How would you respond to this?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-09-2014, 01:06 PM
How would you respond to this?
I noticed this post, which I have copied and pasted below, on another forum in reply to an atheist. How would you respond to it?

I'm afraid that what we see here in America with atheists is a tyranny of the minority building. It's been further empowered by the two-parent working family, the virtual plague of one-parent bastard children, the disintegration of the family unit and the attitude of the mental disease that is liberalism and justifies doing anything by it's aberrant "feelgood" standard.

Knowing that our Constitution and it's amendments taken together guarantee freedom of religion and not freedom from religion, they have taken the ludicrous position to enable their gross intolerance of all faiths by simply, as a group, capitalizing the word atheist to convey to all (by what I call intellectual subterfuge) that it should be accorded the status of a religion as a "proper noun". It is not that at all, because it is a "common noun" describing a 'type of belief or non-belief' (Ex; deist, theist, atheist), not a 'belief in God' (Ex; Jewish, Christian, Muslim). Myopic courts, some of them, have bought into this outrage of defining no belief in God or religion as a religious belief. SEE THE OUTRAGE! I can demonstrate.
Q: How can a religion professing no belief in God be a religion?
A: It can't!
Reason: The terms "religion" and "atheism" are mutually exclusive. The simple definition of either excludes the other.

All one has to do is to look at the dedication atheists have about abusing their free speech rights to violate that same right of others when it comes to the "public" display of religious images. Using their free speech right irresponsibly they insist that ANY public display is an official endorsement of religion by government. The fulcrum of leverage they like to use is a misinterpretation of a generally accepted doctrinal protocol called the "separation of church and state" (based upon a communique between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists of CT), which is NOT part of our Constitution, AND via an outlandish interpretation of the first part of the First Amendment...has contradicted in kind the second part of said amendment and by judicial rulings has enabled that "tyranny of the minority" I spoke of.

That is exactly why I opine as I do about an inherent "common sense" test of personal responsibility that all free speech advocacy must meet to nail down judicial standards..

When in the execution of rights by one person or one group of people, that action violates that same right of another person or group of people that right is unconstitutional and wrong as it officially absolves the activist person or group of people of any and all personal responsibility for the consequences of their action/s. Taken to the extreme of "cause and effect" reasoning, it can be said to be a policy that suborns anarchy in any truly representative democracy where respect for minority opinion and voice is acknowledged, but where...also...the majority rules the outcome decision.

For any court to in it's deliberation and interpretation to exclude the roots of our founding that are inexorably intertwined with Freedom of Religion is an abomination and ludicrous. It can be said to be so, because the Declaration od Independence laid out those traditional reasons for the formation of this nation and in quotable references it acknowledged the general acceptance by the people of "the Powers of the Earth" being an entitlement of a "Nature's God". That is a God beyond and distinct from Man himself. That document went on to quite thoroughly itemize in detail all the abuses of the Crown and in closing referenced God again by the use oft the term "Supreme Judge of the World", thus establishing FOR ALL TIME a key "traditional value" this new nation was conceived in.

In this country , your atheist position stands alone as an abomination of fact as you seek to define a 'non-belief' as a religion. Like I've said..."You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: How would you respond to this?
(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  I noticed this post, which I have copied and pasted below, on another forum in reply to an atheist. How would you respond to it?

I'm afraid that what we see here in America with atheists is a tyranny of the minority building. It's been further empowered by the two-parent working family, the virtual plague of one-parent bastard children, the disintegration of the family unit and the attitude of the mental disease that is liberalism and justifies doing anything by it's aberrant "feelgood" standard.

Knowing that our Constitution and it's amendments taken together guarantee freedom of religion and not freedom from religion, they have taken the ludicrous position to enable their gross intolerance of all faiths by simply, as a group, capitalizing the word atheist to convey to all (by what I call intellectual subterfuge) that it should be accorded the status of a religion as a "proper noun". It is not that at all, because it is a "common noun" describing a 'type of belief or non-belief' (Ex; deist, theist, atheist), not a 'belief in God' (Ex; Jewish, Christian, Muslim). Myopic courts, some of them, have bought into this outrage of defining no belief in God or religion as a religious belief. SEE THE OUTRAGE! I can demonstrate.
Q: How can a religion professing no belief in God be a religion?
A: It can't!
Reason: The terms "religion" and "atheism" are mutually exclusive. The simple definition of either excludes the other.

All one has to do is to look at the dedication atheists have about abusing their free speech rights to violate that same right of others when it comes to the "public" display of religious images. Using their free speech right irresponsibly they insist that ANY public display is an official endorsement of religion by government. The fulcrum of leverage they like to use is a misinterpretation of a generally accepted doctrinal protocol called the "separation of church and state" (based upon a communique between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists of CT), which is NOT part of our Constitution, AND via an outlandish interpretation of the first part of the First Amendment...has contradicted in kind the second part of said amendment and by judicial rulings has enabled that "tyranny of the minority" I spoke of.

That is exactly why I opine as I do about an inherent "common sense" test of personal responsibility that all free speech advocacy must meet to nail down judicial standards..

When in the execution of rights by one person or one group of people, that action violates that same right of another person or group of people that right is unconstitutional and wrong as it officially absolves the activist person or group of people of any and all personal responsibility for the consequences of their action/s. Taken to the extreme of "cause and effect" reasoning, it can be said to be a policy that suborns anarchy in any truly representative democracy where respect for minority opinion and voice is acknowledged, but where...also...the majority rules the outcome decision.

For any court to in it's deliberation and interpretation to exclude the roots of our founding that are inexorably intertwined with Freedom of Religion is an abomination and ludicrous. It can be said to be so, because the Declaration od Independence laid out those traditional reasons for the formation of this nation and in quotable references it acknowledged the general acceptance by the people of "the Powers of the Earth" being an entitlement of a "Nature's God". That is a God beyond and distinct from Man himself. That document went on to quite thoroughly itemize in detail all the abuses of the Crown and in closing referenced God again by the use oft the term "Supreme Judge of the World", thus establishing FOR ALL TIME a key "traditional value" this new nation was conceived in.

In this country , your atheist position stands alone as an abomination of fact as you seek to define a 'non-belief' as a religion. Like I've said..."You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Well their main point is wrong. The freedom of religion by definition includes not having one so after that all his subsequent points are moot.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
04-09-2014, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2014 01:42 PM by Adrianime.)
RE: How would you respond to this?
Never....ever have I met or heard of an atheist trying to make atheism into a capital "A" religion. Even if such a person exists, I'm fairly certain that the opinion is not popular, and not shared by the vast majority.

So...the entire basis of their rant makes no sense (to me).

I prefer fantasy, but I have to live in reality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Adrianime's post
04-09-2014, 01:31 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2014 02:00 PM by Vosur.)
RE: How would you respond to this?
(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  How would you respond to it?

Dodgy

Isn't it obvious?


(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  Knowing that our Constitution and it's amendments taken together guarantee freedom of religion and not freedom from religion they have taken the ludicrous position [...]
*its

There's also a comma missing after "religion."

(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  Using their free speech right irresponsibly they insist that ANY public display is an official endorsement of religion by government.
There's a comma missing after "irresponsibly."

(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  For any court to in it's deliberation and interpretation to exclude the roots of our founding that are inexorably intertwined with Freedom of Religion is an abomination and ludicrous.
*its

There's also a comma missing after the first instance of "to" and "interpretation" and the second instance of the term "to" is redundant. (i.e. "For any court to, in its deliberation and interpretation, exclude the roots [...]")

(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  It can be said to be so, because the Declaration od Independence laid out those traditional reasons [...]
*of

(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  That document went on to quite thoroughly itemize in detail all the abuses of the Crown [...]
There's a comma missing after "itemize" and "detail."

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Vosur's post
04-09-2014, 01:32 PM
RE: How would you respond to this?
Sounds like they're ranting against a strawman, it's a typical fundamentalist rant.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 01:53 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2014 02:43 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: How would you respond to this?
(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  I noticed this post, which I have copied and pasted below, on another forum in reply to an atheist. How would you respond to it?

I'm afraid that what we see here in America with atheists is a tyranny of the minority building. It's been further empowered by the two-parent working family, the virtual plague of one-parent bastard children, the disintegration of the family unit and the attitude of the mental disease that is liberalism and justifies doing anything by it's aberrant "feelgood" standard.

Knowing that our Constitution and it's amendments taken together guarantee freedom of religion and not freedom from religion, they have taken the ludicrous position to enable their gross intolerance of all faiths by simply, as a group, capitalizing the word atheist to convey to all (by what I call intellectual subterfuge) that it should be accorded the status of a religion as a "proper noun". It is not that at all, because it is a "common noun" describing a 'type of belief or non-belief' (Ex; deist, theist, atheist), not a 'belief in God' (Ex; Jewish, Christian, Muslim). Myopic courts, some of them, have bought into this outrage of defining no belief in God or religion as a religious belief. SEE THE OUTRAGE! I can demonstrate.
Q: How can a religion professing no belief in God be a religion?
A: It can't!
Reason: The terms "religion" and "atheism" are mutually exclusive. The simple definition of either excludes the other.

All one has to do is to look at the dedication atheists have about abusing their free speech rights to violate that same right of others when it comes to the "public" display of religious images. Using their free speech right irresponsibly they insist that ANY public display is an official endorsement of religion by government. The fulcrum of leverage they like to use is a misinterpretation of a generally accepted doctrinal protocol called the "separation of church and state" (based upon a communique between Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists of CT), which is NOT part of our Constitution, AND via an outlandish interpretation of the first part of the First Amendment...has contradicted in kind the second part of said amendment and by judicial rulings has enabled that "tyranny of the minority" I spoke of.

That is exactly why I opine as I do about an inherent "common sense" test of personal responsibility that all free speech advocacy must meet to nail down judicial standards..

When in the execution of rights by one person or one group of people, that action violates that same right of another person or group of people that right is unconstitutional and wrong as it officially absolves the activist person or group of people of any and all personal responsibility for the consequences of their action/s. Taken to the extreme of "cause and effect" reasoning, it can be said to be a policy that suborns anarchy in any truly representative democracy where respect for minority opinion and voice is acknowledged, but where...also...the majority rules the outcome decision.

For any court to in it's deliberation and interpretation to exclude the roots of our founding that are inexorably intertwined with Freedom of Religion is an abomination and ludicrous. It can be said to be so, because the Declaration od Independence laid out those traditional reasons for the formation of this nation and in quotable references it acknowledged the general acceptance by the people of "the Powers of the Earth" being an entitlement of a "Nature's God". That is a God beyond and distinct from Man himself. That document went on to quite thoroughly itemize in detail all the abuses of the Crown and in closing referenced God again by the use oft the term "Supreme Judge of the World", thus establishing FOR ALL TIME a key "traditional value" this new nation was conceived in.

In this country , your atheist position stands alone as an abomination of fact as you seek to define a 'non-belief' as a religion. Like I've said..."You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Ugh! Bold! Italics! Ugh!

Lots of ranting vitriol here, few points of substance, little substance to those, none of that original. I'll address the substance.

"Freedom of religion" means that the right to make judgement on religious topics (existence of gods, specific doctrines, etc) is in the realm of the individual rather than the government. This includes the position "no god exists". More broadly, freedom of religion is about preventing governmental discrimination for their judgements on religious topics. It does not mean that a person is restricted to an official list of religions, and must choose from that list, rather than choosing "none of the above".

Buddhism professes no belief in any god. Taoists profess belief in... something... that might kinda be thought of as a god... but definitely is not the same God that Christians worship. By almost any lights, these are religions, so... yes, a religion can still be a religion without professing a belief in God. But no, atheism is not a religion. The courts have been pretty clear in their rulings. While atheism is not a religion, it falls under the same protected status as any religion, because of the above-mentioned freedom to choose "none of the above".

"The separation of church and state" is a phrase that does not appear in the Constitution, true. Neither does the word "democracy", yet I know of no one arguing that the absence of the word democracy in the Constitution means that democracy should not be practiced in America. In both cases, they arise from the synthesis of separate elements within the Constitution. In particular, the separation of church and state arises from the Establishment clause and the prohibition against religious tests for public office, and the later supplementing of those elements with the 14th Amendment. Jefferson's phrase SUMMARIZED the effect of the Constitution and Bill of Rights on the relationship between church and state, rather than citing any one line or article, and it is a dismal scholar who cannot discern this.

In particular, the Establishment Clause has, indeed, been the basis by which most suits by atheist groups halt the practice of, or permit non-traditional groups access to, government-sponsored religious displays. This is because establishing any religion as receiving official government endorsement or support... even if it is just taxpayer funding of the display, or government land or facilities being donated to the privileged group(s)... is exactly what the Establishment Clause forbids. Of particular note, these cases have not challenged the right of people to mount religious displays on private lands, with private funds. The sole complaint of these cases is the involvement of government with religious displays, and vice-versa. The goal is of these suits is total neutrality of government towards religion, which does not amount to persecution in the slightest.

While the Declaration of Independence did, indeed, reference a creator-God, and is, indeed, a founding document, it is not a BINDING one. It has no legal standing. The Constitution, not the Declaration, is the supreme law of the land, and aside from the Western foible of dating years from the purported birth of Christ, not one mention of god or religion (save to limit government's interaction with the latter) is made in the Constitution at all. Furthermore, we should be cognizant that these references to a god are tertiary to the points of the Declaration: The causes for declaring independence, and actually declaring independence. And finally, recall that it was Jefferson who wrote the Declaration. Jefferson was a deist, not a Christian, and this is apparent in his language of "creator" and "nature's god". The god referenced in the Declaration is not the Christian God. It is either a deistic god, or at most a very vague concept of a deity, a sort of Rorschach test in which one can see whatever one wants to see. In short, God was less a foundational value of the new nation (which in many ways was REJECTING established religion, the divine mandate of kings to rule, or authority given by God to government in any form), and more trace minerals that seeped into the foundation because the entire ground the foundation was placed in was filled with it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Reltzik's post
04-09-2014, 01:54 PM
RE: How would you respond to this?
Tripe

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
04-09-2014, 02:03 PM
RE: How would you respond to this?
(04-09-2014 01:28 PM)Adrianime Wrote:  Never....ever have I met or heard of an atheist trying to make atheism into a capital "A" religion. Even if such a person exists, I'm fairly certain that the opinion is not popular, and not shared by the vast majority.

So...the entire basis of their rant makes no sense (to me).

Yeah, I had the same thought. The only people I've seen capitalizing "atheism" or insisting that it's a religion are the theist trolls who come here to harass us. So that whole point seems backward.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-09-2014, 04:14 PM (This post was last modified: 04-09-2014 06:19 PM by WindyCityJazz.)
RE: How would you respond to this?
(04-09-2014 02:03 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Yeah, I had the same thought. The only people I've seen capitalizing "atheism" or insisting that it's a religion are the theist trolls who come here to harass us. So that whole point seems backward.

That's the first thought that came in my head as well. It's nothing but a theist troll posing as an atheist.

Cyberman: That post about atheists is a pile of bullshit. Atheists are not, in any way, trying to tyrannize religious people. What they ARE doing is standing up for their right to not have the religious beliefs of others shoved down their throats (in this case, it's Christianity). What people like that poster want is for Christianity - AND ONLY CHRISTIANITY - to be shoved down the throats of people everywhere and just expect anybody who doesn't like it to shut the fuck up. If it were Muslim beliefs that were being shoved down THEIR throats they'd be screaming bloody murder!

No atheist calls atheism a religion or wants it to be called a religion, because that is exactly what it isn't. Atheism is not a set of beliefs - it is a lack of belief. Saying that atheism is a religion is no different than saying that not believing in fairies is a religion. It's nothing but an idiotic strategy used by religious people to give people the impression that atheism and religion are one and the same, and therefore both have equal credibility.

Atheists do not have problems with displays of religious things out in the open so long as it's not on PUBLIC PROPERTY! You want to put a cross on the front lawn of your church, or some other religious stuff out on the front lawn of your house - we have no fucking problem there. It's your property, you can do what you please with it. PUBLIC PROPERTY, on the other hand, is not to be used to endorse religion. Public property represents ALL people, NOT JUST CHRISTIANS! Every taxpayer, no matter what faith, pays taxes for building/maintaining anything on public property. Therefore, no religion should be allowed to be endorsed on public property, plain and simple.

"Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion" is a childish whine that you constantly hear from Christians. The Constitution guarantees BOTH! Christians have the right to practice their religion, and atheists have the right not to have religious crap being shoved down OUR throats!

The post is nothing but some Christian acting like a whiny baby because they don't like the fact that atheists are actually standing up for themselves now, and exorcising their right to not be forced to take part in religious crap, or have religious crap forced on them and be expected to keep their mouths shut. The Christian wants to go back to the good 'ol days, when atheists were lambasted and shunned if they ever admitted publicly that they were atheist.

It's the good old Christian persecution complex: Christians are being persecuted if they aren't being allowed to shove their religious beliefs down the throats of everybody else in our society.

“Religion was invented when the first con man met the first fool.” - Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WindyCityJazz's post
04-09-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: How would you respond to this?
(04-09-2014 01:06 PM)cyberman Wrote:  How would you respond to it?

Fine then. I'm a Satanist.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: