bad atheist does. You're such a self righteous hypocrite.

bullshit! history is full of examples of committing heinous acts in the name of god..

Well, must be true because you said it.

Nevermind that atheistic ideologies have caused more death and suffering in the past 100 years than any religion has in the history of mankind.

 

[daws101]

If anyone is playing word games, that would be you. You can't do something "in the name of God" when you are acting completely contrary to the teachings you are giving.

But then, we all know you don't actually give a damn about the kids. You just want something to attack the Catholic Church on. But you will be the first to protest if someone attacks you as an atheist for something a bad atheist does. You're such a self righteous hypocrite.

bullshit! history is full of examples of committing heinous acts in the name of god..

Well, must be true because you said it.

Nevermind that atheistic ideologies have caused more death and suffering in the past 100 years than any religion has in the history of mankind.

again that's bullshit!


Saturday, July 6, 2013
What is Christianity? The bloodiest religion in history

"Once people get hung up on theology, they've lost sanity forever. More people have been killed in the name of Jesus Christ than any other name in the history of the world." - Gore Vidal

What is Christianity? Well, for one thing it has been the bloodiest religion in all of human history. But what is it about this particular religion that has made it so bloody for so long? Allow me to briefly explain.

Most people throughout history have been able to sense that there is a Greater Reality beyond the physical world we perceive with our five senses. This Ultimate Reality can be experienced directly, at least in glimpses, through various techniques such as meditation. (Entheogens/psychedelics can also give you glimpses and direct experiences, and have been used in the religious practices of many cultures for just this purpose, but that's another topic for another post).
So it's possible to experience this Greater Reality directly, but it is indescribable. These experiences cannot be put into words that would be accurate or literally true. And so people have always spoken/written about them in metaphorical language, and invented gods which were always masks/personifications of this Ultimate Reality. Different cultures created different gods/metaphors, and the names of these gods were many, but they ALL referred to the same Greater Reality.
Anyway, all cultures recognized that all these gods were symbolic representations of this Greater Reality, until the ancient Hebrews came along with the incredibly foolish and narrow-minded idea that their god/metaphor was "real" and all other cultures' gods/metaphors were "false". This silly idea was later carried over into Christianity and Islam - both of which are rooted in Judaism.

So Christianity in its early centuries already had this same silly idea it inherited from Judaism, which led to all kinds of prejudices and delusions of self-righteousness. And when Christianity obtained political power in the Roman Empire during the 4th century, the results were disastrous for the human race.
Because Christianity was shackled to the foolish idea that it was the "true religion" and all others were false, it was a small step to believing all the others should be destroyed. So it went about destroying all other religions it could, including all the other forms of Christianity.
And thus, through a combination of an appalling ignorance of genuine spirituality and an enormous thirst for political power and wealth, it became a totalitarian religion, and thus began the long and bloody history of orthodox Christianity.
Acharya S, scholar of comparative religions and mythology, gives an outline of Christianity's bloody history on her website, listing events from the early centuries of Christianity right through modern times. I encourage you to look through the list, especially if you're not aware of just how widespread and barbaric Christianity's crimes against humanity are.

[Gore Vidal quote: source]
What is Christianity? The bloodiest religion in history | God VS Science Albert Einstein

 

[rightwinger]

Why do the religious need to force their god on other people?

 

[daws101]

Why do the religious need to force their god on other people?

From their POV it's not force, it's god's love...

 

[WillReadmore]

Nature, "Leading scientists still reject God"* July 23, 1998

Yes, I've see that. However, I don't know what questions they actually asked, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, I still don't see this as particularly interesting. If Christians want to follow the rules of science, there is nobody stopping them from being eminent scientists. If they choose to spend their time in other pursuits, that's OK, too.

Science is what it is. It's not as if the rules of science can be changed to accept religious argument as science.

you've missed the point wasn't it you who said that most scientists are christian?
I posted that piece to correct your false assumption.

OK - you can have that point. I don't see it as worth looking into.

Even if there are very few Christians in science it wouldn't mean that science does anything to exclude those who have that religious belief.

All you have to do to be a scientist is to exclusively follow the rules of science when claiming to be doing science. And, nothing in these rules of science refers to religion in any way. Plus, no result of science can possibly indicate whether or not there is a God.

Science and religion are just two separate realms as a couple popes have put it.

 

[rightwinger]

Why do the religious need to force their god on other people?

From their POV it's not force, it's god's love...

Do they welcome other religions forcing their god on them?

 

[daws101]

Yes, I've see that. However, I don't know what questions they actually asked, etc.

Perhaps more importantly, I still don't see this as particularly interesting. If Christians want to follow the rules of science, there is nobody stopping them from being eminent scientists. If they choose to spend their time in other pursuits, that's OK, too.

Science is what it is. It's not as if the rules of science can be changed to accept religious argument as science.

you've missed the point wasn't it you who said that most scientists are christian?
I posted that piece to correct your false assumption.

OK - you can have that point. I don't see it as worth looking into.

Even if there are very few Christians in science it wouldn't mean that science does anything to exclude those who have that religious belief.

All you have to do to be a scientist is to exclusively follow the rules of science when claiming to be doing science. And, nothing in these rules of science refers to religion in any way. Plus, no result of science can possibly indicate whether or not there is a God.

Science and religion are just two separate realms as a couple popes have put it.

bullshit!
there is no evidence either way proving or disproving the existence of god.
so your statement is a false assumption based on false premise.

 

[daws101]

Why do the religious need to force their god on other people?

From their POV it's not force, it's god's love...

Do they welcome other religions forcing their god on them?

convert or die!

 

[gallantwarrior]

Here’s the conundrum we are faced with:
Self-declared atheists, or anti-theists, when demanding that any expression of ecumenical nature be restricted to only those places specifically set aside for the sole expression such expression of religious belief, and simultaneously insisting that nothing other than secular declarations be allowed in public venues, are in fact establishing that only their accepted expression of faith and fervor are to be uttered in any public gathering or location to the exclusion of any other utterance of faith. In other words, the anti-theists would exclude any expression of faith except those praising government as a separate entity presiding exclusively over any public gathering. Not other avocation is to be permitted as this is perceived as offensive to government and those who only accept unquestioning faith that government is the answer to all woes and misfortunes experienced by man.
Any utterance of a "god" that is anathema to those whose faith is firmly established in the secular ideology shall be thoroughly discredited and proclaimed against the interest of the population at large, and thereby not to be tolerated.

Not at all. Atheists have no objection to private citizens proclaiming their faiths wherever and whenever they want. What we dislike is public officials using public money to support superstition.

I was not aware that the persons who deliver an invocation at any of sundry events were paid, particularly using public money.

 

[daws101]

Here’s the conundrum we are faced with:
Self-declared atheists, or anti-theists, when demanding that any expression of ecumenical nature be restricted to only those places specifically set aside for the sole expression such expression of religious belief, and simultaneously insisting that nothing other than secular declarations be allowed in public venues, are in fact establishing that only their accepted expression of faith and fervor are to be uttered in any public gathering or location to the exclusion of any other utterance of faith. In other words, the anti-theists would exclude any expression of faith except those praising government as a separate entity presiding exclusively over any public gathering. Not other avocation is to be permitted as this is perceived as offensive to government and those who only accept unquestioning faith that government is the answer to all woes and misfortunes experienced by man.
Any utterance of a "god" that is anathema to those whose faith is firmly established in the secular ideology shall be thoroughly discredited and proclaimed against the interest of the population at large, and thereby not to be tolerated.

Not at all. Atheists have no objection to private citizens proclaiming their faiths wherever and whenever they want. What we dislike is public officials using public money to support superstition.

I was not aware that the persons who deliver an invocation at any of sundry events were paid, particularly using public money.

really? Why the Constitution Demands Government-Paid Priests, Imams, Pastors, and Rabbis -

 

[gallantwarrior]

Not at all. Atheists have no objection to private citizens proclaiming their faiths wherever and whenever they want. What we dislike is public officials using public money to support superstition.

I was not aware that the persons who deliver an invocation at any of sundry events were paid, particularly using public money.

really? Why the Constitution Demands Government-Paid Priests, Imams, Pastors, and Rabbis -

I don't see the problem. It isn't like the military restricts chaplains to only one specific relision. They can be any denomination or religious persuasion and they usually serve all service members, regardless of those soldiers/airmen/sailors religious preferences. Chaplains provide many other services besides administering to a specific faith.

 

[Katzndogz]

They don't mind it when it's followed by "damn America".

Least they arent banging kids in the name of god..or blowing people up

Im not aware of anyone banging kids in the name of God.

Liberals bang kids in the name of diversity, tolerance and sex ed.

 

[Noomi]

If you don't believe that G-d exists, then why are you offended and afraid of mentioning His name? Why most we all bow down before you politically correct bullshit of omitting G-d? Since you don't believe in G-d, you shouldn't care whether we mention His name or not.

They are not afraid of God being mentioned, what atheists do not like is people's insistence that God exists being rammed down their throats.