3:07 I love it when they say, "it will be promoting atheism!", that is stupidity at its best. Well, everything promotes atheism: the constitution, every word that is not "god", silence (keep saying "god" or you'll promote atheism), buildings, roads, nature, everything! We apparently must somehow eliminate all non-references to god so we don't promote the idea that god does not exist. God god god god, god. God god god?
Imagine if Obama said so help me Allah... That'd been some funny ass shit right there. I bet they'd do away with that shit once and for all after that.. lollolol
The reason "under god" and "in god we trust" remain and lawsuits so far have failed to remove them is because religious groups "cheat" by claiming such statements claim deism not theism.
One can argue that in god we "trust" is not deism, and "under" god could suggest subservience thus meaning theism. There will be more lawsuits in the future.
"So help me Lord Bramah / Zeus / Minerva / Apollo / Ra / Isis / Siva / Vishnu / Ganesha / The (current) Emperor of Japan / Athena / Belissima / Thor / Wotan / the Australian Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent / Elvis / Mithrah / Zoroaster / my A.A. "Higher Power" / Buddha (though he is NOT generally recognised as a god) or David Koresh."
Obama is most likely not even a believing Christian, but he needed and needs the support of evangelicals and puts on the image to gain that support. He was raised a secular humanist.
@universalmusac - I agree; no man THAT educated and THAT articulate believes in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and some unmarried hippie from Gallilea being the spokesperson a bigger nazi than Hitler was (e.g. his dad, Jehovah / Yahweh).
Actually, for that matter - what IS the Christian god's name? Is it Jehovah or Yahweh?
I mean, you don't EVER find Hindus calling Lord Bramah Mr. Smith or Lord Ganesha Mr. Babar.
Guest on Left side said (at 2:43) "it makes us (none believers) a second class, it is unfair". Amazing actually to hear such say. In constitution it clearly pointed out that this Nation was founded UNDER God/creator, it also recognizes higher authority as God/creator very clearly. It saying to keep church and state separated NOT God and state = nothing wrong with "So help me God" for constitution stats clear that this nation under God and not under religion (Christianity or any other)
Hmmm, an anchor that deliberately tints the question with her disdainful 'Yanks' choice of phrasing then proceeds to give Dan one bite of the apple although she had already had a nibble and gives her fellow Christian lunapath 2 bites.
Actually, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states the Oath of Office thusly:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The oath does not end with "So help me god" and nowhere does the Constitution specify that the President take that oath with his hand on a bible.
Since 'God' is in the imagination, you can make any argument for it, change its definition, make a different argument for it, change its definition again. If 'God' is love or energy, why not just use the words 'love' or 'energy'? Theism is so fuckin elastic - you can mould any of it to suit anything, and you can keep doing this until the atheist can't respond and then say "Haha, I won the debate against the atheist therefore God is real". Childish.
Using the Bible in court is a violation of seperation of church and state. However the "In God we trust" on money, and "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance do not qualify as violation of seperation of church and state because they do not call a name.
Obviously "so help me god " and prayers do NOT work and all references should be removed from oaths ,money,courts, currency and all other assaults on the free America.
Atheism is believing, or taking the position, that God in fact, does not exist.
Agnosticism is simply taking the position that there may or may not be a God.
To be a true Atheist you are saying that you believe that God/s do not exist.
I say let the Theists show proof of their religion, or quit shoving it down everybodies throat. Religion above all, should be open to question since it is the most demanding dogmatic thing that has ever been invented...
Why would they have the guy on the right on T.V asking his opinion when he doesn't yet know that atheism is not a religion? atheist doesn't have to do anything with religion. Atheism simply is a response to one claim, that do you believe in a god, or is there a god? yes or no, if you say yes you believe in god, and anything else, including i don't know your an atheist. How can he say atheism would become the state religion? i mean religion of what? in the name of ??? blank, it's the opposite.
he just slipped up. he said sumthn by accident that contradicts his beliefs, he said it is a celebration for ALL OF US. including christians AND atheists hahaha atheists are funny
You know you're right, we are irriducibly stupid for not believing in talking snakes and bushes.
Your closed-mindedness not only worries me for this nation, but outlines the main problem. EDUCATION. If children aren't fed these ridiculous notions of god at an early age, they wouldn't cling to them like an adult security blanket.
Hope you sleep better at night thinking you'll see your dead granny again.
Athiesm is a belief system, but in the same way that we believe that there are no unicorns. Or like saying I believe there is not a man in the moon. There is nothing to worship, meditate to, or taught to hate. No one can say for sure that these things don't exist, but given reasonable, reality based thinking, we can pretty much write off these rediculous man-made fairytale beings, including all of the thousands of Gods that have "existed".
I don't believe in evolution, I KNOW it is true. Belief implies there is even a debate. When creationists provide one shred of evidence, then we'll listen to them.
Until then, the only people that don't know why everyone laughes at creationists, are creationsits.
If you look up the meaning of Atheism, you would see that it consist of believing something. It could be said that it is more of a position, but in order to be considered an Atheist you need to believe that God does not exist, therefore, a belief it is. As far as evolution, only a true mush-brain could deny evolution. I am an Agnostic Atheist....
I believe that there is absolutely not one shred of proof of any Deities existance. Therefore I am unable and unwilling to put faith in such nonsense... At the same time, I cannot say that I am 100% sure that a supreme being could not exist. I am definately Agnostic, but at the same time, I believe that all religion and Gods as we know them, were man-made...
I am an Agnostic Atheist weather you think it is possible or not... All I'm saying is, if you are an Atheist you believe that Deities or God/s do not exist. I say they do not exist but I also say that I am not 100% sure, just 99.999999999%
I believe that Gods exist as much as bigfoot exists. Does that help you?
Both Theist and Atheist are in fact dogmatic. They both belive in something. Agnosticism, and gnosticism are about knowledge. One is knowing, and one is not knowing. So it is possible to be a combination. Most people are. It's just easier to say Athiest or Theist. Unfortunately, that is as easy as I can make it for ya.
I don't know for sure, but I lean waaaaay towards believing that there is no supreme being.
Atheists are not dogmatic because we have no dogma. ( I thought that was easy to understand but apparently not) So explain to me, what dogma do you think Atheists have?
The act of not believing, is NOT a belief in not believing something. That doesn't make any sense.
If you claim to be Atheist, then you must BELIVE that there is no God. If you say there is in fact no God, then you are dogmatic.
I think the claims that Theists make are stupid to put it mildly. And I say being dogmatic against their case is completely reasonable, but it is still a claim that is hard to 100% credit due to the size of the universe.
The term "dogmatic" is often used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly. It is sometimes applied to political beliefs [3] or even anti-religious beliefs. There I actually looked it up for you, genius, SO STFU. You should get a dictionary, and quit acting like a shit-head. Your giving normal Atheist a bad name.
The word atheist comes from Greek word 'atheos'. It is formed from the root word 'theos' (meaning god) and the negative-prefix 'a-' used to denote the absence of something.
Atheist is therefore something who lacks 'god' or more precisely 'belief in god'. You don't need to make any claims of knowledge to be an atheist.
I didn't say knowledge, I said believe. Knowledge is either Agnostic or Gnostic. Not even the Pope has knowledge of God unless he is hiding something from the rest of us.
To hold a belief that there is no God, knowledge (that there are no gods) would be a pre-requisite. I was pointing out that one doesn't need knowledge to be an atheist, since the word atheist only defines someone with a lack of belief in any gods. One can be both agnostic and atheist.
Knowledge is not a pre-requisite for any belief, unless of course, you were to utilize some level of reason. I happen to be Agnostic and Atheist. I'm pretty sure to be an Atheist is to hold a belief that deities do not exist.
ok 1st of all the guy on the right looks like a nasty ass women. 2nd god should br removed from everything because in this country we have freedom of religion if they say god they have to say God, Alla, Zeus, Krishna, Vishnu and so on
For a nation that's supposed to have separation of church and state I find it extremely bizarre that the heads of state need to be sworn in by religion.
And "So help me God" is a religious reference, no matter how secular the event or how non-religious the the religious people are trying to make it look like.
@HeathenMaiden God has nothing to do with religions. Separation of church and state NOT God and sate, other wise it would be written specifically God not church and yet they wrote church-and by this any church from Christianity to Buddhism. In constitution its very clear that founding fathers pointed out that church and God are separated things. You can practice any religious activity in any organized religion - your right but let nothing stand between you and God - even organized religion
@BeyondTheLimitations God is ONLY associated with religious beliefs, specifically monotheistic religious beliefs. It doesn't have to be organized to be religious.
As an agnostic anti-theist as I am, Human generated facts and the theories help to shape my own beliefs. I put a high value on positive human interactions as the basis of civilization. How is your faith so much better than Humanism considering, other humans in your faith are given almost no value unless converted?
@Zunile03scape its pseudo-science. evolution is so easily debunked. i have debunked it many times over with people more book smart than myself. its not that people have no value with theism, its that we are stained and a holy God has offered to remedy this problem.
@shinesthrudarain This hardly dismisses my point, stained, holy ghost remedy. My soul like my mind dosen't need a wash in this detergant because you sware by it, Thank you!
And Why did you bring up evolution now? You didn't in your other post that was securlar humanism. As far as debunking evolution gose, the Starcraft Tech tree defeats the rational behind the Watchmaker aurgument by having prerequists that must be met for the various steps up the tree. Clock hands inspired from cast shadow
@Zunile03scape (cont from last) the hour glass inspires the standard unit of time. Sundail inspired from observing the movement of a shadow around a natural object in relation to sun inspires a clockface, etc.
Things don't need to start complex and many complex things required an assortment of other smaller things often appied to a task they weren't origionally ment, and not all tech was developed at the same speed or person
Try appling a tech tree rational to evolution and see what happens.
@Zunile03scape Try this even with Human behavior, it is shown with monkey who use tools that monkeys have trouble advancing their technology because of an inablity to apply smaller discoveries to make a new one. It's like starting from scratch every time instead of using you current breakthrus a different way for a new problem.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
First of all, you folks need to go back and read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is no way that you can believe in those documents and be an atheist. There is no mention of "separation of church and state".
If you believe in these documents, then what are God-given inalienable right?
What Sprigg doesn't realize is that Robert's overstep of his authority places any atheist that might get elected into having to swear to something that they lack any belief in, which is meaningless.
Barring any incorporation of 'things religious' in this ceremony is NOT an establishment of atheism as a religion. It is an establishment of secularity, which is what the separation of church and state is all about. It says that the president's duty is to the people, NOT to his personal god.
Exactly. Barring religious things in a ceremony is not establishing atheism. Establishing atheism would be if they changed it from "So help me god" To "There is no god." Simply not mentioning god does NOT make it atheistic. That guy's an idiot.
Imagine if the oath included the phrase, "So help me Allah." or "So help me Goddess." Then maybe the average American would understand the religious nature of the oath.
I'm an atheist and usually agree with Dan Barker but I don't agree with this lawsuit. Nothing that is happening is unconstitutional...however if they won the lawsuit and established a law regarding religion, that would be unconstitutional. Dan is wrong on this one and the guy on the right is right.
It seems to me by saying that, you are acknowledging his existence. I won't say that Atheism is illegitimate, I have atheist friends, and I completely respect that belief or lack thereof. But it seems awfully disrespectful to believers to say that
And it is awfully sad that people want to bypass hypothesis>experiment>repeat experiment>submit for peer review>revise hypothesis>trials by scientific community>acceptance>theory>ACCEPTABLE TO TEACH, in favor for:
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION... you can have an atheist country... how many times do we have to explain this... IT IS THE LACK THEREOF A RELIGION.... no belief structure... fucking morons...
Sigh... When will these idiots realize that atheism isn't a religion? We have no church. We have no dogma, scripture, or book. We have no single collective belief in anything super natural. We merely lack belief in God. Buddhism is a religion, taoism is a religion, confusionism is a religion, yet these are all atheist religions. How would any of them suddenly be established?
Sigh... Come on, Obama, do this country right. Put secularism back to where it belongs in this country.
What was that at the end? Establishing Atheism as the national RELIGION????? What the FUCK is that guy talking about? Omitting the mention of God from the oath isn't establishing anything. What an idiot.
IN God we trust was added in 1954...with a big push from the KKK of all people. Our original paper Money. Pledge of allegance and the swearing in or affirmation of oath were all added by people or oginizations, usually as a response to a current political situation. In God we trust was added to our money as a statement of a Christian state AGAINST the USSR. It was actualy a weaponization of GOD against a Country who claimed to by Agnostic. That mean God was used as a political weapon. Learn some
Is Atheism a religion? are all God people moronic as this schmuck? Secularism is the only sure guarantee that religious people can practice freely, whats not to get>
It's TRADITION for crying out loud. Honestly you don't have to give a BS about the prayer. I come from a family of multireligions but no one really complains about practicing certain acts that are contrary to their faith in traditional events like funeral. Atheists seem to be the only ones so uptight about this issue.
not tracking...but if you are asking are words of hate and genital mutaltion both dangerous then yes.....after all Hitler used inflamitory language and even we have LAWS against inciting riots...hell even yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal because the intent to cause harm is there.
So yes hatefull words and genital mutilation are both dangerous and serve no purpose .
So my answer is just because a thing is tradition does not make it correct nor lawful.
to be fair, im pretty sure in this situation Dan Barker is being the cry baby. Barack Obama is Christian, I think if he wasn't he wouldn't want a prayer in the inauguration and so there wouldn't be one. but he IS christian. He has a right to publicly show his faith, just as you have the right to express your disbelief in public
okay, atheist get sacred speeches edit to remove God form them. So okay, let's play here. You get something removed from Christianity, what are the atheist going to give up? how about the right to a proper funeral. If your atheist, you belong thrown into a pit of bodies and burned.
So, by your logic, for not believing in a supernatural being for which there is no evidence, genocide of the like done to the Jews during the Hollocaust should be implimented?
Your closed-mindedness only reflects the fact that you have done no thinking or research for yourself, and you are holding the human race back.
Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove from your soul an evil force that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a tree. Makes perfect sense.
Agreed. For the president, "So help me god" is optional, but for the justice swearing him in to say it is a corruption of a secular oath. The minute the government endorses religion in this way, your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are violated, no matter what you believe.
i am a muslim and i dont want the word under god in the constitution or in any notion of religon in the public space because its unfair to others who are non believers who pay taxes to be forced to act like second class citizens.
Exactly, atheism is about individualism not collectivism.
Organised religion aims to aggregate worshippers into one group which actively opposes other belief systems or worldviews in favour of their own (unfalsifiable) dogmas.
This will lead to hostility, since 2 unprovable beliefs (or more) will never agree and live in peace.
Secularism disbands this collective force placing religion in the hands of the individual, rather than a whole society, vastly reducing the danger of religious conflict.
Actually chares i dont hate him and im an atheist.
I may disagree with xamars beleifs, but i respect his freedom to worship. It does me absolutely no harm and it doesnt prevent me from living or enjoying my life in any way.
What did annoy me was 45 mins per day chapel attendance at school, forced evening prayers and other religious nonsense i was obliged to waste my time with.
I empathise with non christians in america, because i know what it feels like to be marginalised due to religion.
I agree with most of what you say, but in addition to being an atheist, I am also an anti-theist. While xamar - or any other believer - and their beliefs may not affect me directly, their willingness to suspend logic in the case of religion, allows acceptance of other such acts which are much more harmful.
Islam may be correct, and your chosen desire of eradicating outside beliefs may slow down or deny humanities only chance of discovering its truth.
He has the right to private worship and study of his religion. He also has the right to discuss his beliefs in rational arenas where he can present his claims and aim to convince other experts with objective factual evidence.
You are no better than any other anti-intellectual to hold such a position.
Without being able to hold different positions we close the door to many avenues of enquiry.
I accept that a god MAY exist, i just am not convinced by religions that offer an arbitrary belief system commonly imposing derivative entities which are invisible, uncommunicable, undetectable, inactive, self- gratuitous, and demonstrably immoral.
I do not rule out the possibility of god, since he can still exist, although he is likely just far more limited and almost completely unconcerned with us.
Again I agree with much of what you say, but I think you misunderstood me. As an anti-theist, I am simply against the idea of belief in a deity. You state that I would like to eradicate outside beliefs, this is only partially true. I would like to see the end of religion as we know it, but I would never deny anyone's right to believe what they wish to.
You also imply that I am anti-intellectual. To be honest that one hurt the most. If you could prove to me that there was a god, then I would have no choice but to believe. To do otherwise would be ridiculous. You also posit that Islam may be correct. You are correct. Islam may be correct, but its teachings are immoral, and the religion itself is a shameless rip off of christianity and judaism, both of which are riddled with contradictions. So, there may be a god, but there may also be faeries.
I actually said you were no better than any anti-intellectual, since your own methodology of actively dismissing and attacking belief systems is no different from the tactics used by any dogmatic think tank.
Even though i would agree that every religion i have come across is baseless and irrational, it does not mean that all will be. You rather assume you know better than everyone else and deny them the right to have an equal platform, again this is identical to dogma, it allows no discussion.
I disagree. Attacking belief systems is universally important. Nothing should be left immune to criticism. I only actively dismiss belief systems I find to be immoral or based on untruth. Now you say that I assume I know better than everyone else. I do not know why you said that. I have not made that claim, and never would. I also do not deny the right to an equal platform in terms of discussion. I do not know where you got that idea.
Exactly Digitised. I really do not think they see how arrogant they really are. Such as mylittleturd, "I only actively dismiss belief systems I find to be immoral or based on untruth." He has "dismissed" anything that HE finds untruthful. It is identical to dogma, and there is no debate once you have dismissed anothers views. No matter how ludicrous you may find them.
Once again, it is you who are ignoring what is being said and saying it is me. All I did was agree with you on simple fact that atheist act as if they KNOW, and I say they don't know. Any more then person of faith. I think you just like to argue sir. A sign of an atheist AND right wing theocrocies. And to say Atheism has no dogma? Are you kidding me? You may not, but atheists as a whole not only have dogma but an agenda. You want to put matters of faith under scientific microscope. Good luck
I consider my mum (who accepts astrology and homeopathy) to be delusional, as well as people who hold any belief not supported by or contradicted by evidence.
This however does not mean i hate people or wish to impose my own views on them by 'saving' them. I accept that in life people will make sense of things in their own way, often relying on comforting and self fulfilling desires if they dont embrace skeptisicm and rationality as the best tools for establishing facts.
And when are they forced to act like second class citizens? It is atheist who want to make believers act like they are doing something criminal. It is making mountain out of mole hill. And a muslim talking about proper? The same people who went ape shit over a cartoon? It seems atheism is doing just fine under this Govt. and the Christians who have guided it. And now they want to deny the same people who guarenteed their rights, the right to say what they want? Find a worthy cause to defend
One example of being forced to act like a second class citizen is when the words "under god" were added to our previously secular pledge. Doing this makes the assumption that everyone swearing allegiance must believe in god, thereby excluding other religions, and non-believers.
3:07 I love it when they say, "it will be promoting atheism!", that is stupidity at its best. Well, everything promotes atheism: the constitution, every word that is not "god", silence (keep saying "god" or you'll promote atheism), buildings, roads, nature, everything! We apparently must somehow eliminate all non-references to god so we don't promote the idea that god does not exist. God god god god, god. God god god?
Bourtini 2 months ago
I would be pretty worried If the head of my country claimed that they were getting help from a non-existent God.
ACCSESS247 3 months ago
Despite what Peter Sprigg said, it is impossible for atheism to be established as the national religion because it is NOT a religion.
podffff 4 months ago
@podffff That would be like making sobriety a legal drug.
punnet2 4 months ago
what a fair and unbiased introduction...
rememberthename33 5 months ago
Imagine if Obama said so help me Allah... That'd been some funny ass shit right there. I bet they'd do away with that shit once and for all after that.. lollolol
2eelShmeal 5 months ago 3
@2eelShmeal "So help me Poseidon, God of the seas"
rememberthename33 5 months ago
@rememberthename33 ololollololol
2eelShmeal 5 months ago
people still believe in god in 2011...lol
TrAnCeLoVeR83 5 months ago
@TrAnCeLoVeR83 I know right, it's hard to believe sometimes
rememberthename33 5 months ago
religions are man made myths if there is a god or some kind of creator he didnt write books or start religions
mcdinkity 6 months ago
@mcdinkity You mean the creator of the entire universe isn't a single parent who writes books?
rememberthename33 5 months ago
@rememberthename33 Is his/her name Jesus Krist Rowling?
punnet2 4 months ago
Religion needs to go, its the 21st century.
235RB 6 months ago
my favorite thing is how they'll scare their viewers with "ohh, you'lll go after christmas next"
miretchin 7 months ago
Religon is a private matter and has no place in public
shandcunt 9 months ago 14
The reason "under god" and "in god we trust" remain and lawsuits so far have failed to remove them is because religious groups "cheat" by claiming such statements claim deism not theism.
One can argue that in god we "trust" is not deism, and "under" god could suggest subservience thus meaning theism. There will be more lawsuits in the future.
esiosan 10 months ago
Notice how all of these "atheists attacking America" stories are on none other than FAUX news.....
andrewm153351 11 months ago
do christians know that "So help me god" means ANY god, heck for me it means "Odin" because Odin is a god
LurchibaldBioshock 11 months ago
I would have got SUCH a woody if Obama had said:
"So help me Lord Bramah / Zeus / Minerva / Apollo / Ra / Isis / Siva / Vishnu / Ganesha / The (current) Emperor of Japan / Athena / Belissima / Thor / Wotan / the Australian Aboriginal Rainbow Serpent / Elvis / Mithrah / Zoroaster / my A.A. "Higher Power" / Buddha (though he is NOT generally recognised as a god) or David Koresh."
freakystyley4000 11 months ago
"so help me child rapist Muhammad"
knighttc1 11 months ago
Obama is most likely not even a believing Christian, but he needed and needs the support of evangelicals and puts on the image to gain that support. He was raised a secular humanist.
universalmusac 11 months ago
@universalmusac - I agree; no man THAT educated and THAT articulate believes in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and some unmarried hippie from Gallilea being the spokesperson a bigger nazi than Hitler was (e.g. his dad, Jehovah / Yahweh).
Actually, for that matter - what IS the Christian god's name? Is it Jehovah or Yahweh?
I mean, you don't EVER find Hindus calling Lord Bramah Mr. Smith or Lord Ganesha Mr. Babar.
WTF yo.
Would a deist like to explain?
freakystyley4000 11 months ago
@universalmusac yes i see that. demagoguery at its best
johnykoop 8 months ago
ALL CHRISTFAGS GTFO
Kamikuru77 1 year ago
So help Flying Spaghetti Monster
MrSwedenik 1 year ago 12
Bill Clinton looked like he hesitated before saying "God".
DeadFishFactory 1 year ago 2
@DeadFishFactory I noticed too.
theclinger 1 year ago
Guest on Left side said (at 2:43) "it makes us (none believers) a second class, it is unfair". Amazing actually to hear such say. In constitution it clearly pointed out that this Nation was founded UNDER God/creator, it also recognizes higher authority as God/creator very clearly. It saying to keep church and state separated NOT God and state = nothing wrong with "So help me God" for constitution stats clear that this nation under God and not under religion (Christianity or any other)
BeyondTheLimitations 1 year ago
@BeyondTheLimitations No where in the constitution does it mention God. Read the constitution again before making ignorant claims.
richaldeano 1 year ago
We need a real New Yorker as president so it'll be "so help me Gawd."
Marchant2 1 year ago
@Marchant2 that works for cockneys too. lets have a cockney president! yes we bloody can!
PlanetBongoSan 11 months ago
Respond to this video... atheism is a negative parasite!
MrPATSPAWN 1 year ago
Hmmm, an anchor that deliberately tints the question with her disdainful 'Yanks' choice of phrasing then proceeds to give Dan one bite of the apple although she had already had a nibble and gives her fellow Christian lunapath 2 bites.
'Fair and Balanced' eh?
Fox 'News', Fraudulent and Biased!
TheGodlessGuitarist 1 year ago 4
It should be yanked! It's unconstitutional! So if it read so help me Zeus, it would be OK with you?
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
@dwolfcoach That would be hillarious if an elected president said something tlike that on the inaguration, So help help Zeus, LOL
ff621 1 year ago 2
@ff621 Yeah, a president with balls!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Actually, Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states the Oath of Office thusly:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The oath does not end with "So help me god" and nowhere does the Constitution specify that the President take that oath with his hand on a bible.
jfrancal2007 1 year ago
Since 'God' is in the imagination, you can make any argument for it, change its definition, make a different argument for it, change its definition again. If 'God' is love or energy, why not just use the words 'love' or 'energy'? Theism is so fuckin elastic - you can mould any of it to suit anything, and you can keep doing this until the atheist can't respond and then say "Haha, I won the debate against the atheist therefore God is real". Childish.
controllerbrain 1 year ago
@controllerbrain Right! The worst bullshit story ever!
dwolfcoach 1 year ago
of course this would be on fox news..
fatherjon908 1 year ago 2
What's wrong with the Presidents saying this at the inauguration? The Presidents we've had believe in God. Someone explain.
spacitydrummer4JC 1 year ago
imfamous? stupid bitch!
robaquarian 1 year ago
I've met Dan Barker. He's a very kind and down to Earth man.
iloveJesus420 1 year ago
Can Christians sue to have Separation of Dan Barker and State? Just asking.
Halftrac 1 year ago
establishing non collecting stamps as my hobby.
azinuamprieteni 1 year ago
Can I just say "So help me Joe Pesci?" I mean, Joe's a guy that get's shit done.
MasterAdam100 1 year ago 3
@MasterAdam100 #LOL don't forget it's only 50-50! :)
strbd 1 year ago
Why did the idiot get to speak more?
gtaWorfox 1 year ago 2
SO HELP ME SCIENCE
MrCerialKiller 1 year ago
So help me Glock.
luxfair 1 year ago
i don't see any problem
so help me chuck norris
what do people have a problem with that????
riotguards 1 year ago
"So help Me Planet Goddess" or "So help Me Perfect Blue Fairy" would be nicer and less old hat..
Or : "So help Me Marilyn Monroe up in heaven, in bed with Jezus".
isleofyew1 1 year ago
Using the Bible in court is a violation of seperation of church and state. However the "In God we trust" on money, and "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance do not qualify as violation of seperation of church and state because they do not call a name.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
so help me god was added later on like on our money.
TheWICCACHANNEL 1 year ago
typical of fox news to say "non believer.....this kind of thing"
dspikey 1 year ago
Obviously "so help me god " and prayers do NOT work and all references should be removed from oaths ,money,courts, currency and all other assaults on the free America.
oregonmotorcyclist 2 years ago
i know that atheists are just exercising their right to free speech , but they are so annoying cuz they dont get it
emceeGrease 2 years ago
Faux news has no business claiming to be NEWS.Its propaganda for the church and our corrupt government!
carnegiekx 2 years ago 4
Atheism is believing, or taking the position, that God in fact, does not exist.
Agnosticism is simply taking the position that there may or may not be a God.
To be a true Atheist you are saying that you believe that God/s do not exist.
I say let the Theists show proof of their religion, or quit shoving it down everybodies throat. Religion above all, should be open to question since it is the most demanding dogmatic thing that has ever been invented...
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
Why would they have the guy on the right on T.V asking his opinion when he doesn't yet know that atheism is not a religion? atheist doesn't have to do anything with religion. Atheism simply is a response to one claim, that do you believe in a god, or is there a god? yes or no, if you say yes you believe in god, and anything else, including i don't know your an atheist. How can he say atheism would become the state religion? i mean religion of what? in the name of ??? blank, it's the opposite.
Omid45 2 years ago
he just slipped up. he said sumthn by accident that contradicts his beliefs, he said it is a celebration for ALL OF US. including christians AND atheists hahaha atheists are funny
emceeGrease 2 years ago
Atheists are funny?
You know you're right, we are irriducibly stupid for not believing in talking snakes and bushes.
Your closed-mindedness not only worries me for this nation, but outlines the main problem. EDUCATION. If children aren't fed these ridiculous notions of god at an early age, they wouldn't cling to them like an adult security blanket.
Hope you sleep better at night thinking you'll see your dead granny again.
You won't.
drche420 2 years ago
Bush/ Regan/ Clinton/ Bush II...... Well god certianly helped keep them out of trouble
Nexius8 2 years ago 5
Athiesm is a belief system, but in the same way that we believe that there are no unicorns. Or like saying I believe there is not a man in the moon. There is nothing to worship, meditate to, or taught to hate. No one can say for sure that these things don't exist, but given reasonable, reality based thinking, we can pretty much write off these rediculous man-made fairytale beings, including all of the thousands of Gods that have "existed".
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
It is in no way a belief.
I don't believe in evolution, I KNOW it is true. Belief implies there is even a debate. When creationists provide one shred of evidence, then we'll listen to them.
Until then, the only people that don't know why everyone laughes at creationists, are creationsits.
drche420 2 years ago
If you look up the meaning of Atheism, you would see that it consist of believing something. It could be said that it is more of a position, but in order to be considered an Atheist you need to believe that God does not exist, therefore, a belief it is. As far as evolution, only a true mush-brain could deny evolution. I am an Agnostic Atheist....
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
First, you're either agnostic or atheist. Not both.
Second, if YOU look up the meaning of Atheism, you would know that means:
"One who does NOT believe in a supernatural being"
Just a clarification for you, not having a belief is not a belief.
Otherwise, kudos on not denying evolution.
drche420 2 years ago
What do you think Agnostic means???
I believe that there is absolutely not one shred of proof of any Deities existance. Therefore I am unable and unwilling to put faith in such nonsense... At the same time, I cannot say that I am 100% sure that a supreme being could not exist. I am definately Agnostic, but at the same time, I believe that all religion and Gods as we know them, were man-made...
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
Then you're confused as to what Atheism means, because Agnostic is not knowing one way or the other 100%, which is what you've pointed out.
But Atheism denies the possibility of a God.
So... you can't be both.
drche420 2 years ago
I am an Agnostic Atheist weather you think it is possible or not... All I'm saying is, if you are an Atheist you believe that Deities or God/s do not exist. I say they do not exist but I also say that I am not 100% sure, just 99.999999999%
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
You've contradicted yourself.
"God/s do not exist" and "not 100% sure"
See your problem? Hey I don't care what you call yourself, but the rest of the world would call you Agnostic.
drche420 2 years ago
I believe that Gods exist as much as bigfoot exists. Does that help you?
Both Theist and Atheist are in fact dogmatic. They both belive in something. Agnosticism, and gnosticism are about knowledge. One is knowing, and one is not knowing. So it is possible to be a combination. Most people are. It's just easier to say Athiest or Theist. Unfortunately, that is as easy as I can make it for ya.
I don't know for sure, but I lean waaaaay towards believing that there is no supreme being.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
Atheists are not dogmatic because we have no dogma. ( I thought that was easy to understand but apparently not) So explain to me, what dogma do you think Atheists have?
The act of not believing, is NOT a belief in not believing something. That doesn't make any sense.
drche420 2 years ago
If you claim to be Atheist, then you must BELIVE that there is no God. If you say there is in fact no God, then you are dogmatic.
I think the claims that Theists make are stupid to put it mildly. And I say being dogmatic against their case is completely reasonable, but it is still a claim that is hard to 100% credit due to the size of the universe.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
Your second paragraph makes some sense, but saying Atheists are dogmatic just makes you sound ignorant.
The fact that you cannot name one single bit of dogma, or tenets of Atheism proves my point.
What? No comeback? In fact, you can't have a comeback, because there are no tenets or dogma of Atheism.
drche420 2 years ago
All you need is a belief and you have dogma.
Don't you BELIEVE that there is no God???
You are claiming to be a true Atheist if you say yes.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
Belief does not equal dogma. Look up dogma, it might help when diciding how you feel about something to know what it is you're talking about.
drche420 2 years ago
I never said it did. Man, talk about ignorant...
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
"All you need is a belief and you have dogma."
There, you said it. So stop lying and accept having your ass kicked by logic.
drche420 2 years ago
Why are you taking shit out of context?
And why are you removing your previous comments?
Your the one pulling shit out of your ass. You have no idea what dogma is. I hate to explain it again....
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
The term "dogmatic" is often used disparagingly to refer to any belief that is held stubbornly. It is sometimes applied to political beliefs [3] or even anti-religious beliefs. There I actually looked it up for you, genius, SO STFU. You should get a dictionary, and quit acting like a shit-head. Your giving normal Atheist a bad name.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
@railroadtrash09 If I say no I'm an atheist. Since that was a double negative.
gtaWorfox 1 year ago
@gtaWorfox The only ones who think Atheism is a negative are the ones who think they know God... Keep thinking. You might convince yourself.
railroadtrash09 1 year ago
@railroadtrash09 If I thought like that it'd be a triple negative. Double check your sentance.
gtaWorfox 1 year ago
@gtaWorfox My "sentance" is fine... Thanks.
railroadtrash09 1 year ago
The word atheist comes from Greek word 'atheos'. It is formed from the root word 'theos' (meaning god) and the negative-prefix 'a-' used to denote the absence of something.
Atheist is therefore something who lacks 'god' or more precisely 'belief in god'. You don't need to make any claims of knowledge to be an atheist.
squ34ky2 2 years ago
I didn't say knowledge, I said believe. Knowledge is either Agnostic or Gnostic. Not even the Pope has knowledge of God unless he is hiding something from the rest of us.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
To hold a belief that there is no God, knowledge (that there are no gods) would be a pre-requisite. I was pointing out that one doesn't need knowledge to be an atheist, since the word atheist only defines someone with a lack of belief in any gods. One can be both agnostic and atheist.
squ34ky2 2 years ago
Knowledge is not a pre-requisite for any belief, unless of course, you were to utilize some level of reason. I happen to be Agnostic and Atheist. I'm pretty sure to be an Atheist is to hold a belief that deities do not exist.
railroadtrash09 2 years ago
I love how she said qanked! lol
dkdoae 2 years ago
Atheism isn't a religion fuck tard!
caseygtr 2 years ago 21
ok 1st of all the guy on the right looks like a nasty ass women. 2nd god should br removed from everything because in this country we have freedom of religion if they say god they have to say God, Alla, Zeus, Krishna, Vishnu and so on
chip279 2 years ago 3
this is why no one watches fox news if they can help it.. it's just balls..
arch829 2 years ago 2
For a nation that's supposed to have separation of church and state I find it extremely bizarre that the heads of state need to be sworn in by religion.
And "So help me God" is a religious reference, no matter how secular the event or how non-religious the the religious people are trying to make it look like.
HeathenMaiden 2 years ago 72
@HeathenMaiden God has nothing to do with religions. Separation of church and state NOT God and sate, other wise it would be written specifically God not church and yet they wrote church-and by this any church from Christianity to Buddhism. In constitution its very clear that founding fathers pointed out that church and God are separated things. You can practice any religious activity in any organized religion - your right but let nothing stand between you and God - even organized religion
BeyondTheLimitations 1 year ago
@BeyondTheLimitations God is ONLY associated with religious beliefs, specifically monotheistic religious beliefs. It doesn't have to be organized to be religious.
universalmusac 11 months ago
I definately agree!!
I wonder if he would be upset if Aunicornism became the national religion.
jamnui 2 years ago
"Establishing atheism as the national religion"???
Atheism isn't even a religion. FAIL.
urgranddaddy 2 years ago 84
@urgranddaddy atheism is the religion of secular humanism based on zero scientific facts. a fairytale for grownups
shinesthrudarain 1 year ago
@shinesthrudarain "a fairytale for grownups" -- The definition of religion
projectpat0392 1 year ago
@shinesthrudarain zero scientific facts? How so?
As an agnostic anti-theist as I am, Human generated facts and the theories help to shape my own beliefs. I put a high value on positive human interactions as the basis of civilization. How is your faith so much better than Humanism considering, other humans in your faith are given almost no value unless converted?
Zunile03scape 1 year ago
@Zunile03scape its pseudo-science. evolution is so easily debunked. i have debunked it many times over with people more book smart than myself. its not that people have no value with theism, its that we are stained and a holy God has offered to remedy this problem.
shinesthrudarain 1 year ago
@shinesthrudarain This hardly dismisses my point, stained, holy ghost remedy. My soul like my mind dosen't need a wash in this detergant because you sware by it, Thank you!
And Why did you bring up evolution now? You didn't in your other post that was securlar humanism. As far as debunking evolution gose, the Starcraft Tech tree defeats the rational behind the Watchmaker aurgument by having prerequists that must be met for the various steps up the tree. Clock hands inspired from cast shadow
Zunile03scape 1 year ago
@Zunile03scape (cont from last) the hour glass inspires the standard unit of time. Sundail inspired from observing the movement of a shadow around a natural object in relation to sun inspires a clockface, etc.
Things don't need to start complex and many complex things required an assortment of other smaller things often appied to a task they weren't origionally ment, and not all tech was developed at the same speed or person
Try appling a tech tree rational to evolution and see what happens.
Zunile03scape 1 year ago
@Zunile03scape Try this even with Human behavior, it is shown with monkey who use tools that monkeys have trouble advancing their technology because of an inablity to apply smaller discoveries to make a new one. It's like starting from scratch every time instead of using you current breakthrus a different way for a new problem.
Zunile03scape 1 year ago
@shinesthrudarain Care to do so again? I've yet to see a "debunking" of evolution that held water.
leifey 1 year ago
@shinesthrudarain move to kansas, and if youre already there, please stay in your fallout shelter.
thazism 1 year ago
@urgranddaddy Interesting but unrelated tidbit: Legally, Atheism is classified as a religion to help outline how it should be addressed in courts
Wierd huh?
KeanuIIDAMAN 1 year ago
If we ever elect an Atheist? How about Adams and Jefferson? I won't swear it in court, and neither should anyone have to.
The government should make no Law
establishment of religion, God-huggers be damned. Slaves. Frigging Faux Noise
slanted garbage as usual written down to the level of the average Amerikan idiot, how hard is it to be popular here?
kerranz 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
First of all, you folks need to go back and read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. There is no way that you can believe in those documents and be an atheist. There is no mention of "separation of church and state".
If you believe in these documents, then what are God-given inalienable right?
Can anybody address that?
msm318 2 years ago
What Sprigg doesn't realize is that Robert's overstep of his authority places any atheist that might get elected into having to swear to something that they lack any belief in, which is meaningless.
Barring any incorporation of 'things religious' in this ceremony is NOT an establishment of atheism as a religion. It is an establishment of secularity, which is what the separation of church and state is all about. It says that the president's duty is to the people, NOT to his personal god.
ofinterest2007 2 years ago
Exactly. Barring religious things in a ceremony is not establishing atheism. Establishing atheism would be if they changed it from "So help me god" To "There is no god." Simply not mentioning god does NOT make it atheistic. That guy's an idiot.
KrimsonRequiem 2 years ago 3
Imagine if the oath included the phrase, "So help me Allah." or "So help me Goddess." Then maybe the average American would understand the religious nature of the oath.
Lar10000 2 years ago 3
Dan Barker's complains are very valid indeed and in the country of the insane, the sane are hard to find.
RationalEmotive 2 years ago
I'm a Freethinker but I LOVE FOX NEWS....guess i'm a minority...o well
Leon612 2 years ago
only if you love it for the comical value
rnaty1234 2 years ago 2
uhhh no....but please don't say that MSNBC is fair and balanced news...please
Leon612 2 years ago
lol
ur not a free thinker if u like ox news for somethign otehr than comical value
sealhunta 2 years ago
And the babes. Don't forget the babes on Fox News.
Lar10000 2 years ago
Dan barker is my uncle im not kidding.
bloodshot9805 2 years ago
Was he dropped on his head as a kid?
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
I'm an atheist and usually agree with Dan Barker but I don't agree with this lawsuit. Nothing that is happening is unconstitutional...however if they won the lawsuit and established a law regarding religion, that would be unconstitutional. Dan is wrong on this one and the guy on the right is right.
VitalSigns1 2 years ago
Maybe you need to watch the video again.
The stupidity of your comment suggests you weren't paying that much attention.
The government cannot give credence to a specific religion by constitution.
So, how exactly is it not unconstitutional?
drche420 2 years ago
It seems to me by saying that, you are acknowledging his existence. I won't say that Atheism is illegitimate, I have atheist friends, and I completely respect that belief or lack thereof. But it seems awfully disrespectful to believers to say that
bobbysaget08 2 years ago
Of course.
And it is awfully sad that people want to bypass hypothesis>experiment>repeat experiment>submit for peer review>revise hypothesis>trials by scientific community>acceptance>theory>ACCEPTABLE TO TEACH, in favor for:
read bible>acceptable to teach.
Doesn't make much sense.
drche420 2 years ago
ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION... you can have an atheist country... how many times do we have to explain this... IT IS THE LACK THEREOF A RELIGION.... no belief structure... fucking morons...
wmeadd 2 years ago
why does fox only employ right wing religious kooks?
ryancouture 2 years ago
Can someone please shut down Fox... They are not only bias, but also very unethical when doing interviews
nidodson 2 years ago 4
Sigh... When will these idiots realize that atheism isn't a religion? We have no church. We have no dogma, scripture, or book. We have no single collective belief in anything super natural. We merely lack belief in God. Buddhism is a religion, taoism is a religion, confusionism is a religion, yet these are all atheist religions. How would any of them suddenly be established?
Sigh... Come on, Obama, do this country right. Put secularism back to where it belongs in this country.
Deioth 2 years ago 4
What was that at the end? Establishing Atheism as the national RELIGION????? What the FUCK is that guy talking about? Omitting the mention of God from the oath isn't establishing anything. What an idiot.
carolinafan115 2 years ago 2
IN God we trust was added in 1954...with a big push from the KKK of all people. Our original paper Money. Pledge of allegance and the swearing in or affirmation of oath were all added by people or oginizations, usually as a response to a current political situation. In God we trust was added to our money as a statement of a Christian state AGAINST the USSR. It was actualy a weaponization of GOD against a Country who claimed to by Agnostic. That mean God was used as a political weapon. Learn some
PerseusandDionysus 2 years ago 4
Is Atheism a religion? are all God people moronic as this schmuck? Secularism is the only sure guarantee that religious people can practice freely, whats not to get>
CamAtheist 2 years ago
It's TRADITION for crying out loud. Honestly you don't have to give a BS about the prayer. I come from a family of multireligions but no one really complains about practicing certain acts that are contrary to their faith in traditional events like funeral. Atheists seem to be the only ones so uptight about this issue.
crossingthechannel 2 years ago
so is cutting the clitorus off of little girls...it's just a tradition
So is stonning sinners in Islam
They too are just traditions.....
so how's this sort of arguement holding up for you so far?
PerseusandDionysus 2 years ago 3
Are you saying that words and genital mutilation are the same thing?
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
not tracking...but if you are asking are words of hate and genital mutaltion both dangerous then yes.....after all Hitler used inflamitory language and even we have LAWS against inciting riots...hell even yelling fire in a crowded theater is illegal because the intent to cause harm is there.
So yes hatefull words and genital mutilation are both dangerous and serve no purpose .
So my answer is just because a thing is tradition does not make it correct nor lawful.
PerseusandDionysus 2 years ago
guess we should stop people from speaking their mind since it's dangerous.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
stop being a cry baby...and stop the typical Christian debating technique it does not work with me.
As for words not meaning anything answer me this...how do you know anything from our past?
How do you communicate love to a child
How do you romance a woman, how did Obama get elected?
Words.
So words have power.
Old words of tradtition are follwed...not because they are right or wrong but because they are old.
Tradition does not make a thing right, that was my point.
get it yet?
PerseusandDionysus 2 years ago
don't be silly words have immense power so we must outlaw all forms of communication that we deem dangerous.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
Now your being a dick have a nice night...I dont debate dicks.
PerseusandDionysus 2 years ago
Where are you going?
I agree with you that people saying say that the President is an asshole should be outlawed.
After all words kill.
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
to be fair, im pretty sure in this situation Dan Barker is being the cry baby. Barack Obama is Christian, I think if he wasn't he wouldn't want a prayer in the inauguration and so there wouldn't be one. but he IS christian. He has a right to publicly show his faith, just as you have the right to express your disbelief in public
bobbysaget08 2 years ago
Comment removed
drche420 2 years ago
I love Dan Barker!
cjezach 2 years ago
okay, atheist get sacred speeches edit to remove God form them. So okay, let's play here. You get something removed from Christianity, what are the atheist going to give up? how about the right to a proper funeral. If your atheist, you belong thrown into a pit of bodies and burned.
kingjamesversion1611 2 years ago
So, by your logic, for not believing in a supernatural being for which there is no evidence, genocide of the like done to the Jews during the Hollocaust should be implimented?
Your closed-mindedness only reflects the fact that you have done no thinking or research for yourself, and you are holding the human race back.
drche420 2 years ago
If it's not required to say, I don't think that atheists should complain about it.
pianoplayer19955 2 years ago
Exactly, but it is a part of the inaguration. There is a very large difference between required, expected, and stated.
drche420 2 years ago
Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove from your soul an evil force that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a tree. Makes perfect sense.
eddieindahouse 2 years ago
This is so stupid because "So help me god" is OPTIONAL
binzing 2 years ago
Agreed. For the president, "So help me god" is optional, but for the justice swearing him in to say it is a corruption of a secular oath. The minute the government endorses religion in this way, your rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are violated, no matter what you believe.
mylittleturd 2 years ago
i am a muslim and i dont want the word under god in the constitution or in any notion of religon in the public space because its unfair to others who are non believers who pay taxes to be forced to act like second class citizens.
xamarconnect 3 years ago 2
Yeah well those of us who aren't thin skined bitches aren't bothered in the slightest.
CHARESTHEHAMER 3 years ago
PS the atheists around here hate your guts and think your a fool for being a muslims.
CHARESTHEHAMER 3 years ago
It is incorrect to say that atheists hate a muslim, because atheists share no beliefs. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
mylittleturd 2 years ago
Exactly, atheism is about individualism not collectivism.
Organised religion aims to aggregate worshippers into one group which actively opposes other belief systems or worldviews in favour of their own (unfalsifiable) dogmas.
This will lead to hostility, since 2 unprovable beliefs (or more) will never agree and live in peace.
Secularism disbands this collective force placing religion in the hands of the individual, rather than a whole society, vastly reducing the danger of religious conflict.
digitised 2 years ago
Actually chares i dont hate him and im an atheist.
I may disagree with xamars beleifs, but i respect his freedom to worship. It does me absolutely no harm and it doesnt prevent me from living or enjoying my life in any way.
What did annoy me was 45 mins per day chapel attendance at school, forced evening prayers and other religious nonsense i was obliged to waste my time with.
I empathise with non christians in america, because i know what it feels like to be marginalised due to religion.
digitised 2 years ago
I agree with most of what you say, but in addition to being an atheist, I am also an anti-theist. While xamar - or any other believer - and their beliefs may not affect me directly, their willingness to suspend logic in the case of religion, allows acceptance of other such acts which are much more harmful.
mylittleturd 2 years ago
There is a flaw in your reasoning though.
Islam may be correct, and your chosen desire of eradicating outside beliefs may slow down or deny humanities only chance of discovering its truth.
He has the right to private worship and study of his religion. He also has the right to discuss his beliefs in rational arenas where he can present his claims and aim to convince other experts with objective factual evidence.
You are no better than any other anti-intellectual to hold such a position.
digitised 2 years ago
Without being able to hold different positions we close the door to many avenues of enquiry.
I accept that a god MAY exist, i just am not convinced by religions that offer an arbitrary belief system commonly imposing derivative entities which are invisible, uncommunicable, undetectable, inactive, self- gratuitous, and demonstrably immoral.
I do not rule out the possibility of god, since he can still exist, although he is likely just far more limited and almost completely unconcerned with us.
digitised 2 years ago
Again I agree with much of what you say, but I think you misunderstood me. As an anti-theist, I am simply against the idea of belief in a deity. You state that I would like to eradicate outside beliefs, this is only partially true. I would like to see the end of religion as we know it, but I would never deny anyone's right to believe what they wish to.
mylittleturd 2 years ago
You also imply that I am anti-intellectual. To be honest that one hurt the most. If you could prove to me that there was a god, then I would have no choice but to believe. To do otherwise would be ridiculous. You also posit that Islam may be correct. You are correct. Islam may be correct, but its teachings are immoral, and the religion itself is a shameless rip off of christianity and judaism, both of which are riddled with contradictions. So, there may be a god, but there may also be faeries.
mylittleturd 2 years ago
I actually said you were no better than any anti-intellectual, since your own methodology of actively dismissing and attacking belief systems is no different from the tactics used by any dogmatic think tank.
Even though i would agree that every religion i have come across is baseless and irrational, it does not mean that all will be. You rather assume you know better than everyone else and deny them the right to have an equal platform, again this is identical to dogma, it allows no discussion.
digitised 2 years ago
I disagree. Attacking belief systems is universally important. Nothing should be left immune to criticism. I only actively dismiss belief systems I find to be immoral or based on untruth. Now you say that I assume I know better than everyone else. I do not know why you said that. I have not made that claim, and never would. I also do not deny the right to an equal platform in terms of discussion. I do not know where you got that idea.
mylittleturd 2 years ago
Exactly Digitised. I really do not think they see how arrogant they really are. Such as mylittleturd, "I only actively dismiss belief systems I find to be immoral or based on untruth." He has "dismissed" anything that HE finds untruthful. It is identical to dogma, and there is no debate once you have dismissed anothers views. No matter how ludicrous you may find them.
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
Dwade you dismissed or ignored my points earlier, you really are acting like a hypocrit when you complain about MLT for his opinion.
You have not answered any of my objections, but have chosen to use my words against someone.
digitised 2 years ago
Once again, it is you who are ignoring what is being said and saying it is me. All I did was agree with you on simple fact that atheist act as if they KNOW, and I say they don't know. Any more then person of faith. I think you just like to argue sir. A sign of an atheist AND right wing theocrocies. And to say Atheism has no dogma? Are you kidding me? You may not, but atheists as a whole not only have dogma but an agenda. You want to put matters of faith under scientific microscope. Good luck
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
Really you don't consider theists to be delusional?
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
I consider my mum (who accepts astrology and homeopathy) to be delusional, as well as people who hold any belief not supported by or contradicted by evidence.
This however does not mean i hate people or wish to impose my own views on them by 'saving' them. I accept that in life people will make sense of things in their own way, often relying on comforting and self fulfilling desires if they dont embrace skeptisicm and rationality as the best tools for establishing facts.
digitised 2 years ago
Have you written a book calling her delusional?
CHARESTHEHAMER 2 years ago
well said.
taius20 3 years ago
And when are they forced to act like second class citizens? It is atheist who want to make believers act like they are doing something criminal. It is making mountain out of mole hill. And a muslim talking about proper? The same people who went ape shit over a cartoon? It seems atheism is doing just fine under this Govt. and the Christians who have guided it. And now they want to deny the same people who guarenteed their rights, the right to say what they want? Find a worthy cause to defend
dwade1962eagle 2 years ago
One example of being forced to act like a second class citizen is when the words "under god" were added to our previously secular pledge. Doing this makes the assumption that everyone swearing allegiance must believe in god, thereby excluding other religions, and non-believers.
mylittleturd 2 years ago