Christians should understand how the non religious feel

It cuts both ways. The secular humanists take the same dysfunctional control freak path as anorexics do with their family--do as I say or I won't eat, knowing full well the person will not or cannot do as they say. "Daddy I will try to eat, maybe, if you just stop drinking/smoking." It is a fool's bargain to rationalize their own antisocial behaviors.

 

Wait, what?

 

On the contrary. I am glad that you understand. Therefore, your belly aching about what people (other than those you intended your message to be received by) are saying is without merit.

 

It already has happened. It is called economic slavery. Ironically, no vote was needed.. Here in the US it was enacted by Presidential/Executive Order in 1933.

I suppose I should considering that my name made the Federal law books as establishing a precedent in law due to a suit I filed against the State of Florida. Regardless of what State a person lives in, the presidential vote is performed by the Electoral College. Even if the 'popular vote' turned out one way, the Electoral College can swing the vote the other way. Also is the issue of not being able to select who candidates will be... they are chosen by the two primary parties "Democrats", "Republicans", and allowance is made for other lesser candidates to be placed on the ballot. So you lose on that one also.

On the contrary. Science and its dogma of initiating claims that fly in the face of God and supporting an unprovable theory which in effect denies the existence of God and forcing all children in the country to learn these things in public school is forcing such things on the students that do not adhere to such teachings. No-one has said a word about 'church attendance' or 'graven images' so quit with the deflections.

No argument in that concepr... However be mindful of the fact that the people who control the cash flow are the ones that control the country and its governemnt and laws.

 

If someone disagrees with prayer in public that is on them. It is not going to convert them and it's going to hurt anyone. If you don't like it then tune it out and ignore it.

And not every christian is trying to make it illegal or impose their beliefs through legislation, just the extremists that I mention in my original post. Other then that no one should stop anyone from mentioning their god or beliefs. Hearing about it is not violating anyone's freedom.

- - - Updated - - -

To be fair I'm referring to secular humanists in that sentence. No, no one brought them up but that's where my mind went.

 

Belief - An acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/belief

Fact - A thing that is known or proved to be true - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fact?q=fact
Proof - Evidence or argument establishing a fact or the truth of a statement - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/proof?q=proof

 

you do know that asking to prove a negative is not possible don't you, the onus is on those who claim god exists to provide the proof for that assertion.

Example of a negative proof fallacy

Person 1: “How do you justify your belief in god?”

Person 2: “Can you prove me wrong?”

Person 1: “I don’t have to prove you wrong, you are the one with the claim”

Person 2: “Your just making that rule up, you have to prove me wrong!”

Person 1: “No, for you see living with this type of ideology is ignorant and stupid, anyone making a positive claim or assertion has the burden to prove the claim. Otherwise, any and every idiot claim and false statement would have to be disproven in order to even live a somewhat normal existence. Allow me to demonstrate ‘there is a purple dragon behind the moon that created the earth…now prove me wrong’. It would be sheer lunacy and outright madness to expect you to have to prove me wrong, but it is logical to have me back up my claim”

 

How absolutely novel. Seems that the writers of that dictionary were not educated enough to compile the remaining variables that are listed in other dictionaries.

Then for the term "belief" your choice of dictionary says essentially the same as mine does for the term "fact", but you conveniently did not show that definition. Here let me help you:
"

• 1.1Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion::"
  
  At any rate, I conclude that your evidence and arguments do not compel my mind to accept what you have stated as true.
  

 

The problem is that it's so often NOT okay. There are still many ... many issues for humanity resulting from superstitious adherence to ancient dogmas.

The real change will come when and if the majority of us use our intelligence, instead of our base instincts. If we've been gifted anything at all, it's our brains. It would be good to see more of us start using them.

 

And should that day ever come it won't be until far far from now. Until then the best we can do is learn to exist together. That could very well be the first step into moving in the direction you spoke of.

 

LMFAO the writers of the Oxford English Dictionary were not educated - It is one of the oldest respected dictionaries in the world

The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is widely regarded as the accepted authority on the English language. It is an unsurpassed guide to the meaning, history, and pronunciation of 600,000 words— past and present—from across the English-speaking world.

Your definition does not appear anywhere in the OED's definition.

and nowhere did I ask you to, if you wish to remain within your bubble that is your choice.

 

I appreciate your thoughts on this. But I think you possibly have missed some of the point the OP is making. Many atheists, myself included, love easter and Christmas - even the traditional references to the old ways (baby jebus, mangers, wise men, etc). I also like old churches, thoroughly enjoy a good high church mass (fully sung, for preference) in a cathedral. What I do mind, and no doubt the OP minds also, is people we know telling our kids despicable and bizarre untruths while our backs are turned. I mind the arrogance of sorely outdated notions of primacy - carried through interactions and actions of many Christians - just as though it was still 1950. The wilful refusal to put ethics ahead of the stubborn, childlike insistence on clinging to something as corrupt as the bible - and how this derailing of one's moral compass affects everything they do, and everyone they mix with. I simply don't want to be around people who've willingly sacrificed moral standards to support a fairytale - just as I don't want to be around criminals, drug addicts, crazy people, and actors. That's the long version of - what they do in their private time is of no consequence, but it rarely remains private. They insist on sharing it with us (and expecting us to venerate it - another arrogance), but have the audacity to be affronted at the idea of questions being asked about it. These are generally the sorts of things most of us get peeved about - not so much the Christmas tree at the mall.

 

so secular humanist sare antisocial dysfunctionals, now? must be all that putting humans first business, I guess

 

With respect, I think you overstate the case against Christians. Their moral standards outside of the gay rights and abortion issue aren't that bad are they? Even those 2 subject areas, are they not entitled to their views, and to spout off about it? Same as any other religion or atheist/agnostic is. If anyone is breaking the law in support of their beliefs in any area, or in attacking the opposing view then those who do so deserve to be held accountable and serve whatever punishment the courts decree. But I don't think most of 'em take things that far, you are painting them all with the same brush that applies only to the extremists.

 

When it comes down to it these people are only trying to do what they thing is right. A Christian believes that there is an after life, and that the only way to achieve said after life is to pray for forgiveness and worship whom they call God. When a Christian, Muslim, or any other religion that claims an after life tries to convert you, they are only trying to save what they believe to be your soul. So fret not, smile, say "no thanks. I'd rather not convert." and live a long meaningful life with or without who you do or do not call God.

I understand you've grown tired of it, but please do not blame every head for what a single pair of lips have imposed.

 

But the real issue is sexual behavior of the young people and how we adults raise them to behave poorly.

"Believing" that sexual prudence comes from God is the easy way of doing the job, if the grown people would act like they believed in sexual prudence.


Biological, 2 parent home is safest environment for children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc...-environment-f

linky linky

and it's from the CDC no less

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that children living in traditional, two-parent biological families are overwhelmingly safer than children living with just one biological parent or with non-parental caregivers.

 

First it was atheists, now it's secular humanists, make your mind up. Also, "collective punishment" doesnt cut both ways. That's kind of the point.

 

Six of one, half a dozen of another. I have never heard of a Catholic Secular Humanist--can you point me to one?

As for collective punishment it does cut both ways unless you think we are part of one giant collective, which I do not. There can be more than one collective.

 

However, Christians are outspoken about the truth of certain matters.

Rev Martin Luther King spoke out about injustice in america, held massive group meeting that tied up traffic and got public attention for what he was saying.

If and when the Christians stand up against Child Abuse against the fatherless kids that we now have in half the families of America, people will notice and take side on the issue.



Biological, 2 parent home is safest environment for children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc...-environment-f

linky linky

and it's from the CDC no less

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that children living in traditional, two-parent biological families are overwhelmingly safer than children living with just one biological parent or with non-parental caregivers.

This issue of bastards filling our streets as harlots walk almost naked down the streets and Gays fight for marriage in public places which supports their promiscuous life styles before, during, and after those "marriages."

 

I am an atheist but I am not a secular humanist. I doubt all that many actually are. Not sure why you make that disingenuous catholic red herring though.

No, collective punishment is pretty close to the polar opposite of "cuts both ways". Maybe you should learn what the phrase means before arguing it.

 

Actually I don't give a damn whether they 'accept' homosexuality, or think sex before marriage is Naughty. While I disagree with both positions, that's not the stuff that drives me, personally, nuts. What I can't tolerate is the self-appointed virtue so many of them walk around with. And I'm not talking here about quiet focus on good works, I'm talking about the terrifically outmoded idea that they still have right of way in many western nations. The presumption is obnoxious, to say the least.

I'm not sure what you mean by the moral standards of Christians not being bad. Conservative people generally make the news less often than others, for sure, but it's chickens and eggs. Other than that, I would suggest that anyone who justifies genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, etc etc, just so that they can keep the teddy bear they had in childhood, isn't standing on firm moral ground.

 

Got no problem with that, but you are painting a large group of people with the actions or beliefs of the extremists. I very much doubt that there are many Christians who justify the things you describe.

 

actually, I refer to gentle and ostensibly moderate elders in my own country. so far removed from extremism as to not even warrant discussion on the same page. keeping in mind I live in a majority atheist western nation, also. this gives some idea of just how overt is the assumption of primacy, and the automatic expectation that all consider faith a virtue, and that religion is due veneration.

further, anyone who professes a belief in the bible and its dogma is necessarily excusing, if not justifying, the contents - unless they happen to have gone in morally bankrupt. the sweet little old ladies I refer to think nothing of telling their ghastly stories as though they're true, but not once registering any sign that these biblical events are more than a little dubious. if you can say these things out loud without it even registering on your evil-o-meter, you're well beyond the reach of plain old justification.

 

Glad that you agree that the Republican Party is extremist in their policies.

 

What further enrages me is religious people telling me (a non believer) that i cannot choose when i want to die (should i get an incureable painful illness) because that is gods job and life is so precious.

Meanwhile we keep people alive for years on something that was created by man. Are they against this? God didnt create it.

Grr!!