"Why are atheists so toxic"

[Czernobog]

Toxicity is a relative thing, mean spirited and hateful is one thing. But at least they aren't creating an imaginary conflict, targeting and murdering (beheading or burning alive) non atheist, let alone hijacking civilian airplanes loaded with civilians as missiles to attack non atheists. Where as TOXIC theists are doing such things, which makes religion seem more anti-human and nihilistic and well beyond "toxic".

Yes, we should probably skip over the two hundred million people they murdered in the 20th century. Maybe we should give state atheism another chance.

Except that Atheists don't want "State Atheism". We want secular government. There is a difference. It was communists who wanted to impose state atheism, and that was due to their ideology, not their theology.

We already have a secular government.

Not quite, we don't. Close, but not quite. Atheists work tirelessly to make it so, and to combat theists attempts to encroach on has been gained. We also work tirelessly to remove archaic, unnecessary theistic abdications of our government, such as the unnecessary reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the unnecessary reference to God on our currency. We want a truly secular government that makes no such concessions to religion. Do we want religion to be outlawed? Nope, bet we want it to have zero relevance in government. After all, that is what secular means - non-religious. Not, just a little religious, or kinda religious, but non-religious.

 

[Czernobog]

I see this question asked by religious folk frequently. I do disagree with some of the harsher anti-religious sentiments, at least as far as tone is concerned, but I understand exactly where those attitudes come from. Christians (speaking from the USA) have a harder time seeing the hold their religion has on our society and the actual harm it can do. When they are faced with the topic of crimes and abuses committed by other Christians, I commonly hear that the perpetrators were not "true Christians."

What is a true Christian? If a person, even if they are a criminal or an abuser (or, heck, just a run-of-the-mill wacko), professes belief in Jesus as the son of God and the savior of humanity, and accepts the Bible, then are they not a Christian? When asked how to become a Christian, is that not exactly what one is told? "To accept Jesus Christ in your heart, as your Lord, and Saviour"? The same people who are quick to point out that others are not true Christians are, more often than not, just as quick to point out the beliefs of other wrongdoers - Muslims and so-called "Satanists," for example. All people are capable of committing crimes, regardless of belief, but those who commit them in the name of their religion should not be ignored or brushed off as "not true believers." Just as it provides light and hope to some, there is a dark side to religion that people should acknowledge, too.

So back to the question of why atheists are so "toxic." Some among us have been hurt and abused by religion and religious people. Many see the religious attempting, at the expense of other people, to impose their standards of morality on others through law and social norms. Why are we told we need to "respect the beliefs of others" when ours are denigrated?

These areas are for us to freely vent our frustrations, as well as share our experiences with others of like mind. Atheists should not have to be polite about religion even in a space made for themselves. Certainly people should be able to freely believe what they like in their homes and in their hearts, but that doesn't mean religion should be free from criticism, and it doesn't mean religion is 100% good all the time. Nothing is.

Keep in mind, this is a forum for Religion and Ethics. Like it, or not, the question of ethics does not belong solely to either the religious, not to any one particular religion.

Atheists aren't toxic. Militant atheists maybe, but not atheists in general.

Sure and if you remove the props you wouldn't be able to tell them apart until they started preaching their dogma. It is their dogma which defines them, not their props.

Suuuure...that's what defines them...

Yes. Dogma and behaviors.

You're right. Dogma and behaviours.

Christians: Stand outside of abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women that they are going to Hell, calling them names, have even killed doctors who perform abortions, and blown up abortion clinics. Picketed funerals, screaming obscenities at funeral goers, and heckling grieving families.

Muslims: Do we even need to go into the behaviours of Militant Islamists?

Atheists: Have get-togethers, lectures, debunking religious mythology, and calmly exposing theist' bullshit for the bullshit that it is.

 

[ding]

Toxicity is a relative thing, mean spirited and hateful is one thing. But at least they aren't creating an imaginary conflict, targeting and murdering (beheading or burning alive) non atheist, let alone hijacking civilian airplanes loaded with civilians as missiles to attack non atheists. Where as TOXIC theists are doing such things, which makes religion seem more anti-human and nihilistic and well beyond "toxic".

Yes, we should probably skip over the two hundred million people they murdered in the 20th century. Maybe we should give state atheism another chance.

Except that Atheists don't want "State Atheism". We want secular government. There is a difference. It was communists who wanted to impose state atheism, and that was due to their ideology, not their theology.

We already have a secular government.

Not quite, we don't. Close, but not quite. Atheists work tirelessly to make it so, and to combat theists attempts to encroach on has been gained. We also work tirelessly to remove archaic, unnecessary theistic abdications of our government, such as the unnecessary reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the unnecessary reference to God on our currency. We want a truly secular government that makes no such concessions to religion. Do we want religion to be outlawed? Nope, bet we want it to have zero relevance in government. After all, that is what secular means - non-religious. Not, just a little religious, or kinda religious, but non-religious.

And yet our Founding Fathers believed that religion and virtue were pillars of freedom and liberty and that freedom and liberty would not exist without them. History has proven this to be true and yet you would still remove all references to a Supreme Being, right?

 

[Czernobog]

Toxicity is a relative thing, mean spirited and hateful is one thing. But at least they aren't creating an imaginary conflict, targeting and murdering (beheading or burning alive) non atheist, let alone hijacking civilian airplanes loaded with civilians as missiles to attack non atheists. Where as TOXIC theists are doing such things, which makes religion seem more anti-human and nihilistic and well beyond "toxic".

Yes, we should probably skip over the two hundred million people they murdered in the 20th century. Maybe we should give state atheism another chance.

Except that Atheists don't want "State Atheism". We want secular government. There is a difference. It was communists who wanted to impose state atheism, and that was due to their ideology, not their theology.

We already have a secular government.

Not quite, we don't. Close, but not quite. Atheists work tirelessly to make it so, and to combat theists attempts to encroach on has been gained. We also work tirelessly to remove archaic, unnecessary theistic abdications of our government, such as the unnecessary reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the unnecessary reference to God on our currency. We want a truly secular government that makes no such concessions to religion. Do we want religion to be outlawed? Nope, bet we want it to have zero relevance in government. After all, that is what secular means - non-religious. Not, just a little religious, or kinda religious, but non-religious.

And yet our Founding Fathers believed that religion and virtue were pillars of freedom and liberty and that freedom and liberty would not exist without them. History has proven this to be true and yet you would still remove all references to a Supreme Being, right?

Our Founding Fathers also believed that women were chattle, and black people were 3/4 of a person. Your point? I really don't think the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers' matters, today. I think we have rather outgrown the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers". Welllll...most of us have, anyway...

 

[ding]

Yes, we should probably skip over the two hundred million people they murdered in the 20th century. Maybe we should give state atheism another chance.

Except that Atheists don't want "State Atheism". We want secular government. There is a difference. It was communists who wanted to impose state atheism, and that was due to their ideology, not their theology.

We already have a secular government.

Not quite, we don't. Close, but not quite. Atheists work tirelessly to make it so, and to combat theists attempts to encroach on has been gained. We also work tirelessly to remove archaic, unnecessary theistic abdications of our government, such as the unnecessary reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the unnecessary reference to God on our currency. We want a truly secular government that makes no such concessions to religion. Do we want religion to be outlawed? Nope, bet we want it to have zero relevance in government. After all, that is what secular means - non-religious. Not, just a little religious, or kinda religious, but non-religious.

And yet our Founding Fathers believed that religion and virtue were pillars of freedom and liberty and that freedom and liberty would not exist without them. History has proven this to be true and yet you would still remove all references to a Supreme Being, right?

Our Founding Fathers also believed that women were chattle, and black people were 3/4 of a person. Your point? I really don't think the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers' matters, today. I think we have rather outgrown the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers". Welllll...most of us have, anyway...

Do you really want to misrepresent them in this manner? Because I would be happy to educate you on this subject.

 

[ding]

Atheists aren't toxic. Militant atheists maybe, but not atheists in general.

Sure and if you remove the props you wouldn't be able to tell them apart until they started preaching their dogma. It is their dogma which defines them, not their props.

Suuuure...that's what defines them...

Yes. Dogma and behaviors.

You're right. Dogma and behaviours.

Christians: Stand outside of abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women that they are going to Hell, calling them names, have even killed doctors who perform abortions, and blown up abortion clinics. Picketed funerals, screaming obscenities at funeral goers, and heckling grieving families.

Muslims: Do we even need to go into the behaviours of Militant Islamists?

Atheists: Have get-togethers, lectures, debunking religious mythology, and calmly exposing theist' bullshit for the bullshit that it is.

You are sorely lacking in objectivity.

 

[Czernobog]

Except that Atheists don't want "State Atheism". We want secular government. There is a difference. It was communists who wanted to impose state atheism, and that was due to their ideology, not their theology.

We already have a secular government.

Not quite, we don't. Close, but not quite. Atheists work tirelessly to make it so, and to combat theists attempts to encroach on has been gained. We also work tirelessly to remove archaic, unnecessary theistic abdications of our government, such as the unnecessary reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the unnecessary reference to God on our currency. We want a truly secular government that makes no such concessions to religion. Do we want religion to be outlawed? Nope, bet we want it to have zero relevance in government. After all, that is what secular means - non-religious. Not, just a little religious, or kinda religious, but non-religious.

And yet our Founding Fathers believed that religion and virtue were pillars of freedom and liberty and that freedom and liberty would not exist without them. History has proven this to be true and yet you would still remove all references to a Supreme Being, right?

Our Founding Fathers also believed that women were chattle, and black people were 3/4 of a person. Your point? I really don't think the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers' matters, today. I think we have rather outgrown the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers". Welllll...most of us have, anyway...

Do you really want to misrepresent them in this manner? Because I would be happy to educate you on this subject.

I think the views of the Founding Fathers on women, Africans, and many outdated notions is pretty much a matter of record. Now, did all of them hold those views? Nope. Guess what? Not all of them were theists, either. So, since you chose to paint all of the Founding Fathers with such a broad brush, I followed suit.

 

[Czernobog]

Sure and if you remove the props you wouldn't be able to tell them apart until they started preaching their dogma. It is their dogma which defines them, not their props.

Suuuure...that's what defines them...

Yes. Dogma and behaviors.

You're right. Dogma and behaviours.

Christians: Stand outside of abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women that they are going to Hell, calling them names, have even killed doctors who perform abortions, and blown up abortion clinics. Picketed funerals, screaming obscenities at funeral goers, and heckling grieving families.

Muslims: Do we even need to go into the behaviours of Militant Islamists?

Atheists: Have get-togethers, lectures, debunking religious mythology, and calmly exposing theist' bullshit for the bullshit that it is.

You are sorely lacking in objectivity.

Well, one of us is, certainly...

 

[ding]

We already have a secular government.

Not quite, we don't. Close, but not quite. Atheists work tirelessly to make it so, and to combat theists attempts to encroach on has been gained. We also work tirelessly to remove archaic, unnecessary theistic abdications of our government, such as the unnecessary reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the unnecessary reference to God on our currency. We want a truly secular government that makes no such concessions to religion. Do we want religion to be outlawed? Nope, bet we want it to have zero relevance in government. After all, that is what secular means - non-religious. Not, just a little religious, or kinda religious, but non-religious.

And yet our Founding Fathers believed that religion and virtue were pillars of freedom and liberty and that freedom and liberty would not exist without them. History has proven this to be true and yet you would still remove all references to a Supreme Being, right?

Our Founding Fathers also believed that women were chattle, and black people were 3/4 of a person. Your point? I really don't think the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers' matters, today. I think we have rather outgrown the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers". Welllll...most of us have, anyway...

Do you really want to misrepresent them in this manner? Because I would be happy to educate you on this subject.

I think the views of the Founding Fathers on women, Africans, and many outdated notions is pretty much a matter of record. Now, did all of them hold those views? Nope. Guess what? Not all of them were theists, either. So, since you chose to paint all of the Founding Fathers with such a broad brush, I followed suit.

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

The Constitution was ratified in 1789. ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 states, "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person."

In 1808, Congress abolishing the slave trade at the earliest date allowed per ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution. Thus proving that the intent of ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 1 of the Constitution was to end the slave trade.

Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves - Wikipedia

"The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807 (2 Stat. 426, enacted March 2, 1807) is a United States federal law that stated that no new slaves were permitted to be imported into the United States. It took effect in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution."

Daniel Webster testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers intended for slavery to perish.

Daniel Webster, THE CONSTITUTION AND THE UNION 1, March 7, 1850 (In the Senate)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Webster7th.pdf

Page 271

"And now, let us consider, sir, for a moment, what was the state of sentiment, North and South, in regard to slavery at the time this Constitution was adopted. A remarkable change has taken place since, but what did the wise and great men of all parts of the country then think of slavery? In what estimation did they hold it in 1787, when this Constitution was adopted? Now it will be found, sir, if we will carry ourselves by historical research back to that day, and ascertain men's opinions by authentic records still existing among us, that there was no great diversity of opinion between the North and the South upon the subject of slavery; and it will be found that both parts of the country held it equally an evil, a moral and political evil. It will not be found, that either at the North or at the South, there was though there was some, invective against slavery as inhuman and cruel. The great ground of objection to it was political; that it weakened the social fabric; that, taking the place of free labor, society was less strong, and labor was less productive; and, therefore, we find, from all the eminent men of the time, the clearest expression of their opinion that slavery was an evil. They ascribed its existence here, not without truth, and not without some acerbity of temper and force of language, to the injurious policy of the mother country, who, to favor the navigator, had entailed these evils upon the colonies. I need hardly refer, sir, to the publications of the day. They are matters of history on the record. The eminent men, the most eminent men, and nearly all the conspicuous politicians of the South, held the same sentiments, that slavery was an "evil," a "blight," a "blast," a "mildew," a "scourge," and a "curse." There are no terms of reprobation of slavery so vehement in the North at that day as in the South. The North was not so much excited against it as the South, and the reason is, I suppose, that there was much less at the North; and the people did not see, or think they saw, the evils so prominently as they were seen, or thought to be seen, at the South. Then, sir, when this Constitution was framed, this was the light in which the convention viewed it..."

Page 273

"...there was an expectation that on the ceasing of the importation of slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out. That was hoped and expected."

Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederate States, testifies to the fact that the Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature, that it was evil, that it was not possible for them to end it at the time of the founding, but did intend for it to perish.

“Corner Stone” Speech, Alexander H. Stephens, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861

“Corner Stone” Speech | Teaching American History

"The prevailing ideas entertained by him [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature – that it was wrong in principle – socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent [temporary] and pass away. "

So while Stephens acknowledged that the Founding Fathers knew it was against God's will, had no idea how to end it quickly, and designed for slavery to pass away, Stephens then turned around and said that the Founding Fathers had it all wrong.

"Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. . . . and the idea of a government built upon it. . . . Our new government [the Confederate States of America] is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid – its cornerstone rests – upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man. That slavery – subordination to the superior [white] race – is his natural and moral condition. This – our new [Confederate] government – is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

So there can be no better witness than Alexander Stephens.

The final proof that Stephens and Webster were correct that the founders intended for slavery to perish can be found in the Founding Fathers' actions following the ratification of the Constitution in 1789.

In 1789, following the ratification of the Constitution, Congress expanded its fight to end slavery by passing the Northwest Ordinance. That law - establishing how territories could become States in the new United States - forbade slavery in any federal territories then held; and for this reason, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, and Wisconsin all eventually came into the nation as free States.

Northwest Ordinance - Wikipedia

And don't forget that they abolished the slave trade in 1808, the earliest date permitted by the United States Constitution.

Very few people today know that in 1808 Congress abolished the slave trade. That's because by the 1820's, most of the Founding Fathers were dead and Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic Party, which was founded in 1792, had become the majority party in Congress. With this new party a change in congressional policy on slavery emerged. The 1789 law that prohibited slavery in federal territory was reversed when the Democratic Congress passed the Missouri Compromise in 1820. Several States were subsequently admitted as slave States. Slavery was being officially promoted by congressional policy by a Democratically controlled Congress.

Missouri Compromise - Wikipedia

16th United States Congress - Wikipedia

The Democratic party policy of promoting slavery ignored the principles in the founding document.

"The first step of the slaveholder to justify by argument the peculiar institutions [of slavery] is to deny the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. He denies that all men are created equal. He denies that they have inalienable rights." President John Quincy Adams, The Hingham Patriot, June 29, 1839

In 1850 the Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. That law required Northerners to return escaped slaves back into slavery or pay huge fines. The Fugitive Slave Law made anti-slavery citizens in the North and their institutions responsible for enforcing slavery. The Fugitive Slave Law was sanctioned kidnapping. The Fugitive Slave Law was disastrous for blacks in the North. The Law allowed Free Blacks to be carried into slavery. 20,000 blacks from the North left the United States and fled to Canada. The Underground Railroad reached its peak of activity as a result of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Fugitive Slave Act - 1850

Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 - Wikipedia

Fugitive Slave Act

31st United States Congress - Wikipedia In 1854, the Democratically controlled Congress passed another law strengthening slavery, the Kansas-Nebraska act. Even though slavery was expanded into federal territories in 1820 by the Democratically controlled Congress, a ban on slavery was retained in the Kansas Nebraska territory. But through the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Democrats vastly expanded the national area where slavery was permitted as the Kansas and Nebraska territories comprised parts of Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Idaho. The Democrats were pushing slavery westward across the nation.

The History Place - Abraham Lincoln: Kansas-Nebraska Act

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas–Nebraska_Act

Frederick Douglas believed that the 3/5th clause is an anti-slavery clause. Not a pro-slavery clause. Frederick Douglas believed that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document.

(1860) Frederick Douglass, “the Constitution of the United States: Is It Pro-Slavery or Anti-slavery?” | The Black Past: Remembered and Reclaimed

What Did Frederick Douglass Believe About the U.S. Constitution? | The Classroom | Synonym

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...onstitution_did_not_condone_slavery/page/full

And so did others.

In May of 1854, following the passage of these pro-slavery laws in Congress, a number of anti-slavery Democrats along with some anti-slavery members from other parties, including the Whigs, Free-Soilers, and Emancipationists formed a new party to fight slavery and secure equal civil rights. The name of the new party? The Republican Party. It was named the Republican Party because they wanted to return to the principles of freedom set forth in the governing documents of the Republic before pro-slavery members of Congress had perverted those original principles.

History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia

Republican Party founded - Mar 20, 1854 - HISTORY.com

Republican Party - The Republican Party In The New Millennium

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. Jim Crow Stories . Republican Party | PBS

"The Democratic Party had become the dominant political party in America in the 1820s, [30] and in May 1854, in response to the strong pro-slavery positions of the Democrats, several anti-slavery Members of Congress formed an anti-slavery party – the Republican Party. [31] It was founded upon the principles of equality originally set forth in the governing documents of the Republic. In an 1865 publication documenting the history of black voting rights, Philadelphia attorney John Hancock confirmed that the Declaration of Independence set forth “equal rights to all. It contains not a word nor a clause regarding color. Nor is there any provision of the kind to be found in the Constitution of the United States.”

 

[ding]

Sure and if you remove the props you wouldn't be able to tell them apart until they started preaching their dogma. It is their dogma which defines them, not their props.

Suuuure...that's what defines them...

Yes. Dogma and behaviors.

You're right. Dogma and behaviours.

Christians: Stand outside of abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women that they are going to Hell, calling them names, have even killed doctors who perform abortions, and blown up abortion clinics. Picketed funerals, screaming obscenities at funeral goers, and heckling grieving families.

Muslims: Do we even need to go into the behaviours of Militant Islamists?

Atheists: Have get-togethers, lectures, debunking religious mythology, and calmly exposing theist' bullshit for the bullshit that it is.

You are sorely lacking in objectivity.

Well, one of us is, certainly...

Yes, I believe I have just proven that it is you too.

 

[Czernobog]

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

Really? Let's stop right there. If all of the Founding Fathers knew this, then why didn't they know how to stop it? Why not simply end it right there? Are you sure you want to stick with that sweeping generalisation of "the Founding Fathers"?

 

[Czernobog]

Suuuure...that's what defines them...

Yes. Dogma and behaviors.

You're right. Dogma and behaviours.

Christians: Stand outside of abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women that they are going to Hell, calling them names, have even killed doctors who perform abortions, and blown up abortion clinics. Picketed funerals, screaming obscenities at funeral goers, and heckling grieving families.

Muslims: Do we even need to go into the behaviours of Militant Islamists?

Atheists: Have get-togethers, lectures, debunking religious mythology, and calmly exposing theist' bullshit for the bullshit that it is.

You are sorely lacking in objectivity.

Well, one of us is, certainly...

Yes, I believe I have just proven that it is you too.

No, you haven't. I have accurately described the militant factions of the three groups, and only one of them is not acting violently, and viciously, but you claim that it is I who is lacking objectivity. Look in a mirror, pal. You're projecting.

 

[ding]

Yes. Dogma and behaviors.

You're right. Dogma and behaviours.

Christians: Stand outside of abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women that they are going to Hell, calling them names, have even killed doctors who perform abortions, and blown up abortion clinics. Picketed funerals, screaming obscenities at funeral goers, and heckling grieving families.

Muslims: Do we even need to go into the behaviours of Militant Islamists?

Atheists: Have get-togethers, lectures, debunking religious mythology, and calmly exposing theist' bullshit for the bullshit that it is.

You are sorely lacking in objectivity.

Well, one of us is, certainly...

Yes, I believe I have just proven that it is you too.

No, you haven't. I have accurately described the militant factions of the three groups, and only one of them is not acting violently, and viciously, but you claim that it is I who is lacking objectivity. Look in a mirror, pal. You're projecting.

I have just proven it through your belief of the founding fathers, Einstein.

 

[Czernobog]

You're right. Dogma and behaviours.

Christians: Stand outside of abortion clinics, screaming at pregnant women that they are going to Hell, calling them names, have even killed doctors who perform abortions, and blown up abortion clinics. Picketed funerals, screaming obscenities at funeral goers, and heckling grieving families.

Muslims: Do we even need to go into the behaviours of Militant Islamists?

Atheists: Have get-togethers, lectures, debunking religious mythology, and calmly exposing theist' bullshit for the bullshit that it is.

You are sorely lacking in objectivity.

Well, one of us is, certainly...

Yes, I believe I have just proven that it is you too.

No, you haven't. I have accurately described the militant factions of the three groups, and only one of them is not acting violently, and viciously, but you claim that it is I who is lacking objectivity. Look in a mirror, pal. You're projecting.

I have just proven it through your belief of the founding fathers, Einstein.

Your the one who keeps wanting to paint the "Founding Fathers" with a single broad brush, as if they were some amorphous hive organism all sharing a single mind, with a uniform moral code. Either you're an idiot, or being intentionally intellectually dishonest. I'll let you admit which.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[BreezeWood]

We already have a secular government.

Not quite, we don't. Close, but not quite. Atheists work tirelessly to make it so, and to combat theists attempts to encroach on has been gained. We also work tirelessly to remove archaic, unnecessary theistic abdications of our government, such as the unnecessary reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, and the unnecessary reference to God on our currency. We want a truly secular government that makes no such concessions to religion. Do we want religion to be outlawed? Nope, bet we want it to have zero relevance in government. After all, that is what secular means - non-religious. Not, just a little religious, or kinda religious, but non-religious.

And yet our Founding Fathers believed that religion and virtue were pillars of freedom and liberty and that freedom and liberty would not exist without them. History has proven this to be true and yet you would still remove all references to a Supreme Being, right?

Our Founding Fathers also believed that women were chattle, and black people were 3/4 of a person. Your point? I really don't think the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers' matters, today. I think we have rather outgrown the moral, and ethical beliefs of our "Founding Fathers". Welllll...most of us have, anyway...

Do you really want to misrepresent them in this manner? Because I would be happy to educate you on this subject.

I think the views of the Founding Fathers on women, Africans, and many outdated notions is pretty much a matter of record. Now, did all of them hold those views? Nope. Guess what? Not all of them were theists, either. So, since you chose to paint all of the Founding Fathers with such a broad brush, I followed suit.

.

I think the views of the Founding Fathers on women, Africans, and many outdated notions is pretty much a matter of record.

when change is allowed the toxicity is diminished ... secularism.

in contrast to artificial theism's based on errant written documents that repeat the same inequities by each succeeding generation, turning from the truth than embracing it.

 

[ding]

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

Really? Let's stop right there. If all of the Founding Fathers knew this, then why didn't they know how to stop it? Why not simply end it right there? Are you sure you want to stick with that sweeping generalisation of "the Founding Fathers"?

Because they could not negotiate a solution and form the nation. The best they could do was make a promise that they wouldn't end the importation for 20 years.

Sweeping generalization? Again your objectivity is lacking:

1. They wrote into the constitution the earliest date they could abolish importation.
2. They abolished importation on it's earliest date.
3. They passed the NW Ordinance which prevented any new slave states/territories
4. Two witnesses corroborate that the Founders believed it was evil and intended for it to end.
5. One witness tells us it was common knowledge and in publications of the day.

The real question is are you sure you want to keep your sweeping generalizations because I don't have sweeping generalizations, I have facts that support my position. Your objectivity is lacking.

 

[ding]

You are sorely lacking in objectivity.

Well, one of us is, certainly...

Yes, I believe I have just proven that it is you too.

No, you haven't. I have accurately described the militant factions of the three groups, and only one of them is not acting violently, and viciously, but you claim that it is I who is lacking objectivity. Look in a mirror, pal. You're projecting.

I have just proven it through your belief of the founding fathers, Einstein.

Your the one who keeps wanting to paint the "Founding Fathers" with a single broad brush, as if they were some amorphous hive organism all sharing a single mind, with a uniform moral code. Either you're an idiot, or being intentionally intellectually dishonest. I'll let you admit which.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I have facts to support my position. What do you have? Do you have anything? Please share with me what you have. Please don't tell me that you have nothing. Well... what do you have?

 

[Czernobog]

Our Founding Fathers believed that slavery was against the Law of Nature but did not know how to end it at the time of founding but did intend for slavery to perish.

Really? Let's stop right there. If all of the Founding Fathers knew this, then why didn't they know how to stop it? Why not simply end it right there? Are you sure you want to stick with that sweeping generalisation of "the Founding Fathers"?

Because they could not negotiate a solution and form the nation.

Why should they have had to negotiate anything? One negotiates points of contention. You just insisted that they all agreed it was an affront to nature, and should be ended. No negotiation should have been necessary.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

Well, one of us is, certainly...

Yes, I believe I have just proven that it is you too.

No, you haven't. I have accurately described the militant factions of the three groups, and only one of them is not acting violently, and viciously, but you claim that it is I who is lacking objectivity. Look in a mirror, pal. You're projecting.

I have just proven it through your belief of the founding fathers, Einstein.

Your the one who keeps wanting to paint the "Founding Fathers" with a single broad brush, as if they were some amorphous hive organism all sharing a single mind, with a uniform moral code. Either you're an idiot, or being intentionally intellectually dishonest. I'll let you admit which.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I have facts to support my position. What do you have? Do you have anything? Please share with me what you have. Please don't tell me that you have nothing. Well... what do you have?

No, you don't. You have the opinions of specific members of the founding fathers. That does not constitute proof that all were in agreement with those opinions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Vastator]

I see this question asked by religious folk frequently. I do disagree with some of the harsher anti-religious sentiments, at least as far as tone is concerned, but I understand exactly where those attitudes come from. Christians (speaking from the USA) have a harder time seeing the hold their religion has on our society and the actual harm it can do. When they are faced with the topic of crimes and abuses committed by other Christians, I commonly hear that the perpetrators were not "true Christians."

What is a true Christian? If a person, even if they are a criminal or an abuser (or, heck, just a run-of-the-mill wacko), professes belief in Jesus as the son of God and the savior of humanity, and accepts the Bible, then are they not a Christian? When asked how to become a Christian, is that not exactly what one is told? "To accept Jesus Christ in your heart, as your Lord, and Saviour"? The same people who are quick to point out that others are not true Christians are, more often than not, just as quick to point out the beliefs of other wrongdoers - Muslims and so-called "Satanists," for example. All people are capable of committing crimes, regardless of belief, but those who commit them in the name of their religion should not be ignored or brushed off as "not true believers." Just as it provides light and hope to some, there is a dark side to religion that people should acknowledge, too.

So back to the question of why atheists are so "toxic." Some among us have been hurt and abused by religion and religious people. Many see the religious attempting, at the expense of other people, to impose their standards of morality on others through law and social norms. Why are we told we need to "respect the beliefs of others" when ours are denigrated?

These areas are for us to freely vent our frustrations, as well as share our experiences with others of like mind. Atheists should not have to be polite about religion even in a space made for themselves. Certainly people should be able to freely believe what they like in their homes and in their hearts, but that doesn't mean religion should be free from criticism, and it doesn't mean religion is 100% good all the time. Nothing is.

Keep in mind, this is a forum for Religion and Ethics. Like it, or not, the question of ethics does not belong solely to either the religious, not to any one particular religion.

Atheists aren't toxic. Militant atheists maybe, but not atheists in general.

This is pretty simple, you are here for the express purpose of ridiculing people who don't think like you do. You actively seek out these situations in an attempt to subordinate religion. What did I get wrong?

... and out comes the persecution complex...