[Kazan]

the assertion that my positions are egotistic is somewhat missleading as well - i consider christians self-deluding, i don't consider them incapable of rational thought - i consider them unwilling to do so.

I consider christians who force their position on others to be bad people, i don't consider them incapable of being better.


most of my anger is the result of frustration with the way many christians treat atheists - and any christian who supports equal rights should know that my anger is NOT directed at them.

[Bobboau]

many religions require a person put themselves into a particular type of environment, your assertion that people don't have the right to decide what sort of community they live in, or more specifically that other people have the right to come in and disrupt there lives because they want to does not strike me as supporting people's rights to live there lives the way they want. I mean it's almost like saying I have a right to rape steal and murder because other peoples rights to live safely don't extend to not being raped robed and killed by me.

people have a right to live in peace, to protection from other people's overbearing since of richeousness, you have a right not to worry about your kids getting prostalatised to and harassed when your not around, you have a right not to be constantly bombarded with idiotic Christians who think there better than you because they believe in a magical invisible man in the sky, they do not have the right to make your life a living hell because they think it's for your own good. you are making an argument that it's perfectly alright for gays to be hounded by zealots, that I can burn a cross near a black family just so long as I don't do it on there property (like for instance in the street in front of there house). now as much as I am in the beleife that your property is your castle I don't quite think people have the right to utterly destroy other people because they believe differently.

[Kazan]

i never said they didn't have the right to cloister themselves - if they buy up a bunch of private land and make their own cloister - they can do that - but if they live in a normal city - IE with public land - then they don't have a right to say people cannot be different then them

also, I didn't say it wasn't RUDE to go out of your way to offend them - IE going out of your way to trick a kosher jew into eating something non-kosher would be extremely rude.

[Bobboau]

but they'll still have to pay taxes and everything, for which they will receive no services in exchange.

and intentionally going out and slipping a jew some ham is a good example, you are causing them increasable amounts of harm, (assuming they find out) imagine how much emotional and phycological trauma would be inflicted on someone if you have convinced them that they are going to burn in hell for all eternity, yes I know it's a silly concept, but you have actually managed to convinced them that this is there fate, they actually believe this. you don't have the right to inflict damage on another person (physical or emotional) just because you feel like it.

[Roanoke]

Hey razorkiss - i'm still waiting for one IOTA of evidence to support your assertion that god exists

until you can provide that, you have no grounds upon which to make any other assertion

well the whole point is you believe. proof doesn't come into it.

I have no interest in religion but even I appreciate that.

[aldo_14]

There's a reason they call it faith, after all, and my position has always been that people are free to believe what they want so long as it's not forced upon anyone else.

Except for scientologists.

[TrashMan]

Religious people like the reference of God on money and in the pledge.

yeah - they like FORCING themselves on others

Forcing them? By a mere mention of the word?

Then if I'm standing next to say nad I say "God", I am forcing my religion onto you?

Atheists don't want it and would like it removed.

imagine that - atheists don't like having their rights violated

Again - WTF???

So by removing it, wouldn't you end up favoring one group over another and forcing their views on the other group?

No, we're enforcing the constitution - it's favoring NO GROUP - if it were to be replaced with "god is bull****" that would be favoring atheists, and equally unconstitutional. 

Group A wants X
Group B wants no X

There are only to states.. X or no X, there is no "neutral". Whichever you choose you cna be seen as favoring someone.

Isn't that equally bad as what you accuse "religious people" of doing?

no, because you have a faulty understanding of the definition of "favoring"
[/quoteg

Look who's talking...

And b.t.w. - separation of church and State has nothing to do with the mention of a God on a peace of paper...

wrong - Lemon v Kurtzman

I have no idea what that is (I assume some trial, but sinse teh US justice systems stinks it's not worth much anyway)

Separation of Church and State means that the Church has no political or military power - it doesn't make or enforce laws.
Having the word "God" written on a money bill does not violate anyones rights, especially since it has historical and practical reasons.

I guess you would probalby like to erase it form the Declaration if Independance too?

[Bobboau]

if you write a law that, for example, prohibits gay marage, based on your religion, and it is passed and goes into effect, and the government enforces that law, and it's all based of your religion, then you are forcing your religion onto others, because others don't see anything wrong with it, and the only two arguments that can ever really be put up against allowing gay maraige is "it's just wrong", sort of like because I say so it's totally arbitrary and almost totally based on religion, and essentially "God said so" which is totaly based on religion.

[Bobboau]

also that **** about X or noX, no, noX is nutral because the opposite of x is -x, in the case of god on the money -x would be: "in no god we trust". a statement affirming the beileife in no god, to say nothing is just that, haveing the government not involved. the national moto should be changed back to what it was for the first (more than) 150 years; "E pluribus unum"-"Out of many, one"

[Deepblue]

"Razor's entire last post was one big red herring too boot! he totally sidestepped the issue of the Declaration of Independence not being a legal document under the United States Constitution."

"The Danbury Baptist letter written by Thomas Jefferson."

Maybe it's just me, but is their some hypocrisy here or what?

[Bobboau]

the legal status of the declaration of independence is irrelevant because it in no way helps theocracy, it only helps people who want to establish that America has a tradition of religion, and that the original reasoning behind separation of church and state was developed from a religious point of view (that the relationship between God and a man was something the government had no right to interfere with, this same principal works just as good for atheists as it does for Christians)

[BS403]

This made me think of something kinda funny.
Really religous people say money is the root of all evil and it says in god we trust on money

[NGTM-1R]

Dammit, get your quote right. It's not "Money is the root of all evil." it's "The love of money is the root of all evil."

Render unto Caeser what is Caeser's.

[TrashMan]

if you write a law that, for example, prohibits gay marage, based on your religion, and it is passed and goes into effect, and the government enforces that law, and it's all based of your religion, then you are forcing your religion onto others, because others don't see anything wrong with it, and the only two arguments that can ever really be put up against allowing gay maraige is "it's just wrong", sort of like because I say so it's totally arbitrary and almost totally based on religion, and essentially "God said so" which is totaly based on religion.

Who said that person X being against gay marriage is based on his religion (or lack therof)?

So if a religious person thinks something, it MUST be becouse of his religion?

[karajorma]

Bob says. And he's right.

There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.

Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.

[BlackDove]

TrashMan is against it because it's YUCKY!

[Kazan]

Roanoke+Aldo_14

Irrelevant!  All things that exist can be supported with evidence.  Logic rejects faith fundamentally and all beliefs based thereon

one must have evidence of anything they believe in to be able to claim it a rational belief.  And all beliefs which they wish to base decisions that affect society off of should be rational.

Christian Apologetics is the art of playing hide-the-salami with the burdeon of proof, while making millions of logical fallacies.

--------------------------------------------------

TrashMan

 you seriously have difficulty understanding that money is a government document and the constitution mandates religious neutrality

bob was right with his X vs -X vs NULL explaination

X="In God We Trust"
-X="In No God We Trust"
NULL=""

X or -X favors one group or the other, NULL favors neither - your assertion "there are only two positions" is false, it ignores NULL


Fix the rest of your post your quote tags are messed up


Dec. of Ind. is a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT not a LEGAL DOCUMENT)

gawd... ****ing straw man argumens from lack of understanding
and try looking up Lemon vs Kurtzman - i only linked it earlier in the thread, it's only the namesake of the "lemon test"

There is NO secular argument against gay marriage-  there are only religion-based and bigotry-based (really.. both the same thing) arguments against it

-----

Bob

"E pluribus unum" is still legally the national motto i believe - in god we trust was just put onto the money to intentionally offend atheists - specifically the atheist communist bloc

Actually the Dec. of Ind. if it were a legal document under the US Const. would help the theocrats because of it's reference to "Creator".   OF course they don't understand the law in the first place, which is why they don't understand the Dec of Ind is not a legal document under the US Const.

----------------------

Deepblue

The danbury baptist letter has been covered many times - he was cherry picking thomas jefferson's statements AND misinterpreting them - T.J. was extremely hostile to christianity

[aldo_14]

if you write a law that, for example, prohibits gay marage, based on your religion, and it is passed and goes into effect, and the government enforces that law, and it's all based of your religion, then you are forcing your religion onto others, because others don't see anything wrong with it, and the only two arguments that can ever really be put up against allowing gay maraige is "it's just wrong", sort of like because I say so it's totally arbitrary and almost totally based on religion, and essentially "God said so" which is totaly based on religion.

Who said that person X being against gay marriage is based on his religion (or lack therof)?

So if a religious person thinks something, it MUST be becouse of his religion?

Can you provide a rational reason for being against it?

@Kaz; one of the fundamental tenets of religious belief is the faith aspect; people who are truly religious (should) acknowledge and accept that their belief system is based upon faith in the existence of something unprovable, and that the 'value' of their belief comes from that faith.  If you wish to debate over religious belief, surely it's simply polite to recognise that aspect and show basic tolerance and respect for it whilst challenging it?  Even if only for the simple tenet of 'know they enemy'?

[TrashMan]

Bob says. And he's right.

There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.

Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?

I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.

Irrelevant!  All things that exist can be supported with evidence.  Logic rejects faith fundamentally and all beliefs based thereon

one must have evidence of anything they believe in to be able to claim it a rational belief.  And all beliefs which they wish to base decisions that affect society off of should be rational.

Christian Apologetics is the art of playing hide-the-salami with the burdeon of proof, while making millions of logical fallacies.

I asked you this before. Please, give me an example of what you would accept as evidence for God's existance.

Secondly, what good would that evidence do?
It certanly wouldn't make better belivers. The apostols had all the evidence you could possibly want and still tehy doubted. That's man's nature - you'll ALLWAYS try to find another explanation for something.

Thirdly, irratioal belief is when you belive in something the evidence speaks against. Beliving in something you can't prove or disprove isn't irrational or illogical, since there is a pretty good possibitly it might be true.

Even science doesn't deal in absolutes - so you're not really 100% of anything - you're 95% or 97% or 70% sure  in most things in your life, wether you acknowledge that or not.

[Ghostavo]

Bob says. And he's right.

There is no other reason to be against gay marriage other than ones that stem from religion. That was the entire point Bob was making. He didn't say that it applies to everything a religious person say but it certainly does apply to being against gay marriage.

Namen one reason to be against gay marriage that doesn't stem from being religious.

Frankly, do I even need to have a rational reason to not want something?
If you want to make it a law, yes!


I consider it a sickness, that's rational enough. Religion has nothing to do with it.
I consider christianity a sickness (I put it there because I know you are one, calm down, I'm not trying to flame you). Is that a rational reason to put something under law? Of course not!

Irrelevant!  All things that exist can be supported with evidence.  Logic rejects faith fundamentally and all beliefs based thereon

one must have evidence of anything they believe in to be able to claim it a rational belief.  And all beliefs which they wish to base decisions that affect society off of should be rational.

Christian Apologetics is the art of playing hide-the-salami with the burdeon of proof, while making millions of logical fallacies.

I asked you this before. Please, give me an example of what you would accept as evidence for God's existance.
He wouldn't accept any evidence because there aren't any, if there were, god wouldn't be a supernatural entity and would become a natural entity.


Secondly, what good would that evidence do?
It certanly wouldn't make better belivers. The apostols had all the evidence you could possibly want and still tehy doubted. That's man's nature - you'll ALLWAYS try to find another explanation for something.
Erm... No. Read above.


Thirdly, irratioal belief is when you belive in something the evidence speaks against. Beliving in something you can't prove or disprove isn't irrational or illogical, since there is a pretty good possibitly it might be true.
I don't want to discuss this but if something cannot be proven or disproven, that doesn't mean there is a good probability of it being true! It's basic logic!


Even science doesn't deal in absolutes - so you're not really 100% of anything - you're 95% or 97% or 70% sure  in most things in your life, wether you acknowledge that or not.
No idea what your point on this one is.