Atheism

If the founding fathers were not religious, they would not have put In God We Trust on money and Under God in the pledge of allegiance.

It is amazing is it not what a person will do to get into office? Do you think that an admitted atheist could be president or would he have to lie about his religious beliefs?

In any country that someone seeks office in do they not have to share the religious ideology of the mass or would they still have the same chance of getting in if they did not?

As you are aware, Edgar, those types of cute little phrases are major aids to inducing a trance like state in large groups of people. These phrases can be resurrected time after time to cause a massive rush of support for any manner of crime. "If god wants it, who am I to say no to god".

I firmly believe that all else being equal, the atheist would not stand a chance getting elected.

But only you know the truth, right ? The all knowing, all seeing you....atheists like you and your Nazi friends.....how come you make excuses for the terrorists if they are religious ?

Thats the complete idiocy of our present political system. Its so full of bullshit Christians who wear their "religion" like a qualifications statement.

It's not only that they wear it on their sleeves, but they want everybody to believe as they do; right to life (intrusion into private lives), no equality for gays and lesbians (discrimination), and taxation is a transfer of wealth from the rich to the poor (idiocy; as our national debt grows).

And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence. - Bertrand Russell

Especially when you consider that being omniscient he'd know exactly why you doubted her existence. And likely, as your creator, he'd know it was her fault.

You need to distinguish between dogma, faith, religion, people and God .

That's impossible, because there are too many variations and combinations. One definition just doesn't do it any justice.

But I read of many atheists criticisms where they cant even keep it straight as to who or which they are criticising...they criticise people, blame religion and condemn God all without realising the stupidity of their statements . It seems they understand nothing but want their sneering and snotty remarks to be taken seriously . A criticism of people should be based on human nature . A criticism of religion should be based on theology . A criticism of God is pointless and illogical . Yet they throw anything and everything into the mix, not realising how stupid it sounds .

It always seems to me they are saying look at that bad driver....this must be a result of the car manufacturers therefore mechanical engineers/designers couldn't exist .

Under God was added in 1954.

Atheist and theist alike can say some stupid things and can both be wrong at times!
I would like to think that a well informed atheist would be less likely to speak of absolutes but I am sure that I can be wrong!

Is it possible that a theist can be wrong about the existence of a God or do they have a empirical understanding of God that an agnostic atheist is is not able to understand?

Thanks

I know. I remember the day it went into effect. I felt a sense of violation and vowed to never say it aloud.

I am agnostic for the simple reason it can not be disproven that there is a God...yet I lack the faith to assume there is a God . Logically, it is more likely there is a God if we do not assume it is the God/father figure that religions worship, but more of a force of nature .

I hope that you do realize that I am not poking fun at what you are saying but only questioning your thought process!

If you wish to attribute a spaghetti monster with the powers of God, then what is in a name ?

The wisdom of numbers theory I suppose.

There can't be many who would follow people who say--

or



in the richest and most powerful nation that has ever existed. Voters are never going to elect oddballs like that.

In 1794 Sir John Shore, Governor-General of India, presented the Asiatic Society with information regarding female infanticide in his domain. Due to the seclusion of women it was impossible to measure the number of female births. What he did was to count the survivors and calculate the ratio of boys to girls. He found some villages containing no girls. In 30 villages he found that the number of boys totalled 343 and the girls 54.

It was not until the 1870s that the ratio became roughly equal.

What process other than the invasion of India by Christians do atheists offer which would have produced this effect. How many Indian females have lived since then as a result of the Christian imperialism. Left to its own devices India would have continued along the path established over millenia. And not only India.

The same sort of thing, various forms of human sacrifice, were practiced in every corner of the globe before Christianity exported its moral codes. The Old Testament is the book which eradicated human sacrifice from the world. It was common in the Americas, in Oceania, in the Mid and Far east, in Africa and in Europe.

How would atheism have achieved such a transformation of human life? Even now it has no political clout worth notice.

Abraham did not sacrifice his son. He was expected to. He substituted a lamb. And Jesus substituted bread. And broken bread substituted for the ritual torture of sacrificed victims.

Put it all on Ignore and continue flattering yourselves with your voices from the crotch you misogynists you. Thumb it down. Get your cheapskate fly-swatters out. Parade your ignorance for all to see.



Why the effigy? That's not "expressing themselves". That's fear of Christian law. The idea that we can rely on ourselves is playpen theology. Just try it.