Religion should be outlawed.

---

Most Atheists are completely open to the idea of gods. If they can be shown to actually exist then they would be believed. But until then, there is no reason to do so.

And saying that Atheists believe in god and just don't like it? Cop on to yourself! You don't believe in god but pretend you do because you don't like a world without one. Valid argument?

And why do Atheists get involved with this mythical god figure? Because people like you think that your imaginary friend should be running the world!! How simple must you be to not see that?

A - I believe in God.
B - Oh, ok. I don't.
A - My God has many controversial views on society and believes in oppressing the rights of certain groups.
B - Oh, well he must be a bit of a shit. But ok.
A - I'm going to use my belief in this God to influence how the country is run, and so are 250,000,000 other people.
B - Eh, fuck no!

I'm sick so I'm only going to reply to the first 2 pages I read and make more replies later.OK first off, yes Christmas was a pagan holiday, it was originally to Celebrate the birth of some other figure, can't remember if it was a God or what, his name was something weird, Mithiros or some shit. And I'm pretty sure they celebrated by surprise surprise spending time with friends and family and gift giving. Does that sound familiar? Secondly, maybe outlawing it is harshish, however. My point still stands valid, I don't care if there are real christians out there who serve out the actual reasons of the bible, but you can't deny there's as much to way more who doesn't really follow it, and just uses it as an excuse to claim something they don't like is bad.And no, there would be no more chaos and possibly even less Chaos without religion. If you recall the Crusades came from Christianty, we also get a lot of terroist issues from religions. And in the end 90% of the world do whatever they want regardless of whether they think they'll go to hell. My ex is terrified she's going to hell. But guess what, she constantly has premarital sex, abuses her body, takes drugs, insults people, acts gluttonous, fairly slothery. And you can't say "Well that's just one person." Because you can find millions who claim to follow the christian faith who do the same.Third. "Christianity states not to judge others." This is true. Show me one who doesn't judge others, and I'll show you a damn liar. Every one does, and will always judge others. Some less harshly than others, but judgement will happen.Religion has fucked up too many people. And the real points of religion as I noted before such as treating each other equally blah blah blah. Are generally ignored by easily over half the followers. It's not something I have to prove, just walk outside and listen.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: A VUnder the constitution, there is supposed to be a strict seperation of church and state.The idea was that the state to stay out of church business (such as redefining the meaning of the word "marriage", and such things). If you review original documents you'll see that Christian beliefs, including such matters as prayer, figured strongly in government proceedings at that time. However, you will NOT find any phrase "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution. You've been reading on too many liberal websites. Go to the Constitution and see for yourself. The phrase came from a written conversation between Jefferson and a church; and it is clear that the idea was to keep the state out of church business...not the other way around. No, the constitution's meaning is that not only can the state not interfere with religion, but religion cannot interfere in government. It is CLEARLY written in the constitution that the government cannot esatablish a state religion. Establishing a state religion would be religion getting into government business, not government interfering with religion. This implies that there can be no religion in government, and that religion cannot interfere with government. For example, a nativity scene on public property would imply that that the government is favoring or recognizing a specific religion (christianity) over others. And this would be like establishing a state religion. No where in the constitution does it say anything about christianity. In fact, there is no reference to God at all in the constitution. the first amendment of the constitution is quoted as saying this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This OFFICIALLY establishes the United States as a SECULAR nation. And the supreme court has ruled that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion."Also, on a related but seperate note, our government was NOT based on christian principles. That's like saying that laws against murder are based on christian principles based on one of the ten commandments ("thou shalt not kill"). However, that is not solely a christian principle, but a human and societal principle. In fact, many of the founding father's were not even christian. Many, like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, were deists.

Originally Posted By: thor"Atheists", such as you, are the ones that make no sense to me. A true atheist wouldn't bother to spend so much time trying to bash somebody who doesn't exist. Such people who call themselves atheists are really those who know God exists, but wish it wasn't so...and figure if they can get a lot of people to agree with them that they can somehow make their dream of there being no God come true. A true atheist wouldn't even bother with a discussion concerning God. An agnostic, however, would. Failing to have such an experience as the one I briefly described, the agnostics would be the ones with truly open minds...open to the possible. An athiest mind is somewhat closed...creating an artificially small, but comfortable (to them) world. An athiest, by nature, is uncomfortable with the unknown. well, I have never had any sort of "experience" with any kind of God. I have also never seen any empirical evidence. Therefore, I must conclude for the time being, that there is no God. I call myself an atheist, but if you want to get technical than I am an agnostic. I guess I'm what you'd call an agnostic atheist. I know that I cannot prove that there is not God, but I'm pretty certain that no God exists. However, I will always be open to any evidence to the contrary, whether that be an "experience" or empirical evidence. However, "experiences" can be misinterpreted, so I would be skeptical of any kind of religious "experience."

Originally Posted By: thorThe idea was that the state to stay out of church business (such as redefining the meaning of the word "marriage", and such things) therein lays yet another contradiction. If the state should not interfere with the definition of marriage, then why should there be any prohibitive laws?Church A denies gay marriage while church B accepts gay marriage. Why should the state interfere with the decisions of either church?

Originally Posted By: unsupervised  Originally Posted By: thorThe idea was that the state to stay out of church business (such as redefining the meaning of the word "marriage", and such things) therein lays yet another contradiction. If the state should not interfere with the definition of marriage, then why should there be any prohibitive laws?Church A denies gay marriage while church B accepts gay marriage. Why should the state interfere with the decisions of either church? exactly. therefore, if you're going to use religion in order to justify a ban against gay marriage, then it is unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional in both the sense that the state should not interfere with religion, and that religion should not interfere with government. Either way you look at it, it's unconstitutional.

Quote:Santa Claus and all his buddies DON'T go around forcing people on Christmas, do they? NO, they don't. Okay, first of all--there is no Santa Claus, so...  Quote:I've had enough of the U.S. Think I'll move to England! Not sure you'll have much luck in England if the stats pointed out in this website are true. At that time, it was still lower than the percentage of people who identified themselves as Christians. Considering that's from 2001, with the growth if Muslims in the U.K. and Europe as a whole, those numbers may be even smaller.

Originally Posted By: IneligibleI do not agree that atheism is not a belief. An atheist believes there is no God. A person with no belief either way would be an agnostic, not an atheist. That is not to say that an atheist must be 100% sure there is no God, just as a theist need not be 100% sure there is a God. The theist has decided to live life on the basis that there is a God, and the atheist has decided to live life on the basis that there is no God. To the extent that this results in differences in behaviour, it might be described as a lifestyle choice.However, regardless of this point, I do not understand your argument. You seem to be saying that a group of atheists who meet togetherSince all these groups aimed, through violence, to change the polity to one in line with their views, they could be called political. To be frank and honest, it does not matter whether or not you agree if atheism is a belief. Atheism cannot be a belief because atheists don't believe. To believe in a God many believers take what is called the 'leap of faith' which basically means, they realize there is no proof for the existance of God so they must take a leap, or in other terms what they think is an "educated' guess. However an atheist does not have to make any leap because God has not been proven, therefore up to this point there is no God, which means there is nothing to Believe/dis-believe in. Until you have some measurable proof of a God I have no stance because in an atheists eyes there is no stance to be taken when nothing has been shown otherwise.Secondly, all of those groups you mentioned with the exception of the cult were FIRST and FOREMOST political groups, NOT anti-religious. All of their reasons for violence against churches were to relieve oppression, not for their belief's, which means they are not atheistic attacks.As for the cult, previously mentioned its a cult. However that doesn't stop from the fact that an atheist still cannot make up a terrorist group. Christianity, Islam, all of the major religions we have are based upon foundations of organizations and rule books. (IE the Qu'ran, Bible etc.) This means that there is CLEAR set rules and an established 'Club' as I would like to call it. This leads to extremist terrorism in the name of this 'club' which allows them to be able to make a terrorist group, or in other terms an activist group representing their club (religion). For atheists, there is NO rule book, NO organization, and NO collective thinking, which means that each atheist is an individual and cannot be considered part of a movement or represented by other people in their club. So the actions done by each of those groups represent the group, but do not represent a greater 'club' of atheism.Now you may say that these extremist religious groups do not represent a greater club of their religion, however this falls flat when you consider the fact that there is a base that is being built upon on common ground, and not just a single base like atheism which each individual shares one thing in common which is no belief in god. Religions have complex bases of thinking that are built upon from ground up. Each extremist group has alot more in common with the greater religious group then an atheist does to the population of atheism. To be a christian for example you NEED to believe in certain 'rules' from the rulebook, which is simply not the case of atheism. To be clear: Atheism: 1 rule which does not create a lifestyleReligions: many which create a lifestyleJust like if a politican from the republican party is caught in a scandal not only does he represent himself, but the whole party. Where as if a politican who only represents himself gets caught in a scandal, it only affects him. EVEN if he has the same beliefs as another individual politician or even one from a major political party, just because they believe the same thing does not mean they together can take the blame, they represent two different things.

no, your atheist cannot be a terrorist idea holds no water.
ANYONE can be a terrorist, all one must do is inflict terror.

You also seem to be confusing ateists with anarchists...

Quote:

For atheists, there is NO rule book, NO organization, and NO collective thinking, which means that each atheist is an individual and cannot be considered part of a movement or represented by other people in their club

but, there again, for those who believe there is no moral code without religion, suggests that atheism is synonymous with sociopathy.
Now that, I defy anyone to prove.

Originally Posted By: A V

...the constitution's meaning is that not only can the state not interfere with religion, but religion cannot interfere in government. It is CLEARLY written in the constitution that the government cannot esatablish a state religion.

Yes...the state stays out of church business, which includes establishing anything along those lines. Recognizing such things (such as marriage) is a different issue. And you obviously did not bother to go find that conversation between Jefferson and (I believe it was) Baptist church...which would clarify the issue concerning intent for anyone who was interested in the truth (as opposed to an agenda).

Originally Posted By: A V

However, "experiences" can be misinterpreted, so I would be skeptical of any kind of religious "experience."

Suppose, for the moment, that you were the only one on earth who did not have such an experience. How valid would you then consider your skepticism to be? Now consider how many people in reality claim to have had such experiences. Do you think every last one of them is lying about it or has misinterpreted it?

Originally Posted By: unsupervised  Originally Posted By: thorThe idea was that the state to stay out of church business (such as redefining the meaning of the word "marriage", and such things) therein lays yet another contradiction. If the state should not interfere with the definition of marriage, then why should there be any prohibitive laws?Technically, the laws are not prohibitive in that they merely recognize a common religious practice. Gay "marriage" is not known to be found anywhere in the Bible...and I doubt you'll find it in any religion that has existed for any serious length of time. Quote:Church A denies gay marriage while church B accepts gay marriage. Why should the state interfere with the decisions of either church?See above. Gay "marriage" is not a common religious practice...it is a result of social pressure applied to the church and does not spring from any known religious imperative. (At least not known to me...care to provide one?)

Originally Posted By: A.W.

I don't know why people say there is no God. There is a God.

Show one bit of evidence to prove this, without using the Bible.

Originally Posted By: A.W.

Who do you think created the universe, planets, weather and all the living things here on Earth? God did.

Why is it a question of who? Should it not be "What do you think..."? And show me one bit of evidence that the universe even has a beginning, without using the Bible.

Originally Posted By: A.W.

You think God lets bad things happen? No, he doesn't. God puts us through tests, and he expects us to achieve and to live right with his way as it states in the Bible. I'm so sick and tired of people always saying why God let bad things happen to them. He doesn't let bad things happen to them. It is us humans that do bad things to ourselves.

Terminal cancer in young children, a test? A test of what, or who? Where does the Bible give the cure for cancer? If your god exists then he does let bad things happen. Whether we actually do the bad things to ourselves or they are thrust upon us, your god supposedly has the power to stop them. But he doesn't!

I understand this is a very sensitive subject for you and please believe me when I say that I have total respect for you and your family, I honestly do, and I have no intention in upsetting you. But when your father was ill, if I told you that I had the power to save his life but that I just chose not to, you would hate me. Why is god free from this judgement?

Originally Posted By: thorYes...the state stays out of church business, which includes establishing anything along those lines. Recognizing such things (such as marriage) is a different issue. And you obviously did not bother to go find that conversation between Jefferson and (I believe it was) Baptist church...which would clarify the issue concerning intent for anyone who was interested in the truth (as opposed to an agenda). Thor, we've discussed this before. That letter was indeed from Jefferson to a Baptist church who had written to him complaining that another church was given superior treatment by the state government. Jefferson's response was very clear, that NO church should be treated specially by governments.To this day you have still failed to show where separation of church and state is a one way barrier.

Originally Posted By: thor

Originally Posted By: A V

However, "experiences" can be misinterpreted, so I would be skeptical of any kind of religious "experience."

Suppose, for the moment, that you were the only one on earth who did not have such an experience. How valid would you then consider your skepticism to be? Now consider how many people in reality claim to have had such experiences. Do you think every last one of them is lying about it or has misinterpreted it?

I'd be checking the water supply for hallucinogenics.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

Originally Posted By: thor

Yes...the state stays out of church business, which includes establishing anything along those lines. Recognizing such things (such as marriage) is a different issue. And you obviously did not bother to go find that conversation between Jefferson and (I believe it was) Baptist church...which would clarify the issue concerning intent for anyone who was interested in the truth (as opposed to an agenda).

Thor, we've discussed this before. That letter was indeed from Jefferson to a Baptist church who had written to him complaining that another church was given superior treatment by the state government. Jefferson's response was very clear, that NO church should be treated specially by governments.

To this day you have still failed to show where separation of church and state is a one way barrier.

Yes, we have been through this before...but not with AV IIRC. What I have shown you is that the intent as stated by Jefferson is that the government should stay out of church business...preferring one over the other. In other words, it is what the government should refrain from doing...not the other way around. You have yet to show any intent that the concept of "separation of church and state" ever had anything to do with keeping religion out of government. Indeed, I have also provided evidence that religios practices were very much a part of our government at that time.

The onus for showing any intent by the founding fathers to keep religion out of government is on you. Good luck.

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.~ Treaty of Tripoli, as written under the administration of George Washington in 1796 and ratified by the senate in 1797, a senate which included many of the framers, and signed by John Adams also a framer.

common religious practice?that's an insane argument! first, define "common" 10%? 1%? What percentage of Americans are Pentecostal? Episcopalian? What you are implying is that the state should not interfere with religion yet still define and enforce common religious practices.what other practices do you and your perfect government wish to define and enforce as common and uncommon?circumcision?river baptism?speaking in tongues?The only gay wedding I've attended thus far was performed in a church by an ordained minister. Since I've attended approximately 15 weddings in my life, that makes gay marriage by ordained minister equal to 7% of my life experience. That's higher than the percentage of Jews in the world population. Yes, that is a meaningless statistical snap shot but I still put the question to you... what is common and who has the right to enforce it?

Originally Posted By: OldFolksAs the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.~ Treaty of Tripoli, as written under the administration of George Washington in 1796 and ratified by the senate in 1797, a senate which included many of the framers, and signed by John Adams also a framer. 1) The Treaty of Tripoli is NOT the US Constitution.2) The Treaty of Tripoli was written to a specific purpose, which is why mention of Christianity was included in it at all. (Do the research yourself.) But a good, self-concious person must ask ones self why it was even necessary to mention it at all...unless the perception by other nations was that the US was, indeed, a Christian nation. One must wonder where they got that idea from.

they got it from you