No, Nyar! @ChemEngineer is has joined us a very short time ago to moan and inform us on what’s correct, and what goes where. Let’s all go along.
Even his expecting the rest of us to engage him in conversation after ignoring a simple question
like @Sheldon 's makes total sense.
Continue to guide us, oh wise one.
In our culture, there are traditions that have a religious origin . . . but that doesn’t mean that the Founding Fathers intended the USA to be ruled by religion.
This country was intended to be secular.
I reject religion (which isn’t the same as rejecting spirituality, as these two principles are different from each other) because of the harm and damage that I see from it
As an example:
And so on.
Atheist censorship? On HERE? What the beep are you talking about? There’s no beep-beep-beep-beep censorship on this beep-beep site. Your beep brain must be full of beep-beep horse beep to think such stupid beep. Geeeeez… 
(Edit for beep-beep-beep annoying beep)
Wow, so much to unpack…
In fact there are atheist churches. Many churchgoers who now identify as atheist missed the congregations and the assemblies, so, they started atheist churches. I don’t belong to one and I would not treat my atheism like a religion. Still, atheist churches do exist. Search ‘Morning Assembly.’
Do you have a citation for this? I believe what the supreme court said is "Atheism is protected under the First Amendment just as religion is protected.’ In short: you have a first amendment right to free speech about your religion. That allows you to knock on doors and scream from street corners. Atheists have those same rights under the law.
Preaching is not a submission of ideas, it is a regurgitation of dogma, especially when it comes from the bible. These ideas are the best thinking of Iron Age goat herders and the people that once ruled over them. That does not imply that there are not some useful ideas in the Bible, but as evidence for the existence of a god, it is a collection of superstition, mythology, Iron Age logic, and very much useless.
Argumentum adpopulum: The popularity of an idea does not make it true. People once believed the world was flat. Mythrus was popular before Jesus, as were the Roman and Greek Gods. Popularity does not breed truth.
A better question is why aren’t they offensive to you?
1 Timothy 2:12 Subjugation of women: 1 Timothy 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
Matthew 5:30, And if thy right hand offends thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
The entire concept of Hell is offensive. “Love me or burn in hell?” Really? Now that is one fucked up message. Your god sounds like a stalker.
But remember, once you cut your hand off, you can not go to Church ever again. "For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: … Leviticus 21-18
"But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die…’ Deuteronomy 22:20
If your brother dies, you need to fuck his wife??? Really? “Master, Moses wrote unto us, If a man’s brother die, and leave his wife behind him, and leave no children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.” (Mark 12:19)
God loves everyone unconditionally… well … unless they are deformed by cutting their hands or balls off. “He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”(Deuteronomy 23:1) Oh! And unless they are a bastard. “A bitched shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.” (Deuteronomy 23:2)
“For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.” (Leviticus 20:9)
Your Family Is Your Enemy and You Are All Competing for God’s Love? What a sick book. “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” (Matthew 10:35-27)
“I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent.” Timothy 2:11
“Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.” (Psalm 137:9)
Divorce And Remarrying Are Both Considered Adultery. “Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.” (Luke 16:18)
Both Malachi 3:6 and Hebrews 13:8 declare that God is the same always and never ever changes. If you are trinarian, your Jesus is the same god that sanctions slavery, murder, rape, and the killing of babies. How do you not have a problem with this?
Christianity is not the largest religion on the planet. Not by Christian Standards. I can explain why.
Lets begin with non-trinarians: Christian religions that do not believe in the trinity. The faiths that do believe in the trinity assert those that do not believe in the trinity are not Christian. They are following false teachings. We can eliminate all non-trinarians from your claim of majority.
NON-TRINARIAN FAITHS:
Christian denominations are the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Jehovah’s Witnesses, La Luz del Mundo, and Iglesia ni Cristo. There are a number of other smaller groups, including Christadelphians, Church of the Blessed Hope, Christian Scientists, Dawn Bible Students, Living Church of God, Assemblies of Yahweh, Members Church of God International, Unitarian Christians, Unitarian Universalist Christians, The Way International, The Church of God International, the United Church of God, Church of God General Conference, Restored Church of God, Christian Disciples Church, and Church of God of the Faith of
Next: We can elimiate the Catholics or the Catholics can eliminate the Christians, one of the groups is lying. Apparently All Catholics are Christians , but not all Christians are Catholics. A Christian refers to a follower of Jesus Christ who may be a Catholic, Protestant, Gnostic, according to government statictical data, but NOT to believers in the Christian faith. If the JWs are correct, the rest of Christianity is doomed. The same is true of the Mormons, the Evangelics, and any other group we might mention.
Look, I can do this all day. There are some 30,000 Christian sects and each sect asserts it is all the other sects that follow false teachings and are not real Christians. Now you want to lump them all together and pretend you have some sort of harmony? Are you aware that Catholics and Protestants were once killing one another over dogma?
You are actually trying to lump Jews in with Christians now? Really. Hint: There is no such thing as JudeoChristian. The Jews do not believe in your Jesus character, the crucifixion, salvation through Jesus, or any of that bullshit? The Jews are Gods chosen race and they are held to a higher standard than you. They must follow God’s commandments. All 613 of them. You made no point worth considering here.
Explain this: Atheist “Churches” Gain Popularity—Even in the Bible Belt
And there are very good reasons for this. It is only in the past 50 years that atheists have begun to emerge from under the thumbs of theists. The Internet will be the undoing of religion. Now, isolated atheists who feel alone in a sea of religious intollerance, can find like minded people on the Internet. And what is really scary, WE ARE GROWING FASTER THAN ANY RELIGION.
People who give more get more?* It does not appear you understand the meaning of the quote. Still, I will pass the donation basket to you and you ‘GIVE’ as much as you like.
I can appreciate your points, except that I’m not sure I understand the distinction . . . and this is probably more on my end, as I sometimes have problems communicating.
Cyber is completely capable of explaining this but I saw the post and butted in. This is something that is very useful to understand as an atheist. We begin with a true dichotomy. God exists is at one end of the continuum, and God does not exist is at the other. It is true that God either exists or it does not exist.
God Exists-------------------------------------God does not exist. This is True.
A Gnostic in either camp is making the claim. God Exists or God does not Exist. Gnostic is a statement of knowledge. (I have personal knowledge of the claim I am making.) This means the Gnostic can demonstrate with facts or evidence that the God claim being is true. The claim has been accepted, and the Gnostic also accepts the burden of proof.
The Agnostic is making a different claim. The agnostic is asserting, I have seen no good reason to believe the Gnostic’s god claim (God exists/God does not exist). I am seeing no evidence for the claim. Both the existence and non-existence of God, are thus far un-falsifiable claims.
When the Agnostic hears a ‘God Claim’ (God Exists/God does not exist.) the agnostic asks, ‘What evidence do you have for making the claim?’ Absent any real or factual evidence, the agnostic simply asserts I have no reason to believe your ‘God Claim.’
Look at the words, ‘God Claim.’ It says nothing at all about whether a god exists or not. It is an assertion that the ‘CLAIM’ has not met a burden of proof. The time to believe any proposition is after it has been demonstrated. The Agnostic simply withholds belief until such a time that evidence is forthcoming.
Now, with that said, many atheists will assert that they do not believe in God or gods. This is different from ‘God exists/God does not exist.’ Atheists are not making a God claim. They are making a personal belief claim. I know my personal beliefs better than you.
When I look into my brain, into my feelings, I just don’t get God Claims? I do not see how they are justified. I can honestly say that I do not believe in a god. (I did not say that God is not real or that there are no gods. Perhaps there are? What evidence is there to convince me? Can the Gnostic support his or her claim?)
Is this making any sense? Gnostic’s profess knowledge. They make the assertion ‘God exists or does not exist.’ Agnostics profess no knowledge (a=without gnosis= knowledge) I have no knowledge, and therefore I am an agnostic. I am also an atheist because I have seen no evidence for the God thing. This leaves me with no good reason to believe.
Now we have a final category. Agnostic Chriatians. Being agnostic does not guarantee non-belief in religious claims. Pascal’s Wager seems to be the preeminent argument for belief without evidence. After all, you want to go to heaven ‘right?’ Just believe whether you think it is true or not. ’ Blessed are those who have not seen, and have believed." John, 20:29
Agnostics can be both atheists and theists. Agnosticism is about what you know and not about what you believe. The agnostic theist asserts (not at the same time), I don’t know if there is a god, but I believe something created the universe and I call that god. I don’t know but I believe in God. (Agnostic-theist.)
This seems pretty good:
A/theism is typically thought of as having to do with belief. (I do not / believe in god(s).)
A/gnosticism is typically thought of as not / having knowledge. (I do not / know god(s) exist.)
Most atheists I know do not believe in god(s) but will also say they have no knowledge one way or the other.
Thank you very much. I have found some valuable points that I can take away, so thank you again.
Aneurin Bevan here in the UK was an atheist, and he was responsible for the National Health Service, which brought free healthcare to millions. He also oversaw the building of new hospitals after the destruction of World War II.
Another Christian Nationalist trope bites the dust.
That sounds like bs to me, more likely they recognise that they must treat atheism like a religion for purposes of the First Amendment. In order no doubt to stop petty vindictive theists trying to peddle their grubby superstitious wares in schools, and to grant their unevidenced superstition special privileges that violate the constitution.
Atheism is clearly not a religion, to any remotely literate person, with access to a dictionary.
Some of the ideas are repugnant to me because they are pernicious obviously, like Exodus 21 depicting a deity giving a glowing endorsement of slavery, you may agree with the deity depicted, and think slavery is great, but I don’t. Then there is the ethnic cleansing, and sex trafficking prisoners that it endorses, the deity depicted is a cruel sadistic mass murdering genocidal monster, and while this may float your boat, even were it not fictional I’d want nothing to do with it.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy, in many parts of the world and throughout human history pointing out that deities are fictional was not very wise, given the cruel and violent nature of theists when you point out their “emperor has no clothes”. Though it is worth noting that atheism rises sharply among people entering higher education, and in the US is highest among elite scientists, like the National Academy of Sciences for example, where atheism mirrors theism in the general population, of course these figures don’t tell us anything about the supersiton itself, but you have failed to even answer me when I have several times asked if you can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, and that reticence certainly does infer something about the belief.
False equivalence, rational and scientific in their professional work, doesn’t mean their subjective belief in unevidenced superstition is either rational or scientific. If the belief is rational then present some objective evidence for any deity, or a rational argument that a deity is even possible, there is no scientific evidence for any deity cleary, or those elite scientists would not believe in wildly different deities, and atheism would not be significantly higher among scientists, especially elite scientists. Nobel Laureates are of course by their very nature a small sample group, moreover the majority of the small sample group dates back quite a bit, and subjective belief in unevidenced superstition is in decline in many parts of the world, and in direct proportion to the advancements of science and education. Theism is still highest among the uneducated poor, I guess some things never change.
There are no not believing in unicorn universities or hospitals either, this doesn’t make unicorns real. However this sounds like more bullshit to me, atheism is not a global or national movement with the kind of resources churches and religions command, and religions of course involved themselves in education just as much for the opportunity to indoctrinate their pupils as anything else, just as missionaries primary goal was not charitable but indoctrination of local populations, often catastrophically so.
Not of it evidence your imaginary sky fairy though, so if you want an example of sheer stupidity for your meme above, your post is a glowing example.
That’s a lie, and when atheists give to charity of course it can only be motivated from pure altruism, not the saccharine promise of a fictional afterlife, or the equally ludicrous threat of Hell. And again this doesn’t remotely evidence your magic sky fairy anyway, so your really setting a record for the typically stupid cliches theists peddle, and boy have picked the wrong audience.
You don’t seem to have cited this author? Purely an oversight no doubt, or you’re bullshitting, a not uncommon trait among religious apologists who come here to troll.
They also kept slaves, indeed all the slave owners in the US were Christians, go figure, but then the bible fully endorses buying and owning other humans as slaves, so what’s your point?
Now @ChemEngineer I ask again, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity?
It was lame trolling, because you were butt hurt that I turned your previous troll into a joke.
It seems we can add a sense of humour to the growing list of things you appear to lack.
Id imagine atheists fear nothing in the form of intelligent debate, but we do fear the regurgitation of the same drivel from clone upon clone of theistic muppet.
They tend to be drive by theists, post and bugger off.
Occasionally you get the odd ones that will make a claim and then never back up that claim in a merry go round of time wasting.
Sorry, we don’t tend to have the patience for that horse crap.
We ask very simple questions and theists go out of their way to avoid them.
Very true, like these for example:
Maybe theists should have to answer these in their profiles before being granted access? It might weed out the trolls?
“Under the thumbs,” oh please. And your friend accused ME of “whining.” But you’re so “smart” and “rational”.
Under whose Christian “thumb” have you ever been. Explain in detail.
Nobody makes you pray. Nobody.
Nobody makes you go to any Christian church. Nobody.
What a whiny bunch of liars atheists are. No wonder you’re always miserable.
“Gender fluidity”, oh please.
The homosexuals on parade in New York chanted “we’re coming after your kids.”
TEXT REMOVED BY MOD
The number of deaths in America resulting from AR-15 rifles is trivial compared to pistols. You know nothing of worldwide statistics on murders versus gun ownership. That is an entirely different subject which you can never win either. Our Founding Fathers made gun ownership a basic right.
Liars?
Says the person pushing a world belief that revolves around an invisible cosmic wizard and the suspension of nature in order to have miracles.
First, everyone needs support at one time or another. Even Billy Graham needed support occasionally.
And (from what I understand) Baphomet represents an idea . . . which includes a rejection of theism and embracing the world as it really is.
As for my problems with religion is how religion (and God) kill people. Religion–in general–seems to function by following rules that can be destructive. As an example (and one I often use), the Brescia explosion in Italy killed about 2,000 people and destroyed about 15% of the town because lightning rods are sacreligious (lightning comes from God), as God would never strike a church when the townspeople were especially pious.
Well . . . this logic made sense to the military, so that’s where they stored all of the gunpowder . . . almost 90 metric tons of it.
The steeple is the highest point in the town, so when lightning hit and started a fire, the explosion (and destruction) caused the clergy to rethink their attitudes toward lightning rods.
I view religious intolerance toward homosexuality and LGBTQ people in the same way.
There are actually more references to lightning being from God than there are passages condemning homosexuality . . . yet Christianity adjusted to accommodate lightning rods on churches.
Why doesn’t Evangelical Christianity do the same with homosexuality . . . among other things?
As another example, consider hand washing.
In Genesis, God says that Eve shall have her pains greatly multiplied in childbirth as punishment for tempting Adam.
Ignaz Semmelweis discovered that if a doctor or midwife washed their hands before helping a woman give birth, then infection of both mother and infant can be largely prevented (he reduced the death rate from childbirth by more than 90%).
Yet Christianity condemned him because he was interfering with God’s laws. If mothers died from infection, then it was God’s will.
Semmelweis ended up dying in a mental institution in 1865 at the age of 49.
Evangelical Christianity eventually decided that handwashing was acceptable despite the relevant Biblical verses. Why can’t Christianity comes to terms with LGBTQ people and evolution today, for example?
