What an ignorant thing to say. I can't tell if some of these posters are just trolling or actually serious with some of these comments.
I am not reading this whole thread, as I don't enjoy nausea. However, I do have a question for the general population: Do you believe the United States would have the Constitution it has if the predominant view of the majority of Founding Fathers had been atheism? If yes, why? If no, in what way would it be different?
Too hypothetical without any relation to the context of the reality at the time. You might ask how the constitution of the starship New Earth will be formed without a recognized religion. (so far the guess would be a secular humanist, democratic meritocracy)
Yes, because the founding fathers based the constitution on personal liberties and how they shall not be infringed... Ideas that are not judeo-christian in nature but ideas borrowed by prominent English philosophers such as John Locke.
why does rudan refer to "atheist" in the plural form , but without an "s" on the end? also, is anyone here embarrassed by Catholicism lately?
In fact I would.go as far as to say that the entire moral code of the Abrahamic religions is based upon infringing on personal liberties. I mean a personal thought can be considered a crime in Judeo-Christian philosophy. The Constitution is the exact opposite of this philosophy.
Just to be clear - you agree that is it self-evident truth that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights - am I understanding you correctly? I am not trying to play gotcha or anything, but to me it is an important point, just generally, when talking about atheism vs belief in a higher power.
As an atheist myself, I definitely think that a lot of atheists come of as smug, self-satisfied douchebags. It's a terrible way to convince people of your beliefs and I think this thread is a microcosm for how these debates generally go. I think this douchiness stems from a) the feeling that now that you're an atheist it's a natural progression from religion, therefore you feel like you "know better now" and b) a pent up anger towards religion for years of possible oppression of belief. Nonetheless, I think all people should have a healthy respect for religion and the people who submit to those beliefs. I don't believe in religion, and I think there is way too much religion in the U.S. that is reflected in oppressive laws, but it doesn't mean I associate the average religious person that I meet with that.
Or they're human beings created in the image of God the same way you are; and worthy of the very dignity, respect and love that the God we claim is real has for them regardless of what they believe about Him, their capacity to do long division or turn handstands.
that's just rich people who ignore the poor...or at least it was in that parable written in red in my bible.
The above is fine and good, but when you suggest that they don't care for you/atheists because you "expose" their "myths" you exert your finality on the matter. That's not a discussion. That's pushy and condescending. Thus, part of the problem.
challenge the factuality of their historical account and justification with observation, hypothesis, testing and peer review to descern the best possible explanation with the information available?
I see no harm in that. Let's not pretend your wording originally wasn't pushy or condescending, dragging this tangent further than need be. I don't even have a dog in this hunt as I'm pretty indifferent to it all to be honest, but as I said I feel that pushy and condescending isn't necessary. Softening it up at this point just drags this out. I'm ok, you're ok, that there's how it is. So to answer your question... Challenge away if need be or if you find it productive, but with respect. That would be my answer. Easier said than done.
