Why do the God-haters persist?

[Montrovant]

I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?

No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.

I'm not certain I understand your stance.

If the SCOTUS rules that a policeman browsing through your cell after an arrest is an unreasonable search, isn't that interpreting the 4th to cover cell phones and the information on them? And wouldn't such a ruling apply to any arrested persons and their cell phones in the future?

Do you think there should be a new constitutional amendment to cover all of the things which were not around at the time the Bill of Rights was created? Email, texts, all the forms of electronic communications used today and taken for granted were nothing but fanciful imagination when the constitution was written. Do you think new amendments to cover those things should be written whenever they are created?

I'm not opposing that viewpoint, I'm just trying to be clear about your position.

 

[Boss]

I can sympathize with what you are saying, but I wonder : do you think we should have a new constitutional amendment for every new piece of technology about which there is a constitutional question? For example, I believe the SCOTUS is or will be hearing a case about cell phones and determining whether police are performing an illegal search by viewing the contents of a cell phone taken from a person who has been arrested. Obviously the founders had no idea about cell phones. It's not something specifically covered by the constitution of course. Is this something the SCOTUS should rule on, or should they, in effect, throw up their hands and say, "We can't tell you if this is constitutional or not, go ask the legislature."? And if the SCOTUS does rule, should that ruling not apply to all cases of police arresting someone and searching their cell phone?

No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.

I'm not certain I understand your stance.

If the SCOTUS rules that a policeman browsing through your cell after an arrest is an unreasonable search, isn't that interpreting the 4th to cover cell phones and the information on them? And wouldn't such a ruling apply to any arrested persons and their cell phones in the future?

Do you think there should be a new constitutional amendment to cover all of the things which were not around at the time the Bill of Rights was created? Email, texts, all the forms of electronic communications used today and taken for granted were nothing but fanciful imagination when the constitution was written. Do you think new amendments to cover those things should be written whenever they are created?

I'm not opposing that viewpoint, I'm just trying to be clear about your position.

First of all, the SCOTUS is not hearing a case about all policemen browsing all cell phones after all arrests. They are hearing of a specific person, a specific officer, and a specific act with specific circumstances. Second, the 4th protects against unlawful search and seizure, if you have been arrested for proper cause, there is no violation. Third, it doesn't matter what form "property" takes, it is still protected universally under the 4th.

You're trying to create a straw man but he is falling apart before you can get there.

 

[HUGGY]

Nobody "Hates" a non existant sky fairy.

Some intelligent people just hate the ignorance that sustains the myth.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. The FF certainly knew about illegal searches and seizures of property and included an Amendment to address it in the Bill of Rights. If the SCOTUS has a case brought by John Doe vs. US Gov't... they should decide on the merits of that case and the circumstances of that case, and it should have NO bearing on how the 4th Amendment is interpreted. Their decision should apply to John Doe and the US Gov't, and no one else, unless the same circumstances exist.

I'm not certain I understand your stance.

If the SCOTUS rules that a policeman browsing through your cell after an arrest is an unreasonable search, isn't that interpreting the 4th to cover cell phones and the information on them? And wouldn't such a ruling apply to any arrested persons and their cell phones in the future?

Do you think there should be a new constitutional amendment to cover all of the things which were not around at the time the Bill of Rights was created? Email, texts, all the forms of electronic communications used today and taken for granted were nothing but fanciful imagination when the constitution was written. Do you think new amendments to cover those things should be written whenever they are created?

I'm not opposing that viewpoint, I'm just trying to be clear about your position.

First of all, the SCOTUS is not hearing a case about all policemen browsing all cell phones after all arrests. They are hearing of a specific person, a specific officer, and a specific act with specific circumstances. Second, the 4th protects against unlawful search and seizure, if you have been arrested for proper cause, there is no violation. Third, it doesn't matter what form "property" takes, it is still protected universally under the 4th.

You're trying to create a straw man but he is falling apart before you can get there.

I'm not trying to create a straw man. The SCOTUS is hearing a couple of cases about searching the information on a person's cell phone after an arrest. There is disagreement about whether that is constitutional or not in the courts.

Here, a link : Justices to look at privacy cases involving police cell phone searches - CNN.com

The question is whether the information contained on a cell phone should be open to search without a warrant. This is not something the founders likely envisioned; a device capable of containing so much information about a person so easily accessed by government during an arrest.

So there is a question of whether the information contained on a person's cell phone is open to search upon any arrest, or protected from unlawful search. And I bring it up to ask if you think the SCOTUS should be making a judgement on the case or if, since this kind of information search is certainly not covered by an 18th century document, you think it requires a new constitutional amendment. Or, I suppose, if you think there are no situations in which the constitution is unclear.

 

[Boss]

I'm not trying to create a straw man. The SCOTUS is hearing a couple of cases about searching the information on a person's cell phone after an arrest.

What the SCOTUS is doing and has been doing has nothing to do with MY argument of what the SCOTUS is supposed to be doing and should be doing according to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. This is what makes it a straw man, I am trying to argue what they are supposed to be doing, you are trying to counter that with what they are doing.

Just the way you phrase this is wrongheaded. The SCOTUS shouldn't be hearing anything about "a person" and their cell phone. There is a specific person. They are hearing about John Doe's information on HIS cell phone, after HIS arrest. Stare decisis withstanding, are ALL arrests the same? Is ALL cell phone information the same? Is the pertinence of the information on the cell phone the same for a person arrested for DUI as opposed to kidnapping, murder, terrorism?

 

[Boss]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.

 

[Hollie]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.

Paranoid delusions.

That unseemly drool on your keyboard notwithstanding, you apparently believe your alternate realities are real?

 

[Montrovant]

I'm not trying to create a straw man. The SCOTUS is hearing a couple of cases about searching the information on a person's cell phone after an arrest.

What the SCOTUS is doing and has been doing has nothing to do with MY argument of what the SCOTUS is supposed to be doing and should be doing according to the Founding Fathers and the Constitution. This is what makes it a straw man, I am trying to argue what they are supposed to be doing, you are trying to counter that with what they are doing.

Just the way you phrase this is wrongheaded. The SCOTUS shouldn't be hearing anything about "a person" and their cell phone. There is a specific person. They are hearing about John Doe's information on HIS cell phone, after HIS arrest. Stare decisis withstanding, are ALL arrests the same? Is ALL cell phone information the same? Is the pertinence of the information on the cell phone the same for a person arrested for DUI as opposed to kidnapping, murder, terrorism?

Still not a straw man.

All I am doing is giving a current example of what SCOTUS is doing and asking if you think it is appropriate or not, and if not, if you think the appropriate action would be a constitutional amendment. I'm not arguing what you do or don't think about the subject, as I clearly stated, I'm trying to understand your position and it has been somewhat unclear in previous posts.

Obviously the cases are based on specific people. However, the ruling is expected to be on whether the actions by police in searching the cell phones of the specific people were constitutional or not. They might make a broad ruling or a very specific one, I have no idea. I was just using it as an example.

 

[Steven_R]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.

At least when I say those good God fearing Christians at the DiscoTute want to get rid of science because they think knowledge is a threat to Godliness, I can use their own papers to prove it.

 

[koshergrl]

Anti-Christian movement stopped in its tracks..for now:

"
The court, in a 5-to-4 ruling today, said those prayers don't violate the Constitution -- even if they routinely emphasize Christianity -- as long as there's no effort to proselytize or to denigrate non-Christians. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the prayers are ceremonial, and in keeping with the nation's traditions. He wrote that they are designed to "acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent," and not to "exclude or coerce nonbelievers."

High court ruling favors prayer at council meeting - WTOP.com

 

[sealybobo]

We see them here everyday, interjecting their hate-filled insultuous attacks on the religious, mocking and ridiculing to a bizarre extreme, anything and everything to do with God. They largely profess to be "Atheists" although some, as if to denote a hint of reluctance to go quite that far, will claim agnosticism instead. Best play it safe if we're dealing with a super-force who can send you to the pits of hell for all eternity, eh? But they have a dirty little secret they don't want any of us to know. They are not, in fact, Atheists or agnostic.

True Atheists have absolutely no inclination to attack people who profess religious belief. If anything, they are amused by the "believers" and find them a bit of a novelty. Much like an adult who encounters a child believing in Santa or the Easter Bunny. There is no harm to the adult in such beliefs, the adult knows these are not real entities, and it's simply an amusement to them. In fact, they may even 'play along' with the idea, just in the name of fun. What does it hurt? No, you don't see hoards of smart-assed punks at the mall where Santa visits, ridiculing and belittling the people standing in line to see him. Message boards aren't clogged up with degenerate misfits decrying the belief of a giant bunny who brings candy and hides eggs, because it doesn't really matter to anyone that some people entertain this notion.

Oh but it's because those are just kids, Boss! Well okay, let's take the thousands of nutty conspiracy theories out there. Do you see any evidence of people devoting every waking hour to go on message boards and forums to "inform" these people how they are crazy and misinformed? Nope. It doesn't matter. As long as you know something is too far-fetched to be true, you could care less what other people think. If someone wants to think Elvis is still alive on some remote island, what difference does that make to me? I might be inclined to casually comment that I don't believe it, but I am certainly not devoting the bulk of my energy and time online to categorically try and refute any inkling of thought pertaining to such a theory. And I am certainly not going to the extreme efforts to ridicule and insult the nuts who believe such theories. It's just not that important to me, nor to anyone else for that matter.

But with the God-haters and God, things are quite different. Although they claim to be Atheists or agnostics, my suspicion is they are anything but. It appears they are devout believers in God, who fully understand the power of God and how much God influences others who believe in Him. To put it in simple terms, they fear God. They are afraid if they do not stand up and fight God with all their might, God may become a bigger influence and that wouldn't be good for them, for whatever reason.

Most of the time, these reasons center around that person's life choices. They have totally abandoned the God they very much believe in, so they can be unaccountable for their moral behaviors. As long as there is "no god" to judge them, they can do whatever they please and there are no consequences. It's important that we understand, any time someone is doing something immoral or wrong, they had rather have company. This provides a codependency, a way they can somehow justify their behavior to themselves.

So this is why the God-haters persist on message boards and forums, to 'recruit' people over to their way of thinking. They believe they can ridicule and cajole people into being ashamed of their beliefs and those people will ultimately join their faction. If nothing else, it is 'therapeutic' for them to vent their anger and vitriol toward the God they know is real, and they are almost certain to meet up with others who are doing the same thing.

I am happy to answer all of your questions. First of all, this is coming from a person who was born Christian but deep down always knew the stories made no sense. But I still believed in a God. Like many Christians I don’t take the bible literally and I doubt Jesus performed any miracles. There is zero proof of miracles. Just like I doubt Adam talked to a snake, Noah put every animal on earth in a boat or Moses parted the red seas. Many Christians are ok with the idea that these are not actual historical events yet they still believe in Christianity. Why? Because they were brainwashed from birth to believe in God. If they sit down and have an intelligent conversation and don’t get emotional about it, they will see that God was made up a long time ago, a long time before Christianity. Why? Because we didn’t understand why natural evens happened like thunder, commits, drouts and floods. It’s not our/your fault. We didn’t know science and we were brainwashed from birth. And for thousands of years you’d be crucified if you didn’t believe. So it’s been engrained into our DNA. And our parents and their parents and their parents too were brainwashed by their church/parents/leaders. We know where religion came from. It was a long time before Christianity or even the old testament. And funny that our current religion stole stories from the religions that came before us like the virgin birth or resurrection. It’s not even an original made up story. There were 1000 different religions in human history. How come you understand 998 of them are fake but not yours or the Jewish religion? And yes most of us are agnostic. Why? Because there is no way to prove or disprove something that doesn’t exist. So as smart intelligent scientific people we don’t believe something that is made up but we don’t deny something that we can’t prove. Best answer is we don’t know. God has left no fingerprint ever and if you look at the history of Christianity you will see Kings and churches used religion to control the masses and they continue to use it to control the sheep today. They do it in the muslim world and Israel too. So don’t say it must be true because a lot of people believe because a lot of people believe in Mohammad and the Mormon faith too. That doesn’t mean anything. Google whynogod. So we get mad at religious people because they want to impose their fairytale on our society. Fuck that. We have laws and a constitution and that’s good enough for everyone. We don’t need Christianity. In fact, in a few generations Chrstians or anyone who believes in organized religion will be in the minority and this world will be much better off. You religious people are hypocrites and ignorant. Reason why we separate church and state. People with cancer and Alzheimers will be better off if you let science rule, not religion. We already have too many people so we can’t ban abortion. But do you cry when we crack an egg or kill a mosquito? And you guys have used your God to start too many wars so please stop the foolishness. There is no God. And if there is, he ain’t Christian.

 

[sealybobo]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.

What fascinates us is that your religion says feed the poor and heal the sick but your politics says fuck the poor and let people die or go bankrupt if they don't have good health insurance. It also gets you to go along with not doing research that could cure cancer, gets you to go along with denying global warming.

The greatest thing the devil ever did was not to convince us he wasn't real. It was to get you fools to vote for him.

 

[sealybobo]

Nobody "Hates" a non existant sky fairy.

Some intelligent people just hate the ignorance that sustains the myth.

Great point. I don't hate something that doesn't exist. I hate the churches and leaders who use religion to control the masses. And I hate the masses who fall for it. What do I love? That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.

This is very promising: More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised

Statistics on Religion in America Report -- Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

 

[sealybobo]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.

This is just flat out bullshit. Just like you guys think athiests are bad people but when you look in our prisons there are very few athiests in prison but the prisons are full of christians.

I’m re reading your post to make sure I covered everything. Please don’t attempt to scare us into believing your lies. It won’t work. That’s how they got you to have blind ignorant faith. We need proof. You guys already tried to tell us if we don’t believe your story we are going to hell and we still don’t believe. So you are going to have to do better than that. It is not our responsibility to prove God is fake. For a unbelievable story it is your job to prove to us your story is true. And you don’t have any It makes no sense yet we’re supposed to believe it blindly? Again, google whynogod and read the entire thing and it will poke holes in every stupid thought you have on religion. Best answer is we don’t know, so agnostics have it right. But I am 100% certain atheists are not going to hell because they don’t believe your story or any of the 998 other fake ass stories that came before or after your fake ass story. This is why Americans are still stupid and losing their democracy to the rich. The rich are able to use God to divide us. So you vote against science and your own financial best interests because of things like abortion? There is no God so abortion is no big deal. It’s the equivilant of stepping on an ant or smacking a mosquito. I do fear an ignorant society that denies science because of superstitions and a corrupt church. Religion has held us back over 1000 years. Yes, I fear a society where stupidity rules. No we don’t deny God so we can be unaccountable. We truly don’t believe there is a God. If we did believe in God, we certainly wouldn’t be denying him. And it is your religion that allows you all to be assholes 6 days a week and think you are forgiven because you are saved and believe. What a joke. We persist on Message boards because we can’t say these things to our friends and co wokers YET. I have lost friends who couldn’t handle the truth. If they are so sure, why would any of my arguments have any effect on them? It’s because I/we make a lot of good points. You are believing a fairytale. The only difference is a fairytale happened “a long time ago in a place far far away” and Jesus happened SUPPOSEDLY 2014 years ago in Jeruselum. But there are no historical records, the story literally comes from 11 people. 11??? That’s a cult. We’re supposed to believe he did miracles because 11 people said so? If you have studied religious history and you still believe you have to be stupid.

 

[HUGGY]

This thread is dead. You guys let the atheists successfully derail it

tapatalk post

Oh, it's just taken a slight detour. You see, many of these so-called "Atheists" are also Marxist activists who want to destroy the representative democracy we have in America and replace it with socialist totalitarianism. They are just as dishonest about their hate for America as they are about their hate for a God they don't believe in.

What a laughable post.

I know dozens of atheists and have never met an actual Marxist activist. Where are these "many" Marxist activists?

Who posting on USMB do you have evidence of being a Marxist Activist?

What should we do about these people?

Shouldn't someone contact the FBI?

If YOU have evidense isn't it your duty to report it?

I hope you are not suggesting that the atheists that are not Marxist activists get in touch with the authorities if only to clear their names.

I just don't have the time.

 

[Boss]

Shouldn't someone contact the FBI?
If YOU have evidense isn't it your duty to report it?

There's no law against being a Marxist activist.
We live in a free society where you have the liberty to support whatever ideology you please, there is no crime in it.

 

[Boss]

What should we do about these people?

I would say, marginalize and ignore them.

 

[Boss]

That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.

Think what you want to but this isn't true. 95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.

Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.

 

[HUGGY]

Shouldn't someone contact the FBI?
If YOU have evidense isn't it your duty to report it?

There's no law against being a Marxist activist.
We live in a free society where you have the liberty to support whatever ideology you please, there is no crime in it.

SOOooo.... I guess those of us that support NO ideology are SOL...

I'm OK with it really. It gives me more time to be with my dogs and work on my inventions and keep up on vehicle repairs and other chores.

That's what I don't get about the Marxist activists... Where do they find the time?

 

[thebrucebeat]

That more and more people are waking up and not believing in fairytales.

Think what you want to but this isn't true. 95% of the human race believes in something greater than self. Only about 5% identify as Nihilists who believe in nothing. This statistic traces back to the origins of man.

Now, you'll find propaganda to show that membership in Christian churches are declining in America, or fewer people report attending regular religious services, etc. Religions come and go, trends also change with times, but the number of people who believe in something greater than self is not changing.

Fear is eternal.