Are you an atheist? (1 Viewer)

[Vassago]

OK we will see what happens from here on.

Those tax exempt dollars go to the needy. Yes, the churches (some of them) are large but is a rich fellow going to go to a country church???? It all about getting those bucks so their programs can continue to grow. The churches of these United States do more charity than all the others put together. Are you going to shut that down because of your mind set on churches?

Fair enough. I know some of them are good and help those around them. I just get very annoyed when I see things like the giant cross in Orlando lit up by spotlights every night that, admittedly, had a cost of over $1m to produce. This isn't even considering the power usage. Things like this seems unnecessarily flashy, which to me is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught.

There was no Federal law for marriage either way and to piggyback the Gay movement on the backs of the Black civil rights movement in this country is ludicrous It was all state laws and the judges simply struck them down and in effect said, you can no longer make laws concerning marriage, This is a gov. entity now.........Is that not scary??????NO.........

There has always been a federal recognition of marriage in public service jobs at the federal level. Everything from military to office workers. You also had tax benefits at the federal level. Also, at the federal level, there were laws that may not be directly related to marriage, but had to do with rights to hospital visits and decisions. These can be very big deals if you ever run into these situations.

ok, let me make a stab at it. Hope I can word it right if there is a right way. Jeffery Dahmer who committed ra**, murder, disemberment of men and boys during the 70s to the 90's. It is told that he accepted Jesus Christ and repented. Let me let you think about that a minute............. A murder and raper of man going to heaven!!!!!!!

You ask, how can that be. God/Jesus looks at all sins as equal. Murder is one sin, Adultery is another but all equal. The question concerning Jeffery is: Was he Genuine in his repentance of his sins. If he was, Jesus tells us all is forgiven. With the Gay couple they wear a coat of sin 24-7 (so to speak). The sin is according to the Bible (God's word) not mine. How can you be genuine in your repentance if you are living in it 24-7.

It still doesn't explain why this one law in Leviticus is consistently repeated as being the main verse fighting against homosexuality, yet all of the other laws are completely ignored. Almost all people today have committed sins between this book and others in the Old Testament, even some of the really silly ones like not wearing cloth from two different sources, and do so every day, so what allows one law to be picked over another? If we can admit that one is silly, why can't we admit the other is?

As far as I am concerned, They are people and deserve all respect that is afforded to all other people Their lifestyle is theirs AND Gods business. I will not judge them but it seems hypocritical to live in sin and exclaim you are a Christian.

NOW, one other word, there are a lot of people out there that are hypocrites that go to church , proclaim their faith and love, yet through their daily lives continue to commit one Bible sin after another. Are they really genuine about repentance. Only God knows what is deep down in your heart, There are no secrets from him. Now this is my opinion on that.

A lot of God's laws to the Hebrew people state that adultery and other sins be dealt with death. These were laws for man kind at that time. Rem, Mankind had no laws back then. Anything while not acceptable had no or very little consequences.

However, if the laws of man allow it, I have no problem with gays being married by the state.

I'm glad to hear you actually state that.

 

[Bladerunner]

Fair enough. I know some of them are good and help those around them. I just get very annoyed when I see things like the giant cross in Orlando lit up by spotlights every night that, admittedly, had a cost of over $1m to produce. This isn't even considering the power usage. Things like this seems unnecessarily flashy, which to me is the exact opposite of what Jesus taught..

Agreed!

There has always been a federal recognition of marriage in public service jobs at the federal level. Everything from military to office workers. You also had tax benefits at the federal level. Also, at the federal level, there were laws that may not be directly related to marriage, but had to do with rights to hospital visits and decisions. These can be very big deals if you ever run into these situations..

Marriage itself has been recognized by the federal government but it has been the states that have defined marriage This the federal gov had not done and still has not done. 5-6 SCOTUS judges made this law themselves. We now have a Federal law that defines marriage between what????????????is the question?????????This is the problem. At least when the state made a law it was with the majority vote of the states population. Now the whole US. (320 mil or so people) did not get a vote but rather 5-6 judges told them how it is going to be and you don't have any problems with it????????????????????????????????????/ OoooooK again, be careful what you ask for!

It still doesn't explain why this one law in Leviticus is consistently repeated as being the main verse fighting against homosexuality, yet all of the other laws are completely ignored. Almost all people today have committed sins between this book and others in the Old Testament, even some of the really silly ones like not wearing cloth from two different sources, and do so every day, so what allows one law to be picked over another? If we can admit that one is silly, why can't we admit the other is?.

I will try once more by playing a bad lawyer, I am sure......lol.... Leviticus 18:22-24 was one of God's laws for his chosen people the Israelis. Whether or not this law is still in effect is a mute point since it shows the mindset of God in detail of how he thinks about a man lying with a man and so on and so forth. Having said that, salvation is only a choice away. When Jesus died for our sins, all those laws are mute if you seek forgiveness. One point, I do not know about is that if one does not seek forgiveness nor accepts Jesus before they die, do these original laws remain in effect... Only God knows the answer. However, by his words in Levititcus, I don't think the chances would be good that he threw them out. There did I pass the BAR???lol

Here is a list of several scriptures that have something to say about homosexuality.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Homosexuality/

I'm glad to hear you actually state that.

I believe I stated it several times before.,,,,I guess one more time would did not hurt.


p.s. The Atheist won another battle today. It seems that Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the "Ten Commandments" monument had to be removed from its state capital grounds. It seems it was against the law that had previously been written???? Don't know when the law was written or by whom. and it does not really matter. This supreme court did what they were suppose to do and did not legislate from the bench but rather simply were referees. While I think it is silly for the left (liberals) to continue demanding these monuments be removed from any governmental grounds when this government was founded on these very principles, I also believe they have to be removed for socialism to have any chance of taking hold. "Out of sight---Out of Mind". For without them, everything is left to atheism (nothingness) and anything goes and nothing is taboo.

 

[Bladerunner]

Raining here so have a little time for conversation.

Heard the leader of the Atheist movement in these United States (last night on Fox News) that removal of the Tax exempt and other protective laws of the church is the next step. This will lead to the destruction of the church as we know it.

But first removal of all religious artifacts from any government properties irregardless of the fact that they are historical. is necessary.

As Frothy stated:.(a revision of history).....I will apply.....this to the left Liberal vision of how things happened and should be in the future without any input of any of the states that are in disagreement with them. The voice of the people of these states are not recognized and thereby considered null and void. By-passing the constitution as was done is also being done today.

 

[Libre]

Blade - we've moved (or are moving) from a society that initially only recognized only one race (white) and gender (male) and sexual orientation (hetero) and religion (Christian) to a multi-cultural society where many diverse groups are recognized. The Constitution supposedly guarantees equality under the law so the Constitution was actually enforced by the SCOTUS. As such, the relics of the original oppressive system (tablets of the 10 Commandments, etc) are falling and that's a good thing in my mind.

Several corrections: "atheism" =/= "nothingness". It's the philosophy that filling in blanks in our knowledge with fabrications does not cut it.
Also, the words "moot" and "mute" are very different and mean entirely different things. Forgive me for the correction because ordinarily I'd let something like that slide but in this case the word mute just stands out like a sore thumb. Then, as long as I'm at it, the word "irregardless" is a comical non-word and is easily avoided by substituting either "regardless" OR "irrespective".

 

[Frothingslosh]

Also, who is the Leader of Atheism? Many atheists I know would love to know, since as far as intelligent people are aware, there isn't one.

Also, if every belief system or lack of one has one supreme leader, how do you feel about YOUR leader, the Pope, and his recent encyclical?

 

[Vassago]

Marriage itself has been recognized by the federal government but it has been the states that have defined marriage This the federal gov had not done and still has not done. 5-6 SCOTUS judges made this law themselves. We now have a Federal law that defines marriage between what????????????is the question?????????This is the problem. At least when the state made a law it was with the majority vote of the states population. Now the whole US. (320 mil or so people) did not get a vote but rather 5-6 judges told them how it is going to be and you don't have any problems with it????????????????????????????????????/ OoooooK again, be careful what you ask for!

I think we've covered that you cannot let the people vote to remove rights from a minority group of people that are granted and recognized by the government. If you could, what's to stop Mississippi from deciding that blacks can be slaves again? The whites outnumber them considerably there. This is why these bans are being deemed Unconstitutional. By allowing people to ban these rights and privileges from other people, you are removing the same rights everyone else is entitled to.

Personally, I think we've moved beyond needing marriage to be recognized by a government entity. I think it's none of their business who anyone chooses to love for life at this stage. We don't need them to play any part in marriage. But as long as they continue to treat married individuals differently than single individuals and grant certain rights to partners, we cannot change this.

One point, I do not know about is that if one does not seek forgiveness nor accepts Jesus before they die, do these original laws remain in effect... Only God knows the answer. However, by his words in Levititcus, I don't think the chances would be good that he threw them out. There did I pass the BAR???lol

Sounds like there should be a lot of dead wives then.

I believe I stated it several times before.,,,,I guess one more time would did not hurt.


p.s. The Atheist won another battle today. It seems that Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the "Ten Commandments" monument had to be removed from its state capital grounds. It seems it was against the law that had previously been written???? Don't know when the law was written or by whom. and it does not really matter. This supreme court did what they were suppose to do and did not legislate from the bench but rather simply were referees. While I think it is silly for the left (liberals) to continue demanding these monuments be removed from any governmental grounds when this government was founded on these very principles, I also believe they have to be removed for socialism to have any chance of taking hold. "Out of sight---Out of Mind". For without them, everything is left to atheism (nothingness) and anything goes and nothing is taboo.

I think this ten commandment stuff is rather dumb. I understand the religious background, but they are some pretty good rules to live by regardless. My only point would be, as long as they didn't deny other religions from equal space on the same grounds, it's ok by me.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade - we've moved (or are moving) from a society that initially only recognized only one race (white) and gender (male) and sexual orientation (hetero) and religion (Christian) to a multi-cultural society where many diverse groups are recognized. The Constitution supposedly guarantees equality under the law so the Constitution was actually enforced by the SCOTUS. As such, the relics of the original oppressive system (tablets of the 10 Commandments, etc) are falling and that's a good thing in my mind.".

ok

Several corrections: "atheism" =/= "nothingness". It's the philosophy that filling in blanks in our knowledge with fabrications does not cut it.
Also, the words "moot" and "mute" are very different and mean entirely different things. Forgive me for the correction because ordinarily I'd let something like that slide but in this case the word mute just stands out like a sore thumb. Then, as long as I'm at it, the word "irregardless" is a comical non-word and is easily avoided by substituting either "regardless" OR "irrespective".

Know the difference but sometimes when I am writing while heavily in thought, my fingers just don't get it right, especially at my age. Mute should have been moot. My appology to your ears!!!!!!!!!!!.

Irrespective is a saying here in the South...Guess we need to throw that out as well to be PC.. I read up on the definition (Now, I am not as Ignorant as I was) and here is what I found:

Used by people who ignorantly mean to say regardless. According to webster, it is a word, but since the prefix "ir" and the suffx "less" both mean "not or with" they cancel each other out, so what you end up with is regard. When you use this to try to say you don't care about something, you end up saying that you do. Of course everyone knows what you mean to say and only a ??????,????? ??????? will correct you.

I thought it was funny but to sensitive people, it might not thus I Questioned it out? However, for those that want to see,,,,, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=irregardless

 

[Bladerunner]

Also, who is the Leader of Atheism? Many atheists I know would love to know, since as far as intelligent people are aware, there isn't one.

Also, if every belief system or lack of one has one supreme leader, how do you feel about YOUR leader, the Pope, and his recent encyclical?

,, Should have been since she is was but one, 'one of the leaders'

Simply watch last night 'Hannity' on Fox News.

 

[Bladerunner]

Also, who is the Leader of Atheism? Many atheists I know would love to know, since as far as intelligent people are aware, there isn't one.

Also, if every belief system or lack of one has one supreme leader, how do you feel about YOUR leader, the Pope, and his recent encyclical?

oops missed that one,,,,,,Now Why on earth would the POPE be my Leader...My leader is Jesus Christ............

 

[Frothingslosh]

Subtlety is completely lost on you.

"Atheists" have no leader, any more than "Christians" do. To have a leader requires single, acknowledged organization, and there is not one. Hell, the vast majority of atheists are not part of any form of 'atheist organization' at all.

There are PROMINENT atheists, just like there are prominent scientists and prominent musicians, but despite what the inveterate liars on Fox News would tell you, that is not even remotely the same thing.

 

[Bladerunner]

I think we've covered that you cannot let the people vote to remove rights from a minority group of people that are granted and recognized by the government. If you could, what's to stop Mississippi from deciding that blacks can be slaves again? The whites outnumber them considerably there. This is why these bans are being deemed Unconstitutional. By allowing people to ban these rights and privileges from other people, you are removing the same rights everyone else is entitled to..

It is not the law,,,It is the way it was created by 5-6 people who proclaimed themselves qusi-dictators over us. You still cannot see it, and we are going around in circles here. It is OK,, it is done.

Personally, I think we've moved beyond needing marriage to be recognized by a government entity. I think it's none of their business who anyone chooses to love for life at this stage. We don't need them to play any part in marriage. But as long as they continue to treat married individuals differently than single individuals and grant certain rights to partners, we cannot change this..

OK

I think this ten commandment stuff is rather dumb. I understand the religious background, but they are some pretty good rules to live by regardless. My only point would be, as long as they didn't deny other religions from equal space on the same grounds, it's ok by me.

Don't have a problem with that either. Lets, see we have the pagan, witches (forget what they are called), Satanist of course, Islamist, Buhdist, etc.........

On second thought,,we might run out of government grounds if we do that. Let them take it and just see where it leads us????????

 

[Bladerunner]

Subtlety is completely lost on you.

"Atheists" have no leader, any more than "Christians" do. To have a leader requires single, acknowledged organization, and there is not one. Hell, the vast majority of atheists are not part of any form of 'atheist organization' at all.

There are PROMINENT atheists, just like there are prominent scientists and prominent musicians, but despite what the inveterate liars on Fox News would tell you, that is not even remotely the same thing.

Ok, she spoke for the Atheist cause and their agenda??????sorry ,,,hope that is better....

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Blade, I have to correct you on another glaring point that shows how little you understand what really happened with SCOTUS's marriage decision - and what didn't happen.

You keep on saying that SCOTUS made a new law. They ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTIBLY did not. What they did was to tell STATES that made new laws (that denied specific civil rights to gays) that they WERE NOT ALLOWED to make that kind of law. In other words, SCOTUS did not make a law. They stopped someone else from making a BAD law. There is a huge difference. If you don't understand that, then it is no small wonder that you don't seem to understand my Will Rogers analogies and my references to the gestational origins of homosexuality. You don't understand that the actions of the Religious Right regarding marriage and homosexuality were in fact a huge violation of civil rights.

I have to ask if you are really as dense as you seem to be, or whether you are just an exceptionally tenacious troller. Your repeated inability to see the implications of logic at work continue to amaze me. But this isn't my first forum on atheism.

Are you afraid that if you agree to any of our points of logic that somehow you will lose your faith and condemn yourself? If you really believed that, the problem is in you, not in us. Your own weakness of faith strikes you with terror because you still feel that disembodied presence looking over your shoulder for your transgressions. You cannot even face the idea that your logic would overwhelm your faith. Yet the Pope accepts evolution and I doubt that you could make disparaging comments about the weakness of his faith. I submit for your consideration that YOU doubt your own God's power - because otherwise you would realize that if He is as powerful as you think He is, all of evolution and the Big Bang and abiogenesis would be within His power to make happen as the science of the day tells us it did. YOU are one who diminishes God's power in your own mind, one who limits God's abilities. YOU have the weakness but unlike us, you can't bring yourself to face that situation.

We who are atheists can face a life without God. You, on the other hand, have limited yourself terribly by imagining a God who is limited, but you can't do without that limited God. Forgive me if I pity your weakness.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Blade, just because someone takes it upon themselves to speak for others - "Hi, I speak for the conservatives who post on technical web sites, and we live to bugger sheep!", for example - doesn't mean that it is either appropriate or accurate.

This especially applies when they're billing themselves as 'leaders' of something that cannot be led. You can be a leader of atheism about as well as you can be a leader of conspiracy theories.

You have GOT to start exposing yourself to a news source with at least a passing familiarity with facts, rather than Fox News, who wouldn't know a fact if you beat them with it.

 

[Vassago]

I don't even know many far-right Republicans who deny that Faux is a biased news source. I mean, the list of things that point to it, including admittances from their own political party members, is astounding. Everything they do is both to push and manipulate their own party and their followers.

Maybe that's why they refuse to see the truth. The brainwashing is working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, just because someone takes it upon themselves to speak for others - "Hi, I speak for the conservatives who post on technical web sites, and we live to bugger sheep!", for example - doesn't mean that it is either appropriate or accurate.

This especially applies when they're billing themselves as 'leaders' of something that cannot be led. You can be a leader of atheism about as well as you can be a leader of conspiracy theories.

You have GOT to start exposing yourself to a news source with at least a passing familiarity with facts, rather than Fox News, who wouldn't know a fact if you beat them with it.

Ah, my guess is you did not see it. The person was on Fox News I guess of her own free will, You know these liberal type, they like to brag about what they are going to do.... Fox People just ask her the questions.

Sorry I cannot help you here.

 

[Bladerunner]

I don't even know many far-right Republicans who deny that Faux is a biased news source. I mean, the list of things that point to it, including admittances from their own political party members, is astounding. Everything they do is both to push and manipulate their own party and their followers.

Maybe that's why they refuse to see the truth. The brainwashing is working.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_Channel_controversies

What party, the democratic or the liberal parties. Oh, you mean the repubs, The moderate LIbs. oh MY,.....

Yeah I know but I turn it on the others, I see nothing about something that happened in the US for a week. Guess it is old news by then.....An your liberal blogs only serve themselves.. i.e. Huffington post.

I wil keep sending you to Fox News for the news you cannot find anywhere else. I know, they give you liberals a hard time,,,,,You don't deserve do you.....I know, I know

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Regarding Fox News...

Any news organization that has to advertise itself as "Fair and Balanced" usually isn't either.

Fox is so far right-wing that they would be excellent Indy car drivers - except for going backwards (since Indy cars only turn left.) Of course, you might not have known that since your mind obviously refuses to see anything that DOES turn even slightly to the left. But it explains why you can't keep up with line dancers in clubs or parties. Anytime that they turn to the right, you are with them... but you can only go straight and right (hmmm.... at the same time? Good trick!)

Blade, I do not apologize for my position, but I have to say that the intransigence you demonstrate for your position does invite extremely intense attention - sadly for you, of the wrong kind. I should lay back for a while simply because I truly wish you no ill. But be aware that it is not within me to ignore someone whose position would interfere with the life of my family member who is gay, and with the lives of several of my best friends from my college days. Yes, it is possible to be heterosexual and still find friendship with those who are homosexual.

It starts with forgiveness of people who are different from yourself, often not by choice. I am not black, but I can be friends with a black person - and have been on several occasions. I am not Muslim, but I can be friends with Muslims - and have been on several occasions. I am not a woman, but I can be friends with women - and have been on several occasions. See how that works? And I am not gay but I have been friends with gay people on many occasions.

Want to know the trick? It's easy. Remember the poet Robert Burns, whose poem about a mouse in a church-goer's hat prompted the ending line that ends with "what a gift to gie (give) us, to see ourselves as others see us." When you see yourself through the reality-colored glasses, you realize you ain't so perfect either. If you can live your life forgiving yourself for your imperfections, the next step is so simple - forgive others who are not perfect either.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, I have to correct you on another glaring point that shows how little you understand what really happened with SCOTUS's marriage decision - and what didn't happen.

You keep on saying that SCOTUS made a new law. They ABSOLUTELY and INCONTROVERTIBLY did not. What they did was to tell STATES that made new laws (that denied specific civil rights to gays) that they WERE NOT ALLOWED to make that kind of law. In other words, SCOTUS did not make a law. They stopped someone else from making a BAD law. There is a huge difference. If you don't understand that, then it is no small wonder that you don't seem to understand my Will Rogers analogies and my references to the gestational origins of homosexuality. You don't understand that the actions of the Religious Right regarding marriage and homosexuality were in fact a huge violation of civil rights..

“The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,” he wrote. “Just who do we think we are?” Chief Justice Roberts.

I have to ask if you are really as dense as you seem to be, or whether you are just an exceptionally tenacious troller. Your repeated inability to see the implications of logic at work continue to amaze me. But this isn't my first forum on atheism..

Doc,,,,,,,it that all you got,,,,I figured for a man of your stature you could do better than that! I will not discuss/debate this particular topic with you in any future post.

Are you afraid that if you agree to any of our points of logic that somehow you will lose your faith and condemn yourself? If you really believed that, the problem is in you, not in us. Your own weakness of faith strikes you with terror because you still feel that disembodied presence looking over your shoulder for your transgressions. You cannot even face the idea that your logic would overwhelm your faith. Yet the Pope accepts evolution and I doubt that you could make disparaging comments about the weakness of his faith. I submit for your consideration that YOU doubt your own God's power - because otherwise you would realize that if He is as powerful as you think He is, all of evolution and the Big Bang and abiogenesis would be within His power to make happen as the science of the day tells us it did. YOU are one who diminishes God's power in your own mind, one who limits God's abilities. YOU have the weakness but unlike us, you can't bring yourself to face that situation..

The Pope is the CEO of the largest church in the world. That is all. He has no special powers. He jumps in his breeches like I do,,,well maybe not as high, he is a little older than me.

We who are atheists can face a life without God. You, on the other hand, have limited yourself terribly by imagining a God who is limited, but you can't do without that limited God. Forgive me if I pity your weakness.

As a friend of mine said at one time,,, If I am wrong, all of us will never know, but If I am right,,, you lose all around.


*******

I swore to Vassago I would not do this again but in this case, I feel I must give this warning. Sorry Vassago,,,

The Unpardonable Sin....... Matthew 12:31,32:
"Therefore I say to you, any sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven people, but blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven. "Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.......

Rem when I said be careful what one ask for. Well, If I am right, one is self prophesying one's own end, even if one ever decided to change ones mind.

 

[spikepl]

Hello? God? Where are you?

Don't be such a wuss but write a message or text/call my cell.