ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read article by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation site.
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpret
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
WHY THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE? If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. You didn't find fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
PETERSON HAS GOT TO BE THE BIGGEST CLOWN YET. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BEING EMBARRASSED BASED ON YOUR COLOR AFFILIATION, HE IS ONE OF A FEW EXAMPLES I CAN THINK OF. HE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A SOCIALLY ENGINEERED PRODUCT OF MIS-EDUCATION, A OFT REMINDER THAT THERE IS THOSE AMONGST US WHO ARE STILL BENEDICT ARNOLD/TOKEN/HOUSE NIGGA/SAMBO/RUCKUS TYPE BUFFOON'S. HE SPEAKS WITH SUCH CONFIDENT IGNORANCE, WHICH MAKES IT EVEN MORE ANNOYING, HE'S LIKE A DRUNK WHO THINKS HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
"Built on the idea of God, family and the Constitution" huh? Never you mind the fact that our's is an expressly Godless constitution (the word doesn't appear and religion is unambiguously quarantined from the state). Similarly, pay no attention to the status of prominent founders Jefferson, Franklin and Paine (among others) as non-Christians. Amurca is clearly founded on the Bable.
This is so 2007. I am an atheist and "out of the closet". I am also a registered nurse and feel completely open to claim that I am a freethinking, rational, educated atheist. We should all be proud that we do not believe in the mythical immoralities of our Iron Age ancestors.
Becoming an atheist after being indoctrinated by a religionn, is like the nasty breakup we’ve all had but became better for it in the end. Whether at work or out with our friends I am a proud atheist.
Really the nation built on God, Family, and Constitution. Well 1 in the constitution, because almost all the founding fathers were Atheist or Agnostic, it fails to protect prayer and such in public sectors but says you are free to do this as much as you want in private. 2 The Founding fathers were Atheist so explain to me how GOD was a founding principle if its only mentioned twice in the constitution. Before you mention the constitution for your points please read it.
Really the nation built on God, Family, and Constitution. Well 1 in the constitution, because almost all the founding fathers were Atheist or Agnostic, it fails to protect prayer adn such in public sectors but says you are free to do this as much as you want in private. 2 The Founding fathers were Atheist so explain to me how GOD was a founding principle if its only mentioned once in the constitution. Before you mention the constitution for your points please read it.
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition(nobody expects them!), the Salem witch trials- and religion being the source of morality --> need I go on about the oxymoronic nature of religion and morality?
Wow morals out of a bible? that's dangerous.... bible does say to kill people who don't believe.... and i don't believe, and i don't want to be killed by crazy christians... did the christians really read the bible? prolly not...
"Atheists are hypocrites" religious people love the frequent use of ad hominem. In what way are atheists hypocrites?
You want to talk hypocrisy? Bible says "Thou shall not kill" right?
Well the bible also says:
Kill Witches Deuteronomy 17:12, Kill Homosexuals Leviticus 20:13, Kill Fortunetellers Leviticus 20:27, Death for Adultery Leviticus 20:10, Death for Fornication Leviticus 21:9, Kill Nonbelievers Chronicles 15:12-13 and a LOT more.
Over the past 2 years, science has discovered the sun is emitting a new particle that manipulates the rate of decay of various materials. The impact on the geologic timeline is monumental, since it relied on established rates, assumed to be constant. The existence of one proven particle has destroyed the entire basis of the geologic timeline. Established and projected rates of decay are now entirely subjective and unreliable. O' ye of little faith, when it is by faith and faith alone .....
ATHEISTS! SUCK MY COCK LIKE YOUR FAT ASS WHORE MOTHER DID LAST NIGHT! I KNOW YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF FAGGOTS THAT LIKE TO SWALLOW CUM! I KNOW YOU LIKE TO TAKE IT IN THE ASS YOU DIRTY POLE SMOKING SHEMALES! I GOT A DICK FOR YOU RIGHT HERE! FILTHY CUNT RAG MOTHER FUCKERS! I WILL FUCK YOU IN THE ASS UNTIL YOU BLEED OUT YOU SORRY FAGGOT PIECES OF SHIT! i HOPE YOUR FATHER FUCKING ASSES DIE! WHEN YOU DO I WILL SHIT ON YOUR GRAVE YOU FUCKTARD FUCKERS! BLOW ME I WANT MY NUTS DRAINED! FUCK YOU AND ATHEISM!
Why is it in the American media you have to be an intellectual atheist to debate with an idiotic, religious bigot? As if Reverend is an entitlement equal to Professor or Doctor.
I met a student doing a divinity "degree", she was denser than a neutron star I swear.
I love the Revs argument "THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY" Actually if you did any sort of research you would know that very few of the founding fathers were religious, a lot of them were deists and secularists. The ignorance of some people
The Reverand said that Christians get their morals from the Bible. The Bible is extremely IMMORAL. God COMMANDED slavery, murder for unfaithful women, human sacrifice and other atrocities. The God of the Bible is an incredible indecent God. And THAT is where Christians get their morals from? It should also be interesting to note that countries that are a high majority atheist have shown much higher moral behavior. So the Reverand, of course, is wrong and uneducated.
The Reverand said that Christians get their morals from the Bible. The Bible is extremely IMMORAL. God COMMANDED slavery, murder for unfaithful women, human sacrifice and other atrocities. The God of the Bible is an incredible indecent God. And THAT is where Christians get their morals from? It should also be interesting to note that countries that are a high majority atheist have shown much higher moral behavior. So the Reverand, of course, is wrong and uneducated.
@2Smart2BReligious Richard Dawkins sums it up perfectly in The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
It seems that religion is running scared, because it really has nothing to offer. Every time there's a debate, some form of hateful statement comes out of the mouths of theists, bashing non-believers.
Are you telling me that you only believe murder is wrong because you were told it was wrong and not because of the vile nature of the act itself?
Athiests get their ethics from a variety of sources. Theists claim to get their ethics from only one source, their doctrinal text, but we know this isn't true. They follow laws, so they get their ethics from the law. They are taught by their parents. They are influenced by their friends.
You can tell how ignorant an American is by how they emphasis the E sound in the word American. "Trying to impose their Godless lifestyle on Amuuricans"
I don't like how this Atheist couldn't even respond to the question "Where do you get your morals from?" She avoided it and made it seem as if there's no answer. But the answer is simply that morals are derived from oneself personally. Going by Christian logic, should there not have been a bible to preach morals they'd go around raping and killing (though not atheists, we aren't as clueless as those who need some sort of supreme guidance).
@TheR33l Yea, she should have just said that they get their morals from themselves, in addition to morals derived from parental teachings, philosophy, etc.
@TheR33l She's not a good debater. You're right on all points, I would also point out that just existing in society means that there has to be order. Society would not exist if there was not some kind of order, if everyone went around killing, raping, and stealing, by definition society would collapse. So in any kind of stable society we see order, and this includes numerous non-christian societies. By that idiot's logic, we shouldn't see any stable societies other than christian ones.
If you want to know what our country would be like if the Chrisitians had their way and truly made this a "Christian Nation," look no further than Iran. The only thing that keeps Christianity from being as bad as Islam is that it is constrained by secular governments and societies. If Christianity ran amok in this country the way Islam does in say, Saudi Arabia, I believe we would see something like the inquisition return, and blasphemy would become a capital crime.
So the reverend gets his morals from a book that condones genocide, murder of homosexuals and "witches" and genital mutilation. That's not anything to brag about.
"Atheists are hypocrits and trying to impose their godless lyfestyle upon Americans and especially Christians." I never heard of Atheists trying to get the Atom symbol on the money or beating up Christians for believing in God. Or even trying to get people to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
"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...." The Treaty of Tripoli 1797
We Atheists get our Ethics from a variety of places.....family, school, reading, learning, experience. We learn throughout life and try to do better.....as do many Christians and other religous ilk. But to say that you get your morals from the bible....yikes....that is not a good place to start.
@D33veeoss Look at the statistics - in the prison population the religions are represented almost equally with the countrys population - athiests have a MUCH lower percentage of prison population realtive to the free population
IF your assertion was correct and athiests were inheriently immoral then the opposite would be true
I understood that US is 85% religious and 15% atheist, if I remember that correct. (this has to go PM because there is so much junk in the way of that 'atheists are more house broken than the religious' or "society would be better with 100% atheist/agnostic."
I mean there is just a jumble and the issue is only simple to the simplistic.
But I refuse your stats on "a" I know tons and tons of people. street level, preacher level
Try googling population of diffeent countries by religion and then by crime rate or some social problems like teen pregnancy - - if your belief that atheists have no morals is correct it should be a clear corelation between god and social development - - -
Unfortunately, yours will be turned fickle and/ dismantled all together.
This is a 3000 word dissertation that gets streamlined every time I walk through it.
It's gratifying to see that I'm the first person arguing this unique angle with a complete array attack.
(picture an atheist that's attacked his own position for 25 years straight all day everyday. now picture one that can put it all together like batter to a cookie)
ONLY if god = Any of numerous tailless, aquatic, semiaquatic, or terrestrial amphibians of the order Anura and especially of the family Ranidae, characteristically having a smooth moist skin, webbed feet, and long hind legs adapted for leaping.
My point was to point out that you can identify traits of a frog. As you did in your reply.
However, gGod, (again, NOT the subjective fallacy ridden definition in the dictionary that my theistic substitute put there the day that I was sick. And happened to be on "g". No. )
I mean the only real objective definition aka"whatever caused us"/"reality"/"what is"
But if I were to humor you and your ideation and the theists and theirs, with your subjective attributes assigned to a "god" which does or doesn't exist; I could still argue that if the poll survey says, "do you believe in "god" " Then really, out of 100 people you'll get 100 answers.
So again, right there, I know that this "survey" / " ' look at the statistics ' " issue is complete crap.
This topic is so fickle I'm so to move on. I think I have it in it's entirety.
theism, is a non sequitur. Anything that has to do with a subjective "god" that is being pranced around as if it were not an idealistic subjective idea but instead a static thing with a "non-definition" and a reality attached.
Seriously Logic,
I WILL NO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING FALSE PREMISE:
" Here I am, and from a plethora of samples, ie. doctrine, family tradition etc., I've assembled the most logical "god"....later that day..... gGod bless you! or gGod loves you."
So if we're to talk about religion, then we need to talk about "god"/ + gGod and the difference between. Technically we should go back and ask why evolution gave us these ideals rather than not in the first place, but then we''ll be into the information and mandates within the combined entities of this universe. But I'll suffice with stopping at "god'. The other is an interesting concept that states....ok nevermind. Long topic.
I address this for a page in the PM/ I understand, very well, what you're saying here. I actually fight myself huh? 24/7. Did you know that? I fought this point against myself. Here is the disconnect. The blatant separation between reality and subjective description thereof. What do I mean? I mean your elves idea is classic and very valid in most formats of prosecution. Definitely. Look here, Elves, defined. gGod, undefined. No, there is no substitution. Apples Oranges.
anything real that elves is the best I could come up with -
the subjective "god" has made up attributes - -
I agree but your "creator gGod" also has attributes for creation
the act of creating a universe would be extremely complex and difficult if it were intentional - it would REQUIRE a very intelligent and powerful being
but maybe it was accidental and gGod didn't mean to do it
or maybe the universe formed through natural processes
Does this consider people that havne't been to church in 6 weeks?
2months?
I asked a buddy, "where are you at like belief wise," I'm catholic he said. I said, " OK cool, what's your take on it? " He said, " Pfff I don't know, my parents are religious but I don't know a damn thing about it.
If a survey banged at his door, he'd have answered that he was catholic. End of discussion
So the criteria, for these statistics needs THIS SPECIFIC argument in mind.
I submit that "religious" constitutes church attendance > = 1 time per month; annually, there must be an '8 consecutive attempts' 7 in a row except for the 3rd week where in you were sick, still counts as 8
Betcha they didnt have proper criteria such as such
Even with 'theist', I will have at it
This means, theist must acknowledge that their "god" is a subjective one because theyve assigned attributes without due diligence. Considering the topic is "undefinable" thats a TON of diligence
Christian Do Not get their morales from the bible.
They don't stone their children for being rebellious, they won't kill you for working on their holy day. Christian know better than to follow their own Bibles literally, because the bible has a lot of hatred, injustice, and immorality promoted as the word of God.
No, the religious in america get their SUBJECTIVE (ever evolving) morality from the society they live in, with the laws they agree upon just like every NON-Religious person does.
DAMN! I have not heard this yet. Not so clear and not so reduced.
Flawless, flawless, flawless, point.
To counter this will take much effort.
Especially when it's shown that the US military has kill many in the last few years as well as over the past.
"Yeah but they were all theists DVO."
So? That means that it is the religion REGARDLESS of the reasons they SAY that they're doing it. For instance when a heroin addict is asked about the habit.
If you want to argue that the world. as an atheist society would spill less blood...then you need to tell me what motivated the first 1 250 000 killings within the Homo Sapien species. Religion? Really?
Also, just to slam the final nail:
All the people from the Abrahmic trifector are anti-violence. I know a dude from Sadam's army who defected. Says it's not really a choice.
If as it is, the Muslims, Jews and Christians think that they will go to hell forever if they KILL UNJUSTLY, then you wanna tell me why atheists will be less prone to bloodshed?
a) All theists want peace. (Do not bring up the fringe or I will bring up AR cons doing 15 year bids.)
b) All theists are afraid to kill for the wrong reason.
And you're telling me atheists have more self-control? Fuck you you arrogant twat.
LAST POINT WRONG is defined with "GOOD" morality within scripture. Neither of those words are in your fucks' vocabulary. ONLY PRACTICAL.. NOTHING ELSE. THERE ARE ATHEISTS THAT THINK THAT EXTERMINATING ALL RACES IS THE PRACTICAL THING TO DO. AND THERE ARE ATHEISTS THAT LIVE CLEANER THAN YOUR AVERAGE CHRISTIAN *So bitch. How the fuck do you figure?* You need like 6 000 years of a sample group of an atheistic society. Also, world is too dynamic. So... 6 of 1. or Half dozen of the other. :O)
Yet 'morality' is viewed or at least used in an objective manner.
This creates a non sequitur out of the word.
This is further proven, as you were saying, when "argument ad populum" is finalized and that subjective word "morality" turns into a static objective one. ie law.
If you didn't understand that, let me know.
Morality should be an EXTREMELY awkward word to use.
Well put and well argued......if you are a mildly retarded chimpanzee.
If we atheists are vocal, then we are bigots? How are we bigoted? There is only one tenet to atheism: the rejection of the belief in a god or gods. How is that bigoted? Moron.
Atheists get less teen pregnancy, less abortion, less STDs, less adultery, less divorce, commit less rape, murder, and crime than any other "religion". We also commit less Crusades and suicide bombers than any other faith. How are we the problem?
It is amazing how you got so confused when a question is incorrectly framed .
There are no teens getting pregnant, or having abortions. nor getting divorced committing rapes, murder or any other crime, that always follow the teachings of Jesus.
You see my friend, There are but two camps . Those who follow the teachings of Jesus and those who dont.
Those who are incarcerated seem to belong to the camp of .
the fact is, that people who believe in god are less moral. you can say that that's because many people who claim belief in god don't "truly" believe, but the fact remains that those who profess belief in no god tend to be more moral.
p.s. check out these bible verses. tell me if these commands of god seem moral to you?
At no time in history there was a proof of the existence of any gods. What more does people need?
Faith = believing without proof
But, don't get me wrong. Religions are good things. It help to control society and people. Without that, chaos would sourround us because most of people would be unable to choose proper and logical set of values and moral.
I am my own god and I am controlling my own life and universe (my mind), therefore, I am not an atheist. I am a god. We are gods. Enjoy.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
"Faith = believing without proof". Wrong. Faith is trusting somebody you ALREADY KNOW. So its NOT believing something without any proof. Its based on the proof that God is there and he does not lie and trusting that he speaks the truth. Faith = believing (or being certain of) something you have not seen. Thats better definition... If my brother says that he paid the bill, I BELIEVE it even though i have not seen it.
Huh?.... I am sorry to say this but you are not a god either and neither are any of us. In your own words ... At no time in history there was any proof that you are a god either.
Maybe you meant what you said in a metaphorical sense in which case you are not an atheist only in a metaphorical sense. In reality you actually are an atheist.
Right. Atheists are better at pointing out the irrationality of theism rather than preaching any Truths because we feel science provides a natural explanation, but since science is subject to new discovery and ideas, rather than being stuck in some ancient, untested philosophy the way religion is, we atheists realize our perceptions could be wrong. Being wrong is no crime in science. In religion, you are not permitted to be wrong. You accept the dogma or find another religion.
im not convinced Theism will die off because it offers a simple answer to the stupid. Science provides a complex answer which the majority will find it hard to understand.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," John Adam, founding father. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
Yes, us godless umoral athiests! I remember that great athiest pedaphile discovery a few years back, and don't forget that athiest clensing of the christians by ethnic cleansing. Dam! I forgot, the athiest terrorist plots. Yes, us athiests hate theists so much we will kill ourselves over it! Well, to be fare we are calling for THERE IS NO GOD to be plastered over all money in the world, Thats right, we are. Hmm, That black guy has such a stupid view point its insulting.
Where do atheists get their morals from, he asked. Dawkins, in The God Delusion says morality predates religion and is a survival instinct that evolved, so I guess we get our morals from Charles Darwin. LOL But seriously, we seem to be born with a sense of right and wrong that perhaps came from cooperation and altruism directed at our relatives who formed our communities or troupes as seen in chimps today as well as humans.
If christians get their morals from the bible, and the bible says forsake all gods but me, then should we assume that all faiths apart from christianity are false in the same ways as fairy tales? Therefore athiesm should be (in their eyes) on par with Islam, Hindium ect, as they should see us all as equally wrong. Therefore us athiests should get our morals from the same place all other relgions (bar christianity of course) gets theirs. The social zeightgeist
With religion, even though the idea is wrong, the outcome can be right. Socrates called religion "The noble lie", meaning it was myth, but kept people in check. One commedian calls Jesus an unpaid babysitter. Our morals clearly change over time. Even fundamentalist Christians would not take the advise of Deuteronomy where you take your bride to her father's house and stone her if she turns out not to be a virgin. As Sam Harris said, "The guarantor of morality is in our brains, not in our books".
If it is a myth then there is no reason to treat it as a truth. It doesn't matter if it's outcome is benficital, it is still a lie and a myth. But dispite this, the benefits are contentious. In states with lower church attendance rates crime rates are lower than those with higher church attendance. Many studies have concluded a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism. Also, how often has an athiest come to your house on a Saturday just to tell you how wrong you are?
I would call religion a misinterpretation of nature rather than a lie. The ancients did not have good models on which to base their ideas so superstition and reality blend together. Matthew is a good example. It starts out as a history of Joseph. Then without any transition, it writes about Jesus as a god. The author could not see the quantum leap between the physical and spiritual world that he made. Paul, a Gnostic, is a prime example too with his visions that he perceives as reality.
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization..." - Albert Pike.
I'm a very spiritual person (I hesitate to use the word "religious" as this word connotes a connection to social organizations, ie. "churches"). And although I believe in a volitional First Cause / Primal Creator (God), I feel that my religious beliefs are a purely personal matter and should not be forced on others. Respecting and understanding each other's varying viewpoints WITHOUT judgment or criticism enhances love for each other and is the only way to world peace. Unity, NOT uniformity.
It is a violation of the First Amendment, just because something is illegal, dosen't mean that the government won't allow it or do it themselves(as the patriot act has demonstrated, among other things). We also have freedom from and of religion, someday you defenders of "the faith" will be sorry that you allowed all of your religious nonsense to have a place in public affairs. You're all just too foolish to see that now.
If your position is that "Under god" should remain in the pledge, and my position is that "Under zues" should be added, or "Under the ancestors of the mighty Tunica nation" should be added, what makes my belief any less important than yours?, after all "Under god" was added long after the pledge had been established. Why should everyone, or anyone have to acknowledge your god, or any god at all, that is a personal belief (and has no evidence to support it) It excludes many U.S. citizens.
Fine. Get enough of the Congress and the Senate and you can put Zeus in the pledge. Good luck. The fact is, this is not a violation of the First Amendment. If you find it offensive, use every legal option to try and get it removed. But it seems the option of going to the Supreme Court is not going to work. Free speach implies the freedom to offend.
Actually, America was founded on the Pilgrims, who were also known as the Seperatists, who wanted to escape from the English Church, so they sailed to America with the help of a business man who gained the permission from the East London Company (I think), and so they sailed to America, where they beecame a country. The Pledge was made with the words "Under God" because the people were still Christian.
The colonists didn't start their own nation or even write a pledge until hundreds of years after they landed... and "under god" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954. Please make sure you know what you are talking about before you act like you do
Hi Godless55, my point is that by inserting any of those phrases --god/goddess/etc, could no way be contrued as the government establishing a state religion. The whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is a relatively new one, and certainly not in keeping with the founding fathers intent.
the idea of the separation of church and state was proposed during the european enlightenment, the principles of which were shared with americas founding fathers
To CuriousmindO, Atheists have not distorted the issue, the statement "under god" is a reference to religion, that's why it is not in the original pledge. If it were not respecting a particular religious belief, then it should be under the "gods and godesses" and for the satanists, "under lucifer" therefore it is respecting a particular religious opinion that there is only one god. This is, therefore, unconstitutional.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to "
I doubt if "under God" in the pledge could be considered "respecting an establishment of religion". The founding fathers were trying to protect the people from a state religion as in England. Athiest and others have istorted this issue to fit their agenda.
In regards to what the Rev said. Religious people try and impose on everyone else all the time and on every aspect of your life.
antipodeandreason 3 months ago
Atheists get morals from an understanding of the importance of human cooperation and solidarity. It's not that hard, Christians.
WCdragoninja 3 months ago
I miss Ellen.... I fucking hate David Silverman
Slacktoo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GOD, HEAVEN, AND SEX: Internet article examines the Biblical possibility of sex in heaven. Human sexuality isn't just for reproduction. There are reasons the Bible requires marriage for sex on earth, but those reasons won't exist in heaven. Scripture teaches, in heaven, we'll be like the angels only in one sense - no marriage, but we won't be like angels in every other way (i.e. Bible says we'll enjoy food and drink). Psalm 16:11 says there will be great spiritual joy and pleasures in heaven.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SCIENCE SHOWS THAT THE UNIVERSE could not have sustained itself eternally because of entropy. Einstein confirmed that space, matter, and time had a beginning! That beginning had to be supernatural because natural laws have no ability to bring the universe into existence from nothing. The supernatural cannot be proved by science but science points to a supernatural intelligence for the origin and order of the universe ~ HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM (Article)
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Only evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). How were species living, reproducing if their reproductive system, vital structures, and organs hadn't evolved yet? Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT ABOUT THE STARS? Gravity explains how the order found in the precise courses of trillions of stars is maintained, but gravity can't explain the origin of that order! Did all the trillions stars agree to get out of each others way? C'mon! Disorder in the universe is because of chance, but the order is because of design. Read my popular Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHAT IS SCIENCE? Science simply is knowledge based on observation. No one observed the universe coming by chance or by design, by creation or by macro-evolution. These are positions of faith. The issue is which faith the scientific evidence best supports. Natural laws can explain how an airplane or living cell works, but it's irrational to believe that undirected natural laws can bring about an airplane or a living cell. Read my Internet article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DAWKINS, HITCHENS, AND HAWKING REFUSE TO DEBATE with creationists who are SCIENTISTS, such as the scientists at The Institute for Creation Research. Dawkins and his friends only debate non-scientist creationists. Read article by scientists supporting creation at The Institute for Creation site.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO EYES CARRY SCARS OF EVOLUTION? Read this fantastic Internet article by biologist and creationist Brian Thomas. Thomas refutes every argument for a "flawed" design for the eye, and explains how and why the so-called flaw is actually the best thing for the eye. Read the article! It's amazing what facts evolutionists will ignore. Numerous times evolutionists have been proven wrong about their interpret
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
BLIND WATCHMAKER NO ARGUMENT. Natural selection is no "blind watchmaker" because it can only "select" from variations produced having survival value. It doesn't produce variations. It only operates once there is life and reproduction, not before, so it couldn't be involved in life's origins. A partially-evolved cell (an oxymoron) would quickly disintegrate. It couldn't wait ("survive") millions of years for chance to complete it and then make it living! Read: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES ATHEISM
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WHY THE INTELLIGENT DESIGN DEBATE? If you discovered a sand castle on a lonely beach, you can't prove it was made by either chance or design. No one observed its origins. Either it was designed or the random forces of wind and waves made the castle. You didn't find fingerprints. Did the wind wipe the fingerprints away? How do we know that there were fingerprints in the first place? By chance or by design? Both sides should present their case. Read the article: HOW FORENSIC SCIENCE REFUTES
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENETIC INFORMATION DOESN'T HAPPEN BY CHANCE, so it's more logical to believe that genetic similarities between all forms of life are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes. It doesn't mean all forms of life are biologically related! "Junk DNA" isn't junk. These non-coding segments of DNA have recently been found to be vital in regulating gene expression. Read: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALL REAL EVOLUTION ( i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.) is the expression, over time, of already existing genes. Evolution is possible only if there’s information (genes) directing it. Only variations of already existing genes are possible, which means only limited evolution and adaptations are possible. Nature has no ability to invent new genes via random mutations caused by random environmental forces. That’s evolutionary faith, not science. Read my article, WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ARE FOSSILS REALLY MILLIONS OF YEARS OLD? Popular Internet article examines assumptions concerning fossil deposition as well as built-in assumptions involved in modern radiometric dating (not used for dating fossils but other rocks), arguments from starlight and time. Discusses lack of transitional forms and lack of "age" sequence of the fossil layers. Discusses mixed species in fossils (i.e. dinosaur, reptile, mammal fossils in the same stratum conveniently ignored by evolutionists).
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
IMAGINE A FISH WITH PART FINS, part feet with the fins evolving (transitioning) into feet. What survival benefit would there be? The fish couldn't use its fins or its feet, and there are no fossils showing such a creature ever existed. They only exist on automobile bumper stickers! There are no true transitional forms, either living or fossilized. Evolutionists realize this fact! Read my Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS!
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NOT ALL EVOLUTIONISTS even agree on the fossils used to support and reconstruct human evolution. The bones are incomplete. There's no certainty of the bones belonging to the same creature. They can reconstruct whatever they want from these bones, and they have. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from an ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from a four-legged dog-like creature. Read my article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
APES ARE QUITE COMFORTABLE IN HOW THEY WALK, just as humans are quite comfortable in how they walk. Even a slight change in the position of a muscle or bone, for either, would be excruciatingly painful and would not be an advantage for survival. There's no hard evidence that humans evolved from ape-like creature anymore than there's hard evidence that apes evolved from four-legged dog-like creatures. Read Internet article: MISSING LINKS THAT NEVER WERE.
Mogley52 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ALTHOUGH I'M A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN (Baptist), I no longer believe that the Bible teaches eternal torment or suffering. The Bible teaches eternal punishment, but it's not eternal torment. In my popular Internet article, TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE OF HELL EVOLVED FROM GREEK ROOTS, I explain how and why teaching of eternal torment entered early into Christianity and how Scriptures have been misinterpreted and taken out of context to support that teaching. ~Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. theology/biology)
Mogley52 5 months ago
PETERSON HAS GOT TO BE THE BIGGEST CLOWN YET. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT BEING EMBARRASSED BASED ON YOUR COLOR AFFILIATION, HE IS ONE OF A FEW EXAMPLES I CAN THINK OF. HE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF A SOCIALLY ENGINEERED PRODUCT OF MIS-EDUCATION, A OFT REMINDER THAT THERE IS THOSE AMONGST US WHO ARE STILL BENEDICT ARNOLD/TOKEN/HOUSE NIGGA/SAMBO/RUCKUS TYPE BUFFOON'S. HE SPEAKS WITH SUCH CONFIDENT IGNORANCE, WHICH MAKES IT EVEN MORE ANNOYING, HE'S LIKE A DRUNK WHO THINKS HE KNOWS WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.
davisismail1comcast 6 months ago
Also the religious might do themselves a favor to have as their representative on CNN someone who doesn't struggle to produce a lucid sentence.
amatuerarabist 6 months ago
"Built on the idea of God, family and the Constitution" huh? Never you mind the fact that our's is an expressly Godless constitution (the word doesn't appear and religion is unambiguously quarantined from the state). Similarly, pay no attention to the status of prominent founders Jefferson, Franklin and Paine (among others) as non-Christians. Amurca is clearly founded on the Bable.
amatuerarabist 6 months ago
This is so 2007. I am an atheist and "out of the closet". I am also a registered nurse and feel completely open to claim that I am a freethinking, rational, educated atheist. We should all be proud that we do not believe in the mythical immoralities of our Iron Age ancestors.
Becoming an atheist after being indoctrinated by a religionn, is like the nasty breakup we’ve all had but became better for it in the end. Whether at work or out with our friends I am a proud atheist.
northoforacle 6 months ago 2
Really the nation built on God, Family, and Constitution. Well 1 in the constitution, because almost all the founding fathers were Atheist or Agnostic, it fails to protect prayer and such in public sectors but says you are free to do this as much as you want in private. 2 The Founding fathers were Atheist so explain to me how GOD was a founding principle if its only mentioned twice in the constitution. Before you mention the constitution for your points please read it.
BillyT4evr 7 months ago
Really the nation built on God, Family, and Constitution. Well 1 in the constitution, because almost all the founding fathers were Atheist or Agnostic, it fails to protect prayer adn such in public sectors but says you are free to do this as much as you want in private. 2 The Founding fathers were Atheist so explain to me how GOD was a founding principle if its only mentioned once in the constitution. Before you mention the constitution for your points please read it.
BillyT4evr 7 months ago
The Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition(nobody expects them!), the Salem witch trials- and religion being the source of morality --> need I go on about the oxymoronic nature of religion and morality?
jagara1 7 months ago
Why atheists are noisy- Youtube search Voltron by non-stamp collector.
Cougar139tweak 7 months ago
Wow morals out of a bible? that's dangerous.... bible does say to kill people who don't believe.... and i don't believe, and i don't want to be killed by crazy christians... did the christians really read the bible? prolly not...
imita01 7 months ago
"Atheists are hypocrites" religious people love the frequent use of ad hominem. In what way are atheists hypocrites?
You want to talk hypocrisy? Bible says "Thou shall not kill" right?
Well the bible also says:
Kill Witches Deuteronomy 17:12, Kill Homosexuals Leviticus 20:13, Kill Fortunetellers Leviticus 20:27, Death for Adultery Leviticus 20:10, Death for Fornication Leviticus 21:9, Kill Nonbelievers Chronicles 15:12-13 and a LOT more.
Talk about hypocrisy...
geniusjas87 8 months ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Over the past 2 years, science has discovered the sun is emitting a new particle that manipulates the rate of decay of various materials. The impact on the geologic timeline is monumental, since it relied on established rates, assumed to be constant. The existence of one proven particle has destroyed the entire basis of the geologic timeline. Established and projected rates of decay are now entirely subjective and unreliable. O' ye of little faith, when it is by faith and faith alone .....
waketheoblivious 8 months ago
It's funny how the rev. is asking her a question and won't let her answer. He's just scared she'll be right, bahaha.
LamCriddlexx 9 months ago
intense hate speech from that guy (i won't call him 'reverend').
gpalmer12345 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATHEISTS! SUCK MY COCK LIKE YOUR FAT ASS WHORE MOTHER DID LAST NIGHT! I KNOW YOUR ALL A BUNCH OF FAGGOTS THAT LIKE TO SWALLOW CUM! I KNOW YOU LIKE TO TAKE IT IN THE ASS YOU DIRTY POLE SMOKING SHEMALES! I GOT A DICK FOR YOU RIGHT HERE! FILTHY CUNT RAG MOTHER FUCKERS! I WILL FUCK YOU IN THE ASS UNTIL YOU BLEED OUT YOU SORRY FAGGOT PIECES OF SHIT! i HOPE YOUR FATHER FUCKING ASSES DIE! WHEN YOU DO I WILL SHIT ON YOUR GRAVE YOU FUCKTARD FUCKERS! BLOW ME I WANT MY NUTS DRAINED! FUCK YOU AND ATHEISM!
atheistdestroyer1 10 months ago
dont pray in my school i wont think in your church
maxfedor1 10 months ago 26
ATHEISTS!!! i NOTICED YOUR ALL CIRCLE JERKING ASS FUCKING DICK SUCKING FAGGOTS!!!
atheistdestroyer1 10 months ago
@atheistdestroyer1
Obvious troll is obvious.
msaoichan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@atheistdestroyer1 Jesus was homosexual. And God is a retard.
geniusjas87 8 months ago
What a dumb nigger
Dilly5 11 months ago
Why is it in the American media you have to be an intellectual atheist to debate with an idiotic, religious bigot? As if Reverend is an entitlement equal to Professor or Doctor.
I met a student doing a divinity "degree", she was denser than a neutron star I swear.
ihaterobbie123 11 months ago 4
I love the Revs argument "THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY" Actually if you did any sort of research you would know that very few of the founding fathers were religious, a lot of them were deists and secularists. The ignorance of some people
BARNEYRAPEDME69 1 year ago 3
wow he is retarted he could barely speak was he drunk or something dont put his ass on tv again giving a bad name for black people
philyB08 1 year ago
@philyB08 retarted? I agree with your point though.
rugbycrazyrugbymad 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Reverand said that Christians get their morals from the Bible. The Bible is extremely IMMORAL. God COMMANDED slavery, murder for unfaithful women, human sacrifice and other atrocities. The God of the Bible is an incredible indecent God. And THAT is where Christians get their morals from? It should also be interesting to note that countries that are a high majority atheist have shown much higher moral behavior. So the Reverand, of course, is wrong and uneducated.
2Smart2BReligious 1 year ago
The Reverand said that Christians get their morals from the Bible. The Bible is extremely IMMORAL. God COMMANDED slavery, murder for unfaithful women, human sacrifice and other atrocities. The God of the Bible is an incredible indecent God. And THAT is where Christians get their morals from? It should also be interesting to note that countries that are a high majority atheist have shown much higher moral behavior. So the Reverand, of course, is wrong and uneducated.
2Smart2BReligious 1 year ago 2
@2Smart2BReligious Richard Dawkins sums it up perfectly in The God Delusion: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
giovanardi777 1 year ago 3
@2Smart2BReligious I think I may love you (jk but I really agree with you).
rugbycrazyrugbymad 1 year ago
It seems that religion is running scared, because it really has nothing to offer. Every time there's a debate, some form of hateful statement comes out of the mouths of theists, bashing non-believers.
Impalamark64 1 year ago
Man, everytime i see a debate btwn theists and atheists the theists always loose but somehow think they have won.
claiming that if you don't read the bible you have no ethics, australias prime minister is an atheist I think she has some ethics.
shandcunt 1 year ago
why do you need to be told that murder is wrong?
Are you telling me that you only believe murder is wrong because you were told it was wrong and not because of the vile nature of the act itself?
Athiests get their ethics from a variety of sources. Theists claim to get their ethics from only one source, their doctrinal text, but we know this isn't true. They follow laws, so they get their ethics from the law. They are taught by their parents. They are influenced by their friends.
Sairin13 1 year ago 2
"your 1 to 3 percent of the population" FUCKIN HILARIOUS!
Ucorn 1 year ago
The black guy has never heard of the Establishment Clause apparently.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
You can tell how ignorant an American is by how they emphasis the E sound in the word American. "Trying to impose their Godless lifestyle on Amuuricans"
Dwellerz 1 year ago
1-3%? Were the fuck did he pull that stat from?
Dwellerz 1 year ago
I don't like how this Atheist couldn't even respond to the question "Where do you get your morals from?" She avoided it and made it seem as if there's no answer. But the answer is simply that morals are derived from oneself personally. Going by Christian logic, should there not have been a bible to preach morals they'd go around raping and killing (though not atheists, we aren't as clueless as those who need some sort of supreme guidance).
TheR33l 1 year ago
@TheR33l Yea, she should have just said that they get their morals from themselves, in addition to morals derived from parental teachings, philosophy, etc.
martinkun167 1 year ago
@TheR33l She's not a good debater. You're right on all points, I would also point out that just existing in society means that there has to be order. Society would not exist if there was not some kind of order, if everyone went around killing, raping, and stealing, by definition society would collapse. So in any kind of stable society we see order, and this includes numerous non-christian societies. By that idiot's logic, we shouldn't see any stable societies other than christian ones.
EnigmaHood 1 year ago
Maddow was even more of a dyke back then.
paradoarify 1 year ago
If you want to know what our country would be like if the Chrisitians had their way and truly made this a "Christian Nation," look no further than Iran. The only thing that keeps Christianity from being as bad as Islam is that it is constrained by secular governments and societies. If Christianity ran amok in this country the way Islam does in say, Saudi Arabia, I believe we would see something like the inquisition return, and blasphemy would become a capital crime.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
@DandAinTac blasphemy has become crime in irland. and there religius right has got more power. coisidence?
gooddarkjedi 1 year ago
@gooddarkjedi Really? How seriously is it enforced? What are the punishments?
DandAinTac 1 year ago
that black guy was an idiot. He didn't even understand the issue.
Lsawyer88 1 year ago
What did the black guy say? Learn fucking english.
spinnersmetal 1 year ago
So the reverend gets his morals from a book that condones genocide, murder of homosexuals and "witches" and genital mutilation. That's not anything to brag about.
brajamtho757 1 year ago
4:00 Christians get theri morals from the bible, where do you get your morals from?"
I ll take moral philosophie over bible teachings any day.
omnissient 1 year ago
That guy was a fcukin tool.
yington 1 year ago
"Atheists are hypocrits and trying to impose their godless lyfestyle upon Americans and especially Christians." I never heard of Atheists trying to get the Atom symbol on the money or beating up Christians for believing in God. Or even trying to get people to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
SummerRain101 1 year ago
rev jesse, before you say one word, we need you to drink a glass of antifreeze(mark 16:18) then you can speak. if you live.
DSCW33 1 year ago
I think atheist get their ethics and morals from common sense, understanding cause and effect.
esiosan 1 year ago
"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...." The Treaty of Tripoli 1797
MichaelnChristine 1 year ago
RIP USSR ! FIRST OFFICIAL COUNTRY OF ATHEISTS ....
p.s. with very tragic history & infamous end...
sam0xin 1 year ago
@sam0xin says "RIP USSR ! FIRST OFFICIAL COUNTRY OF ATHEISTS"
Do you change your political views to align with your government that wins the election ?
Would you change your religion to the same one as your leader ?
How can you think that a 90% Christian nation could become atheists just because as asshole atheist leader orders it even with force ?
You can destroy a church, you cannot destroy a belief, religion goes private or underground.
USSR has always been a majority Christian nation.
saintpine 1 year ago
shoot that guy in the face please.
Onthenight88 1 year ago
the woman in this video capture my views completely
xmasterfunk 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The nigger doesn't know what he's talking about, nor does he know what a hypocrite is.
colorblindvids 1 year ago
ATHEISTS, ASSEMBLE!!!
Mercurybath 1 year ago
We Atheists get our Ethics from a variety of places.....family, school, reading, learning, experience. We learn throughout life and try to do better.....as do many Christians and other religous ilk. But to say that you get your morals from the bible....yikes....that is not a good place to start.
Paulmancieri67 1 year ago 35
HAHA ATHIESTS IN THE CLOSET
bezalldeezy 2 years ago
we're not the ones abusing childrren?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Good god. and good fucking grief.
Go take a walk down to PC in your nearest maxsec
Tell me how many wear robes and how many wear tattooes
So for the majority of christians vs atheists there whould be wha,t 8 robes for every one atheist?
And it's the other way around???
DONT FUCKING TELL ME..."WERE NOT THE ONE ABUSING KIDS" YOU STANKY FUCKING C UNT.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
what she meant was "we aren't the ones breaking doctrine thats telling us not to hurt kids."
Um Yeah. That's because you have ZERO doctrine to break. per capita it's like 10 - 1 atheists over theists.
True they weren't breaking the rules.
Atheists have none.
WHATEVER IS PRACTICAL.
WHATEVER IS PRACTICAL
Don't lie atheists THATS your morality.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
@D33veeoss Look at the statistics - in the prison population the religions are represented almost equally with the countrys population - athiests have a MUCH lower percentage of prison population realtive to the free population
IF your assertion was correct and athiests were inheriently immoral then the opposite would be true
UberLogic 2 years ago
I looked for the stats and couldn't find them.
I understood that US is 85% religious and 15% atheist, if I remember that correct. (this has to go PM because there is so much junk in the way of that 'atheists are more house broken than the religious' or "society would be better with 100% atheist/agnostic."
I mean there is just a jumble and the issue is only simple to the simplistic.
But I refuse your stats on "a" I know tons and tons of people. street level, preacher level
Also, ... .
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Know what? Get to the bottom. My point about 6 of 1 half dozen of the other.
It trounces the whole matter.
I have other angles like dismantling the ideology altogether. But this will suffice.
In addition to my point about SAMPLE SIZE /GROUP
I'd like to add that extinction is an external process effected by nature on a species.
This means, since it can obviously be see that 'religion' is of evolutionary origin, and an internal influence (ie."who I am?")
Then I have FLAWLESS Precedent.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Try googling population of diffeent countries by religion and then by crime rate or some social problems like teen pregnancy - - if your belief that atheists have no morals is correct it should be a clear corelation between god and social development - - -
UberLogic 2 years ago
if your belief that atheists have no morals is correct
FULL STOP, you need to read through the end of next thread.
"Morals" is a big word for petty minds.
At any rate, if you're starting the scarecrows already....
Also, "religious" is a tough word. I need:
a) the ideology of the person that made the survey, preferably books they've authored
b) agreed upon parameters of "religious"
c) concise definitions of religious that CATER to this specific argument.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
OK start over then - -
Your original comment was that atheists have no rules
This is demonstrably a strawman OR COMPLETELY lacking an understanding of what qualifies an atheist
I qualify as an athiest because I don't accept unfounded mythological tales as fact without evidence -
This lack of belief in DOES NOT in ANY way have ANYTHING to do with ethics/ morality/ or social rules - - -
Any more than not believing in SANTA guides me to be naughty all year . . .
UberLogic 2 years ago
"Your original comment was that atheists have no rules"
WHAT IF, guy, my premise applies to theists as much as it applies to atheists?
What if you have a superficial take on what it involves "to follow rules."
"lacking an understanding of what qualifies an atheist"
I have a list of 30 - 40 fallacies.
You wanna go here? OK. Let's begin. First off, look up logical fallacies and memorize them. I do not want to correct every 2nd tell
Next, let guide you
I will prove my understanding of atheism
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Unfortunately, yours will be turned fickle and/ dismantled all together.
This is a 3000 word dissertation that gets streamlined every time I walk through it.
It's gratifying to see that I'm the first person arguing this unique angle with a complete array attack.
(picture an atheist that's attacked his own position for 25 years straight all day everyday. now picture one that can put it all together like batter to a cookie)
I am the wrong ant mr.anteater
Do you agree to a Q+A.
ME = Q YOU = A?
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Questack 1
If I told you that frog was "god" and we agreed.Youd clearly 'believe' in "god" A frog is quantified, and defined
So *IF* you make this claim that "there is no 'god'"
or "I'm 99% sure there is no 'god' - Dick D verbatim
*THEN* what attributes this "god" that you don't believe in is attributed with?
Like I said, we have to settle on the word
If you quote dictionary for this word, I appeal, as it is non rational, a clear non sequitur, non conducive with efficient communication
D33veeoss 2 years ago
OK i will agree that frog = god
ONLY if god = Any of numerous tailless, aquatic, semiaquatic, or terrestrial amphibians of the order Anura and especially of the family Ranidae, characteristically having a smooth moist skin, webbed feet, and long hind legs adapted for leaping.
UberLogic 2 years ago
My point was to point out that you can identify traits of a frog. As you did in your reply.
However, gGod, (again, NOT the subjective fallacy ridden definition in the dictionary that my theistic substitute put there the day that I was sick. And happened to be on "g". No. )
I mean the only real objective definition aka"whatever caused us"/"reality"/"what is"
additional attributes would make it subjective.
subjective = "god" idea in head
objective = gGod factual static reality
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Now I have no problem with theists imagining attributes and assigning them to a "god". My favorite color is blue. So I'd be quite the hypocrite.
But this is a subjective idea they are using with the implication of it being objective.
Do you see? Their definition of "god" is subjective, and yet they want to talk about "god" is if it were gGod.
So technically, they don't know 'obj .gGod'.
Point is, "god" is actually a non sequitur/
So religion is too, by association.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
But if I were to humor you and your ideation and the theists and theirs, with your subjective attributes assigned to a "god" which does or doesn't exist; I could still argue that if the poll survey says, "do you believe in "god" " Then really, out of 100 people you'll get 100 answers.
So again, right there, I know that this "survey" / " ' look at the statistics ' " issue is complete crap.
This topic is so fickle I'm so to move on. I think I have it in it's entirety.
Atheism is a non sequitur
D33veeoss 2 years ago
theism, is a non sequitur. Anything that has to do with a subjective "god" that is being pranced around as if it were not an idealistic subjective idea but instead a static thing with a "non-definition" and a reality attached.
Seriously Logic,
I WILL NO ACCEPT THE FOLLOWING FALSE PREMISE:
" Here I am, and from a plethora of samples, ie. doctrine, family tradition etc., I've assembled the most logical "god"....later that day..... gGod bless you! or gGod loves you."
Fallacious. Completely.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
So if we're to talk about religion, then we need to talk about "god"/ + gGod and the difference between. Technically we should go back and ask why evolution gave us these ideals rather than not in the first place, but then we''ll be into the information and mandates within the combined entities of this universe. But I'll suffice with stopping at "god'. The other is an interesting concept that states....ok nevermind. Long topic.
Truncated is any subjective "god".
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Atheism is a non sequitur ? ? Ok you still seem to be misuderstanding atheism.
Let me attempt to explain it.
Take the word "elf".
There are many different elves.
Santa's elves - LOR elves - kebler Elves
Also some people "believe" that elves are real
There is no evidence for elves
I don't "believe" elves exist
So technically I am an AELFIST
Use the same format but put in god for elf and zues/Ra/athena/allah etc for kebler and that is an athiest.
UberLogic 2 years ago
D33veeoss 2 years ago
this objective gGod is so far from
anything real that elves is the best I could come up with -
the subjective "god" has made up attributes - -
I agree but your "creator gGod" also has attributes for creation
the act of creating a universe would be extremely complex and difficult if it were intentional - it would REQUIRE a very intelligent and powerful being
but maybe it was accidental and gGod didn't mean to do it
or maybe the universe formed through natural processes
UberLogic 2 years ago
Comment removed
D33veeoss 2 years ago
I'd like to touch back on this.
Does this consider people that havne't been to church in 6 weeks?
2months?
I asked a buddy, "where are you at like belief wise," I'm catholic he said. I said, " OK cool, what's your take on it? " He said, " Pfff I don't know, my parents are religious but I don't know a damn thing about it.
If a survey banged at his door, he'd have answered that he was catholic. End of discussion
So the criteria, for these statistics needs THIS SPECIFIC argument in mind.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
I submit that "religious" constitutes church attendance > = 1 time per month; annually, there must be an '8 consecutive attempts' 7 in a row except for the 3rd week where in you were sick, still counts as 8
Betcha they didnt have proper criteria such as such
Even with 'theist', I will have at it
This means, theist must acknowledge that their "god" is a subjective one because theyve assigned attributes without due diligence. Considering the topic is "undefinable" thats a TON of diligence
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Christian Do Not get their morales from the bible.
They don't stone their children for being rebellious, they won't kill you for working on their holy day. Christian know better than to follow their own Bibles literally, because the bible has a lot of hatred, injustice, and immorality promoted as the word of God.
No, the religious in america get their SUBJECTIVE (ever evolving) morality from the society they live in, with the laws they agree upon just like every NON-Religious person does.
Niveous23 2 years ago
DAMN! I have not heard this yet. Not so clear and not so reduced.
Flawless, flawless, flawless, point.
To counter this will take much effort.
Especially when it's shown that the US military has kill many in the last few years as well as over the past.
"Yeah but they were all theists DVO."
So? That means that it is the religion REGARDLESS of the reasons they SAY that they're doing it. For instance when a heroin addict is asked about the habit.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
2 part asnswer.
The ABSOLUTE NUTS is this.
If you want to argue that the world. as an atheist society would spill less blood...then you need to tell me what motivated the first 1 250 000 killings within the Homo Sapien species. Religion? Really?
Also, just to slam the final nail:
All the people from the Abrahmic trifector are anti-violence. I know a dude from Sadam's army who defected. Says it's not really a choice.
EVERYONE means for LESS blood and yet..
So why would atheism be different?
D33veeoss 2 years ago
If as it is, the Muslims, Jews and Christians think that they will go to hell forever if they KILL UNJUSTLY, then you wanna tell me why atheists will be less prone to bloodshed?
a) All theists want peace. (Do not bring up the fringe or I will bring up AR cons doing 15 year bids.)
b) All theists are afraid to kill for the wrong reason.
And you're telling me atheists have more self-control? Fuck you you arrogant twat.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
D33veeoss 2 years ago
Do you know what is not good?
Subjective and morality indeed fit together
Yet 'morality' is viewed or at least used in an objective manner.
This creates a non sequitur out of the word.
This is further proven, as you were saying, when "argument ad populum" is finalized and that subjective word "morality" turns into a static objective one. ie law.
If you didn't understand that, let me know.
Morality should be an EXTREMELY awkward word to use.
People use it simplistically and fallaciously.
D33veeoss 2 years ago
This is not to say that it shows you are simple and fallacious for using it within that context,
far be it,
the majority agree that it makes sense to use that word as if it was the word 'mechanically conducive with logic, communication and reality'.
OK that was 7 words but still...
I suspect you haven't received me well,
but don't worry, the majority didn't.
So it's not you,
it's agreed,
it's me.
:) :) :)
D33veeoss 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You have to be kidding.
The meanest hatefull bigoted group on the planet is complaining about persecution.
Everyone on youtube knows that the atheistst are the biggest hypocrits on the planet.
They are a bunch of hatefull bigots.
Not everyone of them of course, but the vocal majority are TURDS.
YOUTUBE has illuminated the fact that
atheists are unliked for who they are, not what they are.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
yuks, your so funny
hazzabanks123 2 years ago
Well put and well argued......if you are a mildly retarded chimpanzee.
If we atheists are vocal, then we are bigots? How are we bigoted? There is only one tenet to atheism: the rejection of the belief in a god or gods. How is that bigoted? Moron.
rohanwotan2 2 years ago
thank you for your words of authentic Christian charity..?
ecumenopolis0 2 years ago
Christian charity has nothing to do with a correct analysis of the militant atheist.
You guys started the war, Quit whinning because you are getting your butt spanked .
atheist are hypocrits .
hatefull bogots spreading their intolerance by pretending it is tolerant to be intolerant..
JAMRAND 2 years ago
so you won't show christian charity to me, instead attacking me, calling ME the hateful bigot?
but jesus says to love your enemy? YOU are being a hypocrite.
ecumenopolis0 2 years ago
Dont muddy the water .
The vocal militant anti theist are the problem.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
care to back that assertion up?
Atheists get less teen pregnancy, less abortion, less STDs, less adultery, less divorce, commit less rape, murder, and crime than any other "religion". We also commit less Crusades and suicide bombers than any other faith. How are we the problem?
ecumenopolis0 2 years ago
It is amazing how you got so confused when a question is incorrectly framed .
There are no teens getting pregnant, or having abortions. nor getting divorced committing rapes, murder or any other crime, that always follow the teachings of Jesus.
You see my friend, There are but two camps . Those who follow the teachings of Jesus and those who dont.
Those who are incarcerated seem to belong to the camp of .
(LETS NOT FOLLOW WHAT JESUS TAUGHT.)
That would be your camp.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
Comment removed
ecumenopolis0 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
the "no true scotsman" fallacy.
the fact is, that people who believe in god are less moral. you can say that that's because many people who claim belief in god don't "truly" believe, but the fact remains that those who profess belief in no god tend to be more moral.
p.s. check out these bible verses. tell me if these commands of god seem moral to you?
Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Exodus 31:15, Leviticus 20:9-10, Exodus 21:17, 20
Just a couple off the top of my head.
Peace, Openness, and Science
ecumenopolis0 2 years ago
Its every single person Religious and atheist alike.
wowpapa 2 years ago
What is?
ecumenopolis0 2 years ago
dumbass comment award!
Dizzzaniel 2 years ago
No , the award went to the poster below yours .(ecumenopoliso)
Sorry, better luck next time.
JAMRAND 2 years ago
yes he is ,love the way he puffs up his chest when babbling to that very gutsy blonde lady i bet his church is so proud of him!!
pikenumbe22 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For a respectful, less confrontational look at Atheism and Christianity, check out "The God Debate" on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?
atheistfriends 2 years ago
That Rev. was incredibly misinformed, quite amusing.
dan012345 2 years ago 28
@dan012345 I beg to differ. That reverend is repulsive with his blatant lying...
yourjunk420 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
At no time in history there was a proof of the existence of any gods. What more does people need?
Faith = believing without proof
But, don't get me wrong. Religions are good things. It help to control society and people. Without that, chaos would sourround us because most of people would be unable to choose proper and logical set of values and moral.
I am my own god and I am controlling my own life and universe (my mind), therefore, I am not an atheist. I am a god. We are gods. Enjoy.
lefrancmarie 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
"Faith = believing without proof". Wrong. Faith is trusting somebody you ALREADY KNOW. So its NOT believing something without any proof. Its based on the proof that God is there and he does not lie and trusting that he speaks the truth. Faith = believing (or being certain of) something you have not seen. Thats better definition... If my brother says that he paid the bill, I BELIEVE it even though i have not seen it.
jpkfox 2 years ago
Huh?.... I am sorry to say this but you are not a god either and neither are any of us. In your own words ... At no time in history there was any proof that you are a god either.
Maybe you meant what you said in a metaphorical sense in which case you are not an atheist only in a metaphorical sense. In reality you actually are an atheist.
hydrocarbon65 2 years ago
Right. Atheists are better at pointing out the irrationality of theism rather than preaching any Truths because we feel science provides a natural explanation, but since science is subject to new discovery and ideas, rather than being stuck in some ancient, untested philosophy the way religion is, we atheists realize our perceptions could be wrong. Being wrong is no crime in science. In religion, you are not permitted to be wrong. You accept the dogma or find another religion.
dkw12002 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
Gwisss 2 years ago
Paula Zahn ,hm ?
Its a german name. The next argument of the theists?
"She is a Nazi!"
shurednichso 2 years ago
Memetics will ensure that theism will die off. The problem is, of course, is the shit that flies around in the meantime.
accountbypass1 2 years ago
Hmmm.. who knows.
shurednichso 2 years ago
im not convinced Theism will die off because it offers a simple answer to the stupid. Science provides a complex answer which the majority will find it hard to understand.
kyral210 2 years ago
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion," John Adam, founding father. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."
chrisinsocalif 2 years ago 2
Atheists FTW!!
ArrogantAtheist 2 years ago 25
Yes, us godless umoral athiests! I remember that great athiest pedaphile discovery a few years back, and don't forget that athiest clensing of the christians by ethnic cleansing. Dam! I forgot, the athiest terrorist plots. Yes, us athiests hate theists so much we will kill ourselves over it! Well, to be fare we are calling for THERE IS NO GOD to be plastered over all money in the world, Thats right, we are. Hmm, That black guy has such a stupid view point its insulting.
kyral210 2 years ago
WOW, everything is under siege
pervertmuhamMAD 2 years ago
Where do atheists get their morals from, he asked. Dawkins, in The God Delusion says morality predates religion and is a survival instinct that evolved, so I guess we get our morals from Charles Darwin. LOL But seriously, we seem to be born with a sense of right and wrong that perhaps came from cooperation and altruism directed at our relatives who formed our communities or troupes as seen in chimps today as well as humans.
dkw12002 2 years ago
If christians get their morals from the bible, and the bible says forsake all gods but me, then should we assume that all faiths apart from christianity are false in the same ways as fairy tales? Therefore athiesm should be (in their eyes) on par with Islam, Hindium ect, as they should see us all as equally wrong. Therefore us athiests should get our morals from the same place all other relgions (bar christianity of course) gets theirs. The social zeightgeist
kyral210 2 years ago
With religion, even though the idea is wrong, the outcome can be right. Socrates called religion "The noble lie", meaning it was myth, but kept people in check. One commedian calls Jesus an unpaid babysitter. Our morals clearly change over time. Even fundamentalist Christians would not take the advise of Deuteronomy where you take your bride to her father's house and stone her if she turns out not to be a virgin. As Sam Harris said, "The guarantor of morality is in our brains, not in our books".
dkw12002 2 years ago 2
If it is a myth then there is no reason to treat it as a truth. It doesn't matter if it's outcome is benficital, it is still a lie and a myth. But dispite this, the benefits are contentious. In states with lower church attendance rates crime rates are lower than those with higher church attendance. Many studies have concluded a positive correlation between intelligence and atheism. Also, how often has an athiest come to your house on a Saturday just to tell you how wrong you are?
kyral210 2 years ago
I would call religion a misinterpretation of nature rather than a lie. The ancients did not have good models on which to base their ideas so superstition and reality blend together. Matthew is a good example. It starts out as a history of Joseph. Then without any transition, it writes about Jesus as a god. The author could not see the quantum leap between the physical and spiritual world that he made. Paul, a Gnostic, is a prime example too with his visions that he perceives as reality.
dkw12002 2 years ago
"We shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization..." - Albert Pike.
ncitsme1 2 years ago
I'm a very spiritual person (I hesitate to use the word "religious" as this word connotes a connection to social organizations, ie. "churches"). And although I believe in a volitional First Cause / Primal Creator (God), I feel that my religious beliefs are a purely personal matter and should not be forced on others. Respecting and understanding each other's varying viewpoints WITHOUT judgment or criticism enhances love for each other and is the only way to world peace. Unity, NOT uniformity.
Morontia2012 2 years ago 2
It is a violation of the First Amendment, just because something is illegal, dosen't mean that the government won't allow it or do it themselves(as the patriot act has demonstrated, among other things). We also have freedom from and of religion, someday you defenders of "the faith" will be sorry that you allowed all of your religious nonsense to have a place in public affairs. You're all just too foolish to see that now.
godless75 2 years ago
blah blah blah
NewageDEBUNKED 2 years ago
What a thoughtful contribution you've made to this issue. Way to go jesusboy!
godless75 2 years ago
amen
NewageDEBUNKED 2 years ago
If your position is that "Under god" should remain in the pledge, and my position is that "Under zues" should be added, or "Under the ancestors of the mighty Tunica nation" should be added, what makes my belief any less important than yours?, after all "Under god" was added long after the pledge had been established. Why should everyone, or anyone have to acknowledge your god, or any god at all, that is a personal belief (and has no evidence to support it) It excludes many U.S. citizens.
godless75 2 years ago
Fine. Get enough of the Congress and the Senate and you can put Zeus in the pledge. Good luck. The fact is, this is not a violation of the First Amendment. If you find it offensive, use every legal option to try and get it removed. But it seems the option of going to the Supreme Court is not going to work. Free speach implies the freedom to offend.
CuriousMind0 2 years ago
Actually, America was founded on the Pilgrims, who were also known as the Seperatists, who wanted to escape from the English Church, so they sailed to America with the help of a business man who gained the permission from the East London Company (I think), and so they sailed to America, where they beecame a country. The Pledge was made with the words "Under God" because the people were still Christian.
MrPewp 2 years ago
A French philosopher even said that much of America's success was due to that of America's religion, which was at that time, Christianity.
MrPewp 2 years ago
The colonists didn't start their own nation or even write a pledge until hundreds of years after they landed... and "under god" wasn't added to the pledge until 1954. Please make sure you know what you are talking about before you act like you do
pcwildcat 2 years ago
Comment removed
godless75 2 years ago
Comment removed
godless75 2 years ago
Hi Godless55, my point is that by inserting any of those phrases --god/goddess/etc, could no way be contrued as the government establishing a state religion. The whole idea of "seperation of church and state" is a relatively new one, and certainly not in keeping with the founding fathers intent.
CuriousMind0 2 years ago
the idea of the separation of church and state was proposed during the european enlightenment, the principles of which were shared with americas founding fathers
heyriggs84 2 years ago
To CuriousmindO, Atheists have not distorted the issue, the statement "under god" is a reference to religion, that's why it is not in the original pledge. If it were not respecting a particular religious belief, then it should be under the "gods and godesses" and for the satanists, "under lucifer" therefore it is respecting a particular religious opinion that there is only one god. This is, therefore, unconstitutional.
godless75 2 years ago
By the way, why should we listen to a talk show host telling us what the contstitution means concerning this issue. Give us a break!!
CuriousMind0 2 years ago
Comment removed
godless75 2 years ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to "
I doubt if "under God" in the pledge could be considered "respecting an establishment of religion". The founding fathers were trying to protect the people from a state religion as in England. Athiest and others have istorted this issue to fit their agenda.
CuriousMind0 2 years ago
christians changed America, not atheists. The U.S. was founded on secularism.
godless75 2 years ago
Paula Zahn, may be an atheist, herself, but she doesn't have the right to discriminate against her fellow atheists, regardless of their 'unbelief'.
waddleduckie1 2 years ago