Why Do Athiests

cornnifer · May 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

Got is the Germanic origin of the word God, which is now spelled Gott in Germany.

Mein Gott "My God"

Dein Kind ist dein Gott "Your child is your God" a good tune by Das Ich.

Also 'Gott ist Tot" "God is dead" is a good song too.

Du hast ein vogel im kopf!

Kann · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Church influences state. That is wrong. Church and state should be separate. I also believe corporation and state should be separate.

All modern democracies have the church/state separation. The church has no rights to hand out laws or even lobby for a law. Their only right is to express an opinion. That's why I don't understand the attacks, Churches express opinions, like everyone else, and we all disagree, like every other time. What is such a big deal?

cornnifer · May 2007

hippiemom wrote:

Believe what you like, but when you start trying to pass legislation, you're making your religion my business, and you're damn right I'm going to argue with you about it. When you try to tell my daughters what they can and can't do with their bodies, or my gay friends that they're not entitled to the same rights that I have, because your god tells you that what they want to do is a sin, you'd better be able to show that god to me and prove that he exists and that your beliefs are irrefutably the devine word of god. all.

Understood, but, this argument only works if you can demonstrate that ONLY "religious" people are opposed to things such as gay marriage and abortion. There are plenty of "non-religious" folks who are opposed to them as well, and there are plenty of "religious" individuals who would prefer the whole world STFU for two fucking seconds about gay marriage and abortion and concentrate on some imprtant issues. Gay marriage and abortion legislation, besides being relatively insignificant, are not examples of forced religious belief, as there are "non-religious" individuals who are opposed as well.

cornnifer · May 2007

cornnifer wrote:

Understood, but, this argument only works if you can demonstrate that ONLY "religious" people are opposed to things such as gay marriage and abortion. There are plenty of "non-religious" folks who are opposed to them as well, and there are plenty of "religious" individuals who would prefer the whole world STFU for two fucking seconds about gay marriage and abortion and concentrate on some imprtant issues. Gay marriage and abortion legislation, besides being relatively insignificant, are not examples of forced religious belief, as there are "non-religious" individuals who are opposed as well.

i might also add that everyone, "religious" or otherwise, is going to vote their beliefs on such issues, and you can't expect them not to. If someone were to vote for something, anything, that i, personally am opposed to, i can't really accuse them of "forcing their beliefs onto me.

Jeanie · May 2007

Kann wrote:

All modern democracies have the church/state separation. The church has no rights to hand out laws or even lobby for a law. Their only right is to express an opinion. That's why I don't understand the attacks, Churches express opinions, like everyone else, and we all disagree, like every other time. What is such a big deal?

Kann I agree that in principle all modern democracies are supposed to have a seperation between church and state. I just don't agree that church isn't a powerful lobby that influences legislature. And I think this is happening more and more in the current world climate. Almost seemingly as a backlash.
And it is getting harder and harder to demand that church and state remain seperate. I don't have a problem with churches expressing their opinions but I do have a problem when they are able to successfully use their power to mandate outside of their juristiction. That is a big deal and it should concern everyone. Church supporters and non church supporters alike.
And as I said the same applies to corporations.

chopitdown · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Kann I agree that in principle all modern democracies are supposed to have a seperation between church and state. I just don't agree that church isn't a powerful lobby that influences legislature. And I think this is happening more and more in the current world climate. Almost seemingly as a backlash.
And it is getting harder and harder to demand that church and state remain seperate. I don't have a problem with churches expressing their opinions but I do have a problem when they are able to successfully use their power to mandate outside of their juristiction. That is a big deal and it should concern everyone. Church supporters and non church supporters alike.
And as I said the same applies to corporations.

i think it's impossible to have "church" or religion not involved in gov't. Gov't is composed of people with various religions. I agree that individual churches shouldn't nec tell people who to vote for, but I think that religious organizations have every right that non-religious organizations have in lobbying congress. A lobby group is just a group of people who feel that some cause is worthwhile and they want their side heard and their opinion represented and legislated.

I think that we should not have a state mandated religion...i.e iran. There should never be a law saying you have to practice christianity or any other religion or you cannot practice any religion. But as was said earlier, there are both religious and non religious people who share similar views on all the controversial issues on both sides of the issues.

cornnifer · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Kann I agree that in principle all modern democracies are supposed to have a seperation between church and state. I just don't agree that church isn't a powerful lobby that influences legislature. And I think this is happening more and more in the current world climate. Almost seemingly as a backlash.
And it is getting harder and harder to demand that church and state remain seperate. I don't have a problem with churches expressing their opinions but I do have a problem when they are able to successfully use their power to mandate outside of their juristiction. That is a big deal and it should concern everyone. Church supporters and non church supporters alike.
And as I said the same applies to corporations.

EVERYTHING has a lobby behind it. The NRA, NOW, ASPCA, etc. The country is run by special interst groups from all walks, and separation of church and state, in absoluteley no way, bars religion or faith from public, political discourse. That simply is not what separation of church and state does or is intended to do.

onelongsong · May 2007

soulsinging wrote:

im reasonably certain they dont exist. onelongsong is the biggest imaginary shit talker on here. he's made more wild, unsubstantiated claims than anyone i know round here. he's a former rock star, medical miracle, milita man, has killed 2 people, a practicing attorney who has never been beaten, a buffalo rancher, and now, apparently, the sole keeper of 619 commandments wired directly to him by god.

new motion: atheists and christians be damned. we should all be worshipping onelongsong, cos he CLEARLY is god's gift to this message board! a regular renaissance man.

i planned on asking why i have to discuss my life story every time i participate in a thread; only to have you twist my words and cause me to straighten the story out. but instead; i wonder if your life is so pitiful that you have not made accomplishments in your life. or maybe your scope of life is so narrow that you can't imagine someone making several accomplishments in thier life. i've done more than most people could do in 2 lifetimes; but that's because i live my life to the fullest.
as a loyola alumni; i took many years of theology. the 619 commandments are in the koran. if you'd like to learn more; the history channel runs a program explaining how they are connected with modern laws. you can verify that for yourself. it's not my job to teach you every time i sign in. i can only imagine that your attacks are spawned by jealousy. instead of looking at what others have done; why not look at what you can do. set goals for yourself and follow them through. i won't tell you the secret. you'll have to discover that on your own.

Michael McPherson · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

I have no problem with that except that religious organizations lobby for the law to be enacted as they deem appropriate. The state should act for all its citizens regardless of their color, creed, sexual persuasion, religious beliefs, abilities and disabilities etc. Unfortunately because of churches lobbying not all people are treated equally in the eyes of the state. Church influences state. That is wrong. Church and state should be separate. I also believe corporation and state should be separate.

I am a very faithful christian, and I agree with you, state and church should be seperate. Is George Bush a christian??? I don't think so, no true christian could justify a war for oil. But man, saying you're a christian works well to get mindless christian drones to vote for you! You can do anything you want if people believe you when you say God is on your side.

Jeanie · May 2007

cornnifer wrote:

EVERYTHING has a lobby behind it. The NRA, NOW, ASPCA, etc. The country is run by special interst groups from all walks, and separation of church and state, in absoluteley no way, bars religion or faith from public, political discourse. That simply is not what separation of church and state does or is intended to do.

Ok so what is intened to do then?

cornnifer · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

Ok so what is intened to do then?

It prohibits the establishment of a state sponsored religion.

Jeanie · May 2007

Michael McPherson wrote:

I am a very faithful christian, and I agree with you, state and church should be seperate. Is George Bush a christian??? I don't think so, no true christian could justify a war for oil. But man, saying you're a christian works well to get mindless christian drones to vote for you! You can do anything you want if people believe you when you say God is on your side.

This is a perfect example of why I believe that church and state should stay seperate or at the very least have limited powers.

I'm all for groups being organized and attempting to make change to policy but not when it is not serving the greater good.

And as I said before, it's not just about church and state. I am equally offended and appalled by the power wielded by big business in terms of shaping policy that affects everyone.

Jeanie · May 2007

cornnifer wrote:

It prohibits the establishment of a state sponsored religion.

So we can't just have government for the people we have to always consider religion? How are we any better off with a religiously sponsored state?

RainDog · May 2007

cornnifer wrote:

It prohibits the establishment of a state sponsored religion....

...as well as laws deemed solely religious in nature.

soulsinging · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

I never said that you did call him a monster. I said I didn't think he was one.

So it seems that much of what is going on here in this thread actually has nothing to do with this thread and is a combined frustration that you have from many previous threads? Or am I getting that wrong?
The thread is about OLS view that athiests, in his opinion, feel the need to attack those of religion. And I read it that he wondered why people couldn't be respectful of each other. :rolleyes: Of course that's just my interpretation. I'm probably wrong.

Please don't belittle my input. I simply asked why you felt it necessary to attack him personally. Or it seemed to me that you were. Again I could be wrong. This is text after all and not a true indication of the complexity of each of the individuals posting here.

As to the other, well not that I feel the need to defend him, but I can confirm a couple of his claims. But it's not for me to do that.
So perhaps like most of us here, some of what he says is bullshit and some of what he says is truth. By all means disagree, gee call it bullshit if you must, but play nice is perhaps all I'm asking. And not because I particularly feel the need to defend OLS but because you attacking him personally dimishes you.
And I think that does you a diservice.

fair enough. i tend to fight dirty round here with people that consistently dodge questions. it's frustrating and it's always a small handful of the same people. im willing to be respectful to people who prove they deserve respect, such as ffg. the people that dont (eg. sponger)... well, i have fun with them.

but yeah, im slightly cranky. it's finals week. im about 6 days away from the end of the hardest year of my life... and it's wearing me down. i will be so happy next week it's going to annoy the shit out of you and you'll be lecturing me on not being such a cheesy dope!

hippiemom · May 2007

cornnifer wrote:

Understood, but, this argument only works if you can demonstrate that ONLY "religious" people are opposed to things such as gay marriage and abortion. There are plenty of "non-religious" folks who are opposed to them as well, and there are plenty of "religious" individuals who would prefer the whole world STFU for two fucking seconds about gay marriage and abortion and concentrate on some imprtant issues. Gay marriage and abortion legislation, besides being relatively insignificant, are not examples of forced religious belief, as there are "non-religious" individuals who are opposed as well.

I certainly never denied that there were many religious people who don't get themselves all worked up over gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, etc. In fact, the last paragraph of my post was about those people.

For a law to be legitimate in a secular society, it must have a secular purpose. I still have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve the concept of sin. Leaving aside religious teachings, there is simply no reason not to permit any two people to marry one another. If someone who is not at all religious is opposed to it (I have never met such a person, but I'm sure one exists somewhere), I would tend to think that they've subconsciously absorbed the teachings of the dominant religions and failed to question them, because there simply is no other justification for gay marriage bans.

Issues such as abortion, birth control and stem-cell research revolve around the question of when life begins. The belief that life begins at conception cannot possibly be grounded in anything other than religion, because there is no scientific basis for it. A non-religious person can say that they believe that, but again, I've yet to hear them explain why. If it's just a feeling they have, that's not good enough ... we don't base laws on hunches. Religion and hunches and feelings are perfectly valid systems to use when making decisions in your own life, but we should set the bar a bit higher when it comes to trying to regulate the behavior of others who surely have hunches of their own.

I would also dispute that these issues are insignificant. If you are pregnant and don't want to be, or if someone you love is dying of a disease that might be cured by stem cells, they are very significant indeed.

cornnifer · May 2007

Jeanie wrote:

So we can't just have government for the people we have to always consider religion? How are we any better off with a religiously sponsored state?

i'm afraid i'm not tracking. We don't have a religiously sponsored state. And as far as a government for the people is concerned, and i hate to answer a question with a question, but, how do we have a "government for the people" and not afford a voice to all the people! Some of the people, in fact many of the people, are people of faith and/or "religion".

Jeanie · May 2007

soulsinging wrote:

fair enough. i tend to fight dirty round here with people that consistently dodge questions. it's frustrating and it's always a small handful of the same people. im willing to be respectful to people who prove they deserve respect, such as ffg. the people that dont (eg. sponger)... well, i have fun with them.

but yeah, im slightly cranky. it's finals week. im about 6 days away from the end of the hardest year of my life... and it's wearing me down. i will be so happy next week it's going to annoy the shit out of you and you'll be lecturing me on not being such a cheesy dope!

hehe!

Well doesn't that sound like Utopia?

I'll look forward to it!!

So good luck with it ss.

You'll be great!!

And soon enough you will be all qualified and have fancy little letters after your name.

cornnifer · May 2007

hippiemom wrote:

I certainly never denied that there were many religious people who don't get themselves all worked up over gay marriage, abortion, stem-cell research, etc. In fact, the last paragraph of my post was about those people.

For a law to be legitimate in a secular society, it must have a secular purpose. I still have yet to hear an argument against gay marriage that doesn't involve the concept of sin. Leaving aside religious teachings, there is simply no reason not to permit any two people to marry one another. If someone who is not at all religious is opposed to it (I have never met such a person, but I'm sure one exists somewhere), I would tend to think that they've subconsciously absorbed the teachings of the dominant religions and failed to question them, because there simply is no other justification for gay marriage bans.

Issues such as abortion, birth control and stem-cell research revolve around the question of when life begins. The belief that life begins at conception cannot possibly be grounded in anything other than religion, because there is no scientific basis for it. A non-religious person can say that they believe that, but again, I've yet to hear them explain why. If it's just a feeling they have, that's not good enough ... we don't base laws on hunches. Religion and hunches and feelings are perfectly valid systems to use when making decisions in your own life, but we should set the bar a bit higher when it comes to trying to regulate the behavior of others who surely have hunches of their own.

I would also dispute that these issues are insignificant. If you are pregnant and don't want to be, or if someone you love is dying of a disease that might be cured by stem cells, they are very significant indeed.

First of all, as i mentioned a post ago, our society is not entirely secular. It is comprised of secular and non secular elements (i.e people) and they ALL have a voice. People will vote as they see fit and that cannot be denied or expected otherwise. Also i didn't intend that these two issues were insignificant. My point is that with our palnet being destroyed, people domestically as well as internationally literally starving in a world of plenty, young men and women being killed in criminally waged wars, etc., these two issues are RELATIVELY small.

Next, you may not have met any "non-religious" people who are opposed to gay marriage, but you're going to have to trust me on this one. There are plenty. i may be a person of faith, you may even mistakenly refer to me as religious, but my personal opposition to the idea of gay-marriage has nothing to do with said faith. Nor is it religiously influenced. There are non religious grounds for this stance. i won't go into them specifically as i have here on other occasions.
Abortion opposition is probably even more shared amongst the faithful and nonfaithful alike than is GM. No where in any holy text (that i'm aware of) does it say that "life begins at conception". That is far from a strictly religiously inspired notion.
We may not base policy and law on "hunches", nor should we base them on scientific speculation and theory but on the will of the people.

soulsinging · May 2007

cornnifer wrote:

i'm afraid i'm not tracking. We don't have a religiously sponsored state. And as far as a government for the people is concerned, and i hate to answer a question with a question, but, how do we have a "government for the people" and not afford a voice to all the people! Some of the people, in fact many of the people, are people of faith and/or "religion".

we afford them a voice, by we have a government of the majority with protections for the fundamental rights of the minority. the majority can dictate policy and the direction of the country, but not at the expense of the minority. this is why we cannot pass segregation laws, cannot restrict the job options of women, and cannot deny homosexuals the same right to have a legally recognized union. reproductive rights (im talking about who you sleep with, not getting into abortion), family rights, and association are all fundamental. thus, the majority can try to mold christian policy through peace and love, but cannot strip the rights of other members of society by saying "our beliefs dont allow you, so we will marginalize you."

for this reason, i think it is flat out un-constitutional to deny homosexuals the right to marriage. personally, id rather government stop recognizing marriage all together and call them all civil unions or domestic partnerships, but since that is the term they have chosen to use, that is the term i will call it by. it is a discriminatory decision that strips gays of their fundamental right to associate with whom they want, marry, and raise their family how they choose. however, for these same reasons, i do NOT think abortion is constitutionally protected and SHOULD be left to the will of the people. personally, i am pro-choice and would vote accordingly, but it is a murky issue and it is not necessarily in the constitution unless you stretch it to the breaking point.

Why Do Athiests

Comments

Categories