What can the atheists offer the rest of the world???

North I never told you this and I still can't believe I'm saying it: You were my hero in a sense. I mean it. I thought: "Look at this guy. He's got the power to leave this forum. I can't do it. I wish I could do it but I just can't. I'm too addicted to it."

You remember a while back you said you would leave??? I admired you for that. Now I was hoping I would get banned because there is no way I see myself quitting. And at the same time, I still don't think I could insult someone just so I get banned and therefore be able to get on with my life.

 

You still don't get it: I am done arguing with you. How in the world am I supposed to argue with someone who goes against a simple formula such as 2+2=4 ??

Dude, like someone said: I don't mind if you take me for a fool, but if you take me for an idiot, that is where I draw the line. (But this is just proteindude inferior view, nevertheless it's still my view)

 

Then stop posting in the thread.

If you continue to post i will continue to demand an answer to my question.

 

Not that it's a big deal but this thread was started by moi (that's french for me). I will still post in this thread, I just won't argue with you because it's pointless as far as Je (which is I in french) see it.

It doesn't mean I put others on the same pedestal as you. You are more than welcome to post your opinions on this thread or anywhere else in dp as it's not something I own. I just won't reply to you comprende-vous? (That's french again for do you understand?)

 

At least have the decency and courage to answer the question i asked long before you started this charade regarding the most influential person in history then.

I don;t see how you can continue to post in a thread when you refuse to acknowledge any questions people pose to you. Especially when they repeatedly answer every facile attempt at a question that you pose. If you carry on posting without answering any questions you will be just spamming wont you?

You know it's ok to admit that you don't feel capable or sufficiently armed to answer a question, But to just not acknowledge that a question has even been asked shows exactly how fragile your entire premise is. if you refuse to answer a question it not only demonstrates that you are wrong, But it also demonstrates a complete lack of courage and integrity.

Anyway, I'm going to get a couple of hours sleep now. it's getting very late and i have to be up soon for work.

 

I guess we have different views. If anyone else (that means not stOx) addresses me on this thread he/she will get my opinion or my reply or my view or my whatever.

Again when you take me for a fool that is ok. When you take me for an idiot that is where I draw the line.

Anyway: Bonne nuit (That's French for good night)

 

Here's the problem. Being public land, the government decides what goes on said property. So even if some group of Christians wanted to pay for their own monument, the government would have to approve it. And guess what? They can't approve it without being partial to a certain religion. Then suddenly the muslims want their own monument, and then the jews, and on and on the list goes.

It just simply makes more sense to separate religion from government, for this reason, and the other reasons we have gone through in the last 250+ posts. Also, I see you twisting my belief of no endorsement of religion in government into "no religion in government is the atheist getting his religious beliefs in government i.e. none." This is just silly.

Does the fact that I'm an atheist mean I can't rightfully claim I want religion and government separated? Do you think atheists are the only people who want this to occur? Should I go find a believer of some religion who wants religion out of government also so you'll stop claiming that it's because I'm an atheist? Atheists are not the only people who want this to occur, so stop this ridiculous "you want to purge religion from government because you're an atheist" crap, it's so wrong it's funny.

 

Ok, so what you're saying is religion should have no place in the public life. So let's not let Christians have any monuments or whatever on public land. Let's just say this is a fair comment even though judging by your logic we should be discriminating against Christians.

Discriminating is ok. We ALWAYS discriminate. When you eat food from a certain restaurant say McDonald's you are in a sense discriminating against KFC or Burger King by choosing one over another.

So by not allowing religion in public places it shows you have something against it. Which is fine, we can't all agree on everything. The title of this thread is "What can atheists offer the rest of the world?" I don't see how atheism is contributing other than by reducing the Christian presence in government, schools, courts, etc. So don't tell me atheism is a positive, eliberating influence.

Guess what, the government already allows muslims and Jews to wear religious clothing in schools. It just seems that atheists are more concerned with Christianity than anything else.

 

Well, with atheists in control, the outlook for religious dudes is very grim wouldn't you say?

You are a bit like a chameleon when it comes to the constitution. Whatever suits you. You keep bringing up the point with Allah on coins. I told you several times that YES it would bug me. Yes you got me here. Yes with your brilliant logic you managed to corner proteindude. Yes, proteindude would NOT like it if he had inscriprions of Allah on coins. Your point??

Some pictures on the coins don't quite grab me. Does that mean I should go and rebel and go for the changing of the coins? Those who voted in the past to have the inscriptions there did it with a good reason. You on the other hand don't like it. Why should YOUR opinion overrule the other opinion?

It was on this thread claimed that atheists are in small numbers, something like 2%. If that's the case, why should their opinion hold so much weight?

 

proteindude in the UK we have no problem with christians, and nor i think does any other country in europe, though right now there is a bad case of islamaphobia sweeping my country, and that isn't just coming from atheists but christians, jews, hindus, you name it. so why do you keep playing the victim?
nobody has it in for christians, they are presently at the top of their game.

 

Wasn't is just recently you had this public outcry about the woman working for British Airways who wasn't allowed to wear her cross on the outside of her uniform?

Wasn't it also recently that this other school banned this Christian girl from wearing an abstinence ring while allowing the Siks and others to wear their bangles and so on??

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article2087264.ece

A quote: "Ms Playfoot was one of a group of Christians at the Millais School who wore the ring, which is engraved with a Biblical verse, as a sign of belief in abstinence from sex until marriage. In court her lawyers claimed that the secondary school, which allowed Muslim and Sikh students to wear head-scarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights.

The school denied her claims, arguing that the purity ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith and that it contravened its uniform policy.

At a recent High Court hearing in London, Paul Diamond, a human rights barrister representing Ms Playfoot, argued that secular school authorities had no right to set themselves up as arbiters of faith and “cannot rule on religious truth”. He said that they were violating Ms Playfoot’s right to “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” under Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights."



So all atheists want is to carry on with their life. yeah right.

 

There is a distinct difference between not liking the historical picture depicted on a coin of currency, and not wanting the reference to a god you don't trust in on the coin. Which belief will you defend more fervently, your favorite color, or your god of choice? If you can't realize the distinction, you are being dense.

I have no problem with religion in public places. I think people should be able to express their religion publicly through prayer, through their dress, through their values and customs. What I do not want is my government involved with religion.

Why do you seek to extend my statement about not wanting religion in government to not wanting religion in public life? Again, you are either being dishonest, or dense. You have your churches, your charities, your businesses, your land, any private institution that wishes to support your religion, but I don't want government involved with it.

As I've said, this is not a crusade against Christianity, it's just that the 80+% Christian majority of this country has made their religious beliefs prevalent in government at every level. If it was a Muslim majority with Muslim statues and funding for Muslim teaching in public, taxpayer funded schools, I'd be fighting against them too.

As I asked in my previous post, are you suggesting that only 2% of Americans, the atheists, want religion out of government? Do you need me to pull some religious believers in here saying the same thing so it will get through your skull that a separation of church and state is not just an atheistic belief, but rather a logical belief shared by supporters of many religions, including the majority religion, Christianity? I can think off the top of my head, of one of my closest friends, Andy. He's a devout Christian, probably one of the most educated, intelligent people I know, and probably one of the most educated I know as far as the Christian faith. And guess what? He hates the role religion plays in government, and the partiality our government gives to Christian ideals and beliefs. It's not just atheists.

Overall, this sounds like your argument that atheism is synonymous with communism. It's disingenuous, and you are either being ignorant to simple facts, or twisting them to suit your "I'm being oppressed even though I'm the majority" ideology.

 

In response to your new post:

-At least in the United States, private organizations are free to make whatever rules they choose, as long as they don't discriminate against a particular religion. If their rule was that their could be no display of religious relics, as long they applied the policy equally between Christians, Muslims, Hindus, whoever, it would be legal in the United States.

-An abstinence ring is not a religious ornament. I don't kill people or steal stuff, but it's not because the 10 commandments and the Bible tell me not to do so. The Siks on the other hand have certain religious ornaments that are a part of their religion.

 

Or maybe your friend Andy is not quite the Christian he claims to be. It's funny how many atheists and leftists call on Christianity when it suits them. The same as the "pro choice" or the gays who consider themselves Christians.

Atheism has an agenda which is not something positive as I have experienced under communism which has as its tennets the belief there is no God. Sure, they may not all be the same, and yes there are differences between atheistic views but I am still puzzled what the atheists can offer the rest of the world. I am yet to see the altruistic part of atheism.

 

Now you are appointing yourself as a judge and executioner when it comes to Christian beliefs. So again it shows that with atheists in control the tolerance aspect is not that great as long as it's your view. You are deciding what constitutes religion and what a Christian should/should not wear.

 

I find it funny that you instantly say my friend must not be a real Christian, without ever attempting to justify why all the things I've said SHOULD be in government. In fact, this whole thread has been 5-6 rational people giving valid arguments, and you saying "atheists are just pushing their agenda".

As far as my second post, again, please attempt to explain to me where my reasoning is wrong for either case. The second one admittedly is a lot less backed by law than the first, but both are pretty valid arguments.
EDIT: Explain to me how it is a religious ornament? Just because someone believes something because its inline with their religious beliefs, does not in and of itself, make that ideal a religious ideal. Would you argue that they should be allowed to wear peace rings too because they believe killing is against their religion?

You know how you can tell when someone is starting to lose an argument? When you explain in a few paragraphs why someone is incorrect, responding to every facet of their argument, and they respond back with "you and anyone backing your belief have an agenda".

 

I thought the way you lose an argument is by not answering a direct question. For example the question/title of this thread is: "What can the atheists offer the rest of the world?"

 

dude with regard to the wearing of the cross i personally found that ridiculous, of course a small piece of unassuming jewellery should be permitted, but the whole case was blown well out of proportion. as for the abstinence ring, that was against school rules on uniform, and whereas other religious tokens/clothing are referred to by holy texts etc., and traditionally worn, the abstinence ring was not seen to be as integral to core christian beliefs/texts, and more of a fashion. but you know well my opinions on the wearing of any religious clothing in schools/public workplaces so we won't go there again.
the thing is you seem to think that athiests are all against christians, indeed moreso than any other religion, but believe me we are not. i stand as much against islam, judaism, hinduism and sikhism when the situation demands it, as i would stand against christianity. but only, and i repeat only, WHEN THE SITUATION DEMANDS IT, so if relgious groups do not do something utterly stupid in the name of religion, e.g. suicide bombings, labelling HIV as the disease of the devil, etc., then i will just get on with my life and let them get on with theirs.

 

That has already been answered in the last 200 odd posts.

In short: atheists do pretty much the same shit as other people, but without the auspices of religion backing it. There are some atheists who don't contribute anything to this world, just as there are some Christians and some Muslims and some whoever else who don't contribute anything to the world. The reason for this is that for most people, whether or not we believe in a god (and for non-atheists, which god), does not have much bearing on what we do in the world.

The topic has changed since that original post, and it now is stopped while I await your answers to my questions.

 

According to this a non Christian knows better than a Christian which object should be part of someone's religion and which shouldn't. So therefore a Christian should check before he/she decides what to wear to school. A ring is a lot smaller than a head covering and yet the school decides which is/isn't important to each religion.

Just so there is no confusion, which exact question you want me to answer since I agree the topic has changed a little.