Atheists and attacking/vehemently questioning others' faith

[Trajan12]

This attitude right here is why I would never, ever, as long as I live, vote for an athiest for anything. Not even dogcatcher. As far as I am concerned atheism = intolerance.

Afraid I must agree.

 

[Atlas14]

If someone thinks hard enough about religion and God, and then declares themself Atheist instead of just remaining Agnostic; I would have to agree that there is something to be concerned about.

I agree. Agnostic is perfectly in line with logic. Atheism claims to be intellectually superior to religion, however, they are making just as large of an assumption as the religious folk.

 

[MobBoss]

If I'm not a believer, is it not unreasonable for me to conclude that somebody created the creation myth? Just by stating the logical extension of my non-belief makes me unfit to be a dogcathcer? This is why religious folks get a bad name for inferior intellect. Perceiving a logical (and debatable) conclusion as an insult.

You see? Again, you show your intolerance. You only recourse to my statement is to insult my intelligence, which I assure you, is not lacking. One of these days, you may find out, that insulting your fellow man isnt any part of the golden rule....which obviously atheists such as yourself hardly care about.

 

[FredLC]

This attitude right here is why I would never, ever, as long as I live, vote for an athiest for anything. Not even dogcatcher. As far as I am concerned atheism = intolerance.

Well, that's being intolerant right there.

Regards .

 

[JollyRoger]

You see? Again, you show your intolerance. You only recourse to my statement is to insult my intelligence, which I assure you, is not lacking. One of these days, you may find out, that insulting your fellow man isnt any part of the golden rule....which obviously atheists such as yourself hardly care about.

I didn't insult your intelligence. I explained why religious people have gained a reputation for intellectual inferiority - they take a debatable point as insult. If you want to improve your reputation, stop taking debatable conclusions as insults.

 

[JollyRoger]

Well, that's being intolerant right there.

Regards .

He must be an atheist.

 

[Sidhe]

Then who told the first believer about God?

No one needed to, for societies to exist they needed to draw together people in common belief, early religions would have used the natural forces of Earth to make people believe, when an Earthquake happened it was an Earth God shaking the Earth, when a tidal wave swept across the land it was a sea god, when hunting was difficult because of long winters they would have said that this was the Earth mother standing against us. But truly the belief would have shaped an early human system, when people died they would have been burried in the Earth and people would of assuaged their fear of death by saying that they went to a better place, it's inconcievable that the early ancestors of humans wouldn't of had religion to draw together those who doubted, and it leads to more complex religions when we settled, we had the precursor of religion.

No one religion needs to be told about god, it's just inevitable that a god or gods would exist to bring societies together. In our evolution we would of died out without belief, and thus belief is part of our make up, we would of found it hard to exist without it, so therefore it exists.

 

[skadistic]

By the last couple of post I see people need a history of religion lesson. I'm gonna go backwards. And Im using christianity because it is a majority held beife structure.

christianity<----jeudism (monothiestic)<----jeudism (polytheistic)<-----some other polthiestic set of gods<------worship of gods that were more naturlistic in nature like lightning and rain<-----to primitive to understand.

I find it incredably ignorant when religious folk claim that the first belivers knew god as if christianity some how just poped up oout of nowhere. In fact it is just an evolution of an older religion that is an evolution of an older religion that is an evolution of an older religion. "Pagan" religions are much older then monotheistic ones so surly they had belivers that belived their god was the true god. That can't all be right.

You can't get mad when someone calls christianity a myth. If you do then you can't call Greek, Roman, Egyption, Norse or any other out dated religion a myth. Just because your religion is the newest doesn't mean its the right one.

 

[Trajan12]

Well, that's being intolerant right there.

Regards .

No, its not at all. Its common sense. An atheist leader would not just let Christians be. They would not support anything that they percieve as too religiously orientated. And the perameters for that are up to them.

 

[JollyRoger]

No, its not at all. Its common sense. An atheist leader would not just let Christians be. They would not support anything that they percieve as too religiously orientated. And the perameters for that are up to them.

You think an atheist dogcatcher would let the dogs loose on religious people?

 

[skadistic]

This attitude right here is why I would never, ever, as long as I live, vote for an athiest for anything. Not even dogcatcher. As far as I am concerned atheism = intolerance.

And by this statement I can conclude that you are intolerant. And all the people who agree with this are just as intolerant and are raging hypocrits.

 

[Atlas14]

No, its not at all. Its common sense. An atheist leader would not just let Christians be. They would not support anything that they percieve as too religiously orientated. And the perameters for that are up to them.

Well separation of church and state would at least prevent them from being overly detrimental to your religion in a political sense, and thus overly beneficial as well.

 

[skadistic]

No, its not at all. Its common sense. An atheist leader would not just let Christians be. They would not support anything that they percieve as too religiously orientated. And the perameters for that are up to them.

In a secular nation I think an athiest would be great for equal rights. More so for religious rights. You know full well that an atheist would disregard any religion and all the minority religions would embrass such thinking. I'm sure the Hindu, Jew, Rastafarian, Zorasterians, Buddists would love to be free of the christian restaints based on dogmas and imposed by law.

 

[MobBoss]

You can't get mad when someone calls christianity a myth.

Actually, yes, yes, I can. My religious faith is not a myth in any way shape or form. And for you to be so callous as to trod upon something so dear to your fellow man speaks volumes. This is something that is very, very important to a lot of people, and yet you dismiss it and trod upon it since it means nothing to you.

Anyway, Christ wasnt a myth....so I can get mad, and I do.

Again...no vote for you...even for dogcatcher.

If you do then you can't call Greek, Roman, Egyption, Norse or any other out dated religion a myth. Just because your religion is the newest doesn't mean its the right one.

Newest? I thought that title belonged to scientology. And I am not in the habit of telling anyone that their religion is a myth or anything else otherwise. I respect their belief and they are free to believe in what they will.

 

[JollyRoger]

This attitude right here is why I would never, ever, as long as I live, vote for an athiest for anything. Not even dogcatcher. As far as I am concerned atheism = intolerance.

If a Muslim fanatic was running against an otherwise reasonable atheist, who would you vote for?

 

[MobBoss]

I'm sure the Hindu, Jew, Rastafarian, Zorasterians, Buddists would love to be free of the christian restaints based on dogmas and imposed by law.

Excuse me. Congress shall make no law???? There are no restraits or dogmas imposed by law in this country. People are FREE to believe how they will.

 

[Trajan12]

I didn't insult your intelligence. I explained why religious people have gained a reputation for intellectual inferiority - they take a debatable point as insult. If you want to improve your reputation, stop taking debatable conclusions as insults.

You see what I mean, I can feel the anger rushing through me and its not a nice feeling. Oh and I dont know where you got that bull from but Christians are responsible for almost everything you love in this nation or any western nation. The very constitution you believe in was fought for by a majority of Christians. And for you to say anything but thank you is very angering. A wise woman on Arab tv once said that "Christians are not people of the book, but people of many books." I cant even fathom what this world would be like without christians. THAT is mocking. A completely baseless assumption. Infuriating.

 

[MobBoss]

If a Muslim fanatic was running against an otherwise reasonable atheist, who would you vote for?

I probably would write in a candidate.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

This attitude right here is why I would never, ever, as long as I live, vote for an athiest for anything. Not even dogcatcher. As far as I am concerned atheism = intolerance.

Please, before you plea the intolerance defense: Atheists can't even run for governer in some states

 

[GenMarshall]

If a Muslim fanatic was running against an otherwise reasonable atheist, who would you vote for?

I probably would write in a candidate.

As would I, as would I.

You see what I mean, I can feel the anger rushing through me and its not a nice feeling.

Youre not the only one. I myself consider myself religious as well as intelegent. I honestly find it insulting when an atheists tells me that I am intellectualy inferrior and that the faith that I hold so dearly is a myth. Its like litteraly a slap on the face.