Conversion from Islam = Death penalty?

"Pagan" Rome was actually a very religious place. The proportion of atheists were probably the same as current Western cultures.

Tico wrote:

"Pagan" Rome was actually a very religious place. The proportion of atheists were probably the same as current Western cultures.

I wonder if Rome was only superficially religious... A culture with that many Gods does make one wonder if any of the Gods were actually taken seriously...

RexRed wrote:

Tico wrote:

"Pagan" Rome was actually a very religious place. The proportion of atheists were probably the same as current Western cultures.

I wonder if Rome was only superficially religious... A culture with that many Gods does make one wonder if any of the Gods were actually taken seriously...

On what basis do you assert a monotheistic god should be taken any more seriously than a pantheon of gods?

JLNobody wrote:

Thanks, Roger.
Rex, we should keep in mind that while "atheists" are not a political block and do not condemn the practice of religion FOR OTHERS, our society does have a secular (not an athiest) government--hence the separation of Church and State. This in no way injures the private practice of religious practice and belief. It means merely that government cannot regulate religion and religion cannot regulate government...give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's....

I am implying that the people in the middle or moderates control religion and agnostics not government...
Though government cannot/should not have a blind eye to religion.

When the government turns a blind eye to God they become God. This is why the government and the people are "under" God... This should never be forgotten no matter your belief otherwise...

Can questions ever be answered with questions?

RexRed wrote:

JLNobody wrote:

Thanks, Roger.
Rex, we should keep in mind that while "atheists" are not a political block and do not condemn the practice of religion FOR OTHERS, our society does have a secular (not an athiest) government--hence the separation of Church and State. This in no way injures the private practice of religious practice and belief. It means merely that government cannot regulate religion and religion cannot regulate government...give unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's....

I am implying that the people in the middle or moderates control religion and agnostics not government...
Though government cannot/should not have a blind eye to religion.

When the government turns a blind eye to God they become God. This is why the government and the people are "under" God... This should never be forgotten no matter your belief otherwise...

What are you trying to say here? Really, it's not clear, but it sounds as though moderates (religious [Christian]) should control religion and agnostics. Should moderate Christians end up in control of Christian churches, I have no quarrel. Who or what should be in control of agnostics is a somewhat different matter.

Now what's this about government and people being "under God"? You must have some reason for saying that.

Maybe our money should read, "in government we trust?"

If God doesn't exist to the atheists then why would the human spirit also exist?

RexRed wrote:

Maybe our money should read, "in government we trust?"

Yes, I agree. The god bit was added to your bills during the 60's so it shouldn't be hard to get that fixed.

Quote:

If God doesn't exist to the atheists then why would the human spirit also exist?

Can't speak for all but I'm an atheist and I seen no reason to think any "human spirit" exists either.

Yeah, see....I'll trust my fellow man before an imaginary one every time....but, to each his own.

I trust the creator over the creation.