Why are athiests so hated in the USA?

[clambake]

You misunderstood what I posted.

It is not a fear that he believes; it is specifically a Mormon belief that if excommunicated, they don't get to go to Heaven. Meaning, if Romney is faced with a choice, as president, that runs counter to his faith, so much so that the Mormon church might excommunicate him - then actual flesh and blood human beings (in the President's eyes mind you) hold ETERNAL SALVATION hostage to our president. Catholics don't hold that excommunication = ; it is unique to Mormons. The fact that I don't think it's true is irrelevant, and there is nothing supernatural about my concern; it's all from the perspective of Romney.

I'm not saying the belief is absurd - it is potentially dangerous.

all of it is dangerous. but what could i possibly know about it.

[101A]

Actually it is something very much so you can control and control in others. that you do not see that speaks only of you and not of others.

You believe you can control what other's believe, and how they make their choices? Literally, just trying to understand you; no sarcasm intended.

[Winehole23]

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt before calling you a hypocritical dumb .

Explain how the above post from page 2 is not about me.

I never claimed it wasn't.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You misunderstood what I posted.

It is not a fear that he believes; it is specifically a Mormon belief that if excommunicated, they don't get to go to Heaven. Meaning, if Romney is faced with a choice, as president, that runs counter to his faith, so much so that the Mormon church might excommunicate him - then actual flesh and blood human beings (in the President's eyes mind you) hold ETERNAL SALVATION hostage to our president. Catholics don't hold that excommunication = ; it is unique to Mormons. The fact that I don't think it's true is irrelevant, and there is nothing supernatural about my concern; it's all from the perspective of Romney.

I'm not saying the belief is absurd - it is potentially dangerous.

Dissemble much?

So then you do not see the absurdity in the notion that while Jesus was dead and interred he was over here in the Americas telling Indians that you get your own planet if you are a believer?

[101A]

all of it is dangerous. but what could i possibly know about it.

If I guide my decisions based on what I think God might think of those decisions - I am, to a large extent, being guided by my own conscious - or at least my understanding of what God expects from me, in order to gain his favor, and earn eternal salvation (typing to fast, this is just for the sake of this discussion, my actual beliefs on salvation are posted pages ago in this very thread if you missed it). If I have been honest in getting elected that I am a Christian, my fellow citizens KNOW this, and have certain expectations about what that might mean regarding what my conscious is leading me to.

However, if it is not God, but other people, who hold the keys to my salvation, that is no longer MY conscious, but theirs, that is guiding the direction of the country...and they aren't elected. You know. Just like people at Goldman Sachs get to do anyway.

[SAScrub]

I simply don't see the same group (at least the religious part of said group) denouncing collateral killing with the same outrage as they do with abortions, even though they're both largely similar events. Which is pretty hypocritical, because it clearly points that as long as there's some "greater purpose" or seemingly associated benefit with the kill, the outrage just goes away.

Assuming legitimacy of the war, the collateral damage (while regrettable) happens as a result of a nation's need to protect itself and secure it's citizens. So, yes, there is a purpose behind those deaths. It does not excuse them, and every precaution should be made to avoid them...but to argue they are the same as abortions is simply inaccurate.

Hypocrisy is everywhere...let me know the next time an atheist organization attacks Allah, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any other non-Christian god. I'm sure it happens, but not on the same scale.

[clambake]

What's OK?

It is what it is. What and why people believe what they believe is something we cannot control.

Liberals believe a safety net, and social programs are appropriate and effective methods of battling poverty despite decades and trillions of dollars of evidence to the contrary. They so want it to be so, they have faith that it ought to be so, the fact that it IS NOT SO won't change their minds.

THAT is not OK, but there's nothing I can do about it.

No.

My post wasn't about poverty.

huh?

[Winehole23]

You can believe in God and still shut your ing mouth about it, is all I am saying. Dont let your religion color your politics in matters of personal choice ( sexuality, abortion, drugs, etc). Worst of all is having to hear every leader at every level profess their belief every ing chance they get as if this is a positive aspect of their personality. I mean, the Bible does not remotely touch on avenues of solution related to a nuclear Iran, Free Trade agreements, the bottoming Dollar or State's rights. That people would pretend that the Bible does offer direction in all things...Im sorry, it pisses me right the off. Because it doesnt...at all. Not even a little. And if our leaders are going to staunchly proclaim that this perspective of God is influencing their decisions, then it is our right to question and deride the source material.

Absolutely. Deride anything you like. Just take care that you don't end up resembling what you hate.

[101A]

Dissemble much?

So then you do not see the absurdity in the notion that while Jesus was dead and interred he was over here in the Americas telling Indians that you get your own planet if you are a believer?

There is a significant difference in the nature of that belief vs. the belief I am concerned about. Whether I think it absurd is beside the point.

[clambake]

a guys religious beliefs makes him worried about another religions beliefs.

still delicious

[101A]

huh?

Nope.

My post was about blind faith.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You believe you can control what other's believe, and how they make their choices? Literally, just trying to understand you; no sarcasm intended.

Me personally?

Sure when dealing with particular people. Ever dealt with kids? There is a reason why all churches want kids brought in and half of Bible stores are filled with kids .

I am not claiming that it is some overarching ability I have.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is a significant difference in the nature of that belief vs. the belief I am concerned about. Whether I think it absurd is beside the point.

It goes directly to my point and you know it and that is why you are dissembling so hard right now.

Whatever, I am not going to force the issue; its already plain to see.

[SAScrub]

You asked out loud if they should be given those rights to which you also responded out loud that you didn't know.

I see no good reason not to give then those rights. Do you?

I don't personally have an issue with it, as it really has no direct bearing on me. However, the argument could be made against it based simply on the inherent health risks associated with sexual intercourse, particularly anal sex.

[clambake]

Nope.

My post was about blind faith.

one is about indoctrination, blind faith.

the other is visible, touchable and reality.

[101A]

Me personally?

Sure when dealing with particular people. Ever dealt with kids? There is a reason why all churches want kids brought in and half of Bible stores are filled with kids .

I am not claiming that it is some overarching ability I have.

This started by me stating (or attempting to state) that Democracies are difficult because people make decisions for all kinds of reasons which we cannot control (other peoples reasoning, that is).

You seemed to disagree with this (I thought relatively elementary) point.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This started by me stating (or attempting to state) that Democracies are difficult because people make decisions for all kinds of reasons which we cannot control (other peoples reasoning, that is).

You seemed to disagree with this (I thought relatively elementary) point.

Groupthink. Look it up.

Our culture tries to pigeonhole into two paradigms by virtue of our two parties. Doctrine has a very specific purpose: believe this.

There are all manner tools for social and individual control.

[101A]

one is about indoctrination, blind faith.

the other is visible, touchable and reality.

You (or someone else) made a statement that it frustrated you that people made choices based on faith, or belief in God. I said, basically "join the club" - that what other's believe is impossible to control, and then used the analogy of liberal's stubborn belief in social programs that don't do what they are supposed to do is at least as frustrating for me.

A liberals belief and faith in the success and viability of social programs is actually LESS defensible than my belief in a creator God.

It is impossible for you to prove there is no God. It is however, readily apparent that what liberals believe to be true, isn't.

[101A]

Groupthink. Look it up.

Our culture tries to pigeonhole into two paradigms by virtue of our two parties. Doctrine has a very specific purpose: believe this.

There are all manner tools for social and individual control.

Stated distaste for the two party system a couple of pages ago. I get you now.

Ron Paul, an obvious victim of this. I, myself, have no home; and find posters on the board straining their own beliefs and logic to fit the mold of their chosen party.

[101A]

Got to go.

Peace All.

[clambake]

You (or someone else) made a statement that it frustrated you that people made choices based on faith, or belief in God. I said, basically "join the club" - that what other's believe is impossible to control, and then used the analogy of liberal's stubborn belief in social programs that don't do what they are supposed to do is at least as frustrating for me.

A liberals belief and faith in the success and viability of social programs is actually LESS defensible than my belief in a creator God.

It is impossible for you to prove there is no God. It is however, readily apparent that what liberals believe to be true, isn't.

bull . you're the one that used that as some kind of valid comparison.

.....and sad to see you use that "prove there is no god" horse .

[Blake]

I hate the irish; they're all stupid /bigot.

You made a crack relative to believers being infantile; I always respond by calling the people saying such things bigots. It's an ironic insult; and effective. No offense.

Difference being that people born in ireland didn't make the conscious effort to be irish.

You made a conscious effort to give credence to a book of magic stories.

[Spur_Fanatic]

I'm catholic. In many issues, I agree with some of Rome's most controversial topics
(I think being gay is un-natural, I'm pro-life, and women can't be priests)

Now, even after saying that... Whoa.
Guys, I've never though I'd say this, but you guys take religion too seriously.

[clambake]

Difference being that people born in ireland didn't make the conscious effort to be irish.

You made a conscious effort to give credence to a book of magic stories.

from n. ireland.

he doesn't hate the irish. he thinks that i think he's stupid because of one part of his beliefs.

[Blake]

I don't personally have an issue with it, as it really has no direct bearing on me. However, the argument could be made against it based simply on the inherent health risks associated with sexual intercourse, particularly anal sex.

That argument has been made ad nauseum, imo.

It fails every time.