Freedom From Atheism

Sex...

The reason is that the trinity of these three religions are all focused upon maintaining a sexually prudent Culture so the fatherless kids, Welfare, and the bastard adults don't appear as criminals.
The atheists all condone, practice, or see no dangers in sexual promiscuity.

Religions, when successful, make Sodomy and adultery, and divorce, and abortions, illegal.
Atheists Ishtar-like feminists and the Eros Gays oppose this.
It is a religious war.

 

Yes, the battle today is verbal and legal.

Nevertheless, the use of ridicule and efforts to make Gayness and feminist slutting a common and wide open in the community activity can become as oppressive as the Blue Laws were before the Sexual Revolution of 1965.

 

In regard to sexual behavior, you mean.

The effect of promiscuity on the fatherless children which now number half of all births in America is one good reason that conservatives discriminate.
The liberal "fun" Gays and Feminists experience discounts these results.

 

No,, I want you to explain how gods not existing is a religion.

 

Sure. Things like polygamy tending to disfavour low status people, women in particular. Others argue that polygamy cheapens the commitment of marriage. There are also some arguments similar to the one-man-one-woman from the religious side.

Many religions have also promoted monogamy, so I don't see why an argument from one religious person to another would be atheistic. I am a big fan of semantics, and a cardinal rule of semantics is that if there is a word on which is disagreed upon or misunderstood, it needs to be explained (or avoided). Atheistic in the sense of not being theistic and in the sense of being associated with the disbelief in theism are different things (in this context for instance), so should be declared to be so if that's how you want to use it, and acknowledge that it might not be the same thing that others might want to use the word as.

The disbelief in gods has in itself no interest in who you marry. However, the secular agenda is to remove religious influences. While the two are linked and it's hard to imagine a non-secular atheist, it is not hard to imagine a non-atheist secularist, for instance, the leader for the secular Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a priest. Secularism supports non-bias in religious questions, and that can be embraced by religious people too, most often people in minority religions, but also majority religions.

A person of religion A, who lives in a country with a strong governmental influence from religion B, can justify his idea that he shouldn't have to conform to religion B with the argument that religion shouldn't have an influence in state matters (secularism) without thereby becoming an atheist, since he would still be of religion A. Clearly, interest in religion not having impact in politics is not the same as atheism.

I believe whether something is considered under the umbrella of religion should be irrelevant when it comes to law. The rules pertaining to religion are there for a reason, and to the extent the reasons apply to atheism, the laws should too. Thus, whether it is a religion is of little importance to me. Even if you managed to convince me that atheism, antitheism, secularism or something like that was a religion, it should have no impact on my actual arguments.

That being said, I do have an interest in linguistics. "How can it be anything but a religion if it has contrary religious 'beliefs' and 'practices'?", well, it could be a world view, a philosophy, an idea, political parties, a club, pretty much anything. It is easy for something with beliefs and practices not to be a religion in any traditional sense. Your criteria don't seem to be consistent with the common use of the word religion.

 

ok so you agree that the law takes sides with the atheists religion. Yes likewise gays can sing they are muff diving fooz while they go to another baker since violating religions rights is breach of organic law.

 

you have that backwards. if that is what you believe then you would send your children to a school that supplies you with all male teachers. Its not like schools surprise attack you with who is going to teach you.

Rejecting discrimination is rejecting freedom of choice, how about instead we accept discrimination instead of violating everyones religious rights? Keep in mind had that been done gays would have been able to marry since the beginning of time

 

Hardly, its what you said stop pretending lol

So you agree then that the gvmnt is stomping on and violating the rights of the people.

I didnt see the caveat in blue when I read it.

 

I want freedom from all of you.

 

its a belief not a fact.

just like theists!

 

you need to reread and understand the issue. It does not mean free ones self from atheist influence it means free ones self from being victims of atheist overlords. BIG difference.

 

Freedom of Religion doesn't give you the right to discriminate in housing, employment, or business.

Sorry, but we have evolved.

 

Sorry but you are creating a strawman just the other person did since you are including actions that do not involve religion (at least I cant think of a way some of them could involve religion) and mixing them in with religion and conclude they are all religious based. Well they are not and religion does not include every 'possible' human action on the planet.

 

and those who understand it in its correct context know it means a member of a 'franchise' gvmnt.

 

You are claiming that a nonsecular law is secular just because the gvmnt made the law. That is a ridiculous position and it assumes that the gvmnt is incapable of corruption. Do you know the difference?

Again once the gvmnt takes a position against anyones religion by any method they have violated the highest law of the land and are in breach of contract.

 

absolutely!

in Christian schools.

Not in Jewish schools, not in schools organized under any other religion.

that is the nature of religion and the foundation for a community.

you on the other hand seem to think we should live in a Borg society.

Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated!

 

People today have been trained to think in terms too narrow or too broad based upon how well it serves mob think.

Since you claim to have some background in linguistics (and by far the best opposing post I have seen at this point), where atheists make their big mistake is that disbelief is identical to do not believe. There is 100% no semantic, philosophical, theological, metaphysical difference between "I disbelieve the existence of God, or I do not believe there is a God). I literally busted a gut the first time I heard that one. Its right up there with the lacker theory, both designed to capture the hearts and minds of the illiterate.

Its impossible to 'be' a secularist however its purely possible to make a secular choice in the sense secular means 100% neutral which the exact opposite is at the core of this matter.

You omit the fact that when a gvmnt takes a position that is contrary to someones religious belief and practice they have established themselves to be the antithesis of that persons religion, hence the establishment of their religion not as an overtly organized church but by subterfuge on a point by point issue by issue basis which serves to undermine all theist religions of said country. Just a more innovative under the radar approach.

It does have an impact on your arguments as you have just shown.

Your conclusion is illogical. Worse it proposes that you believe in an omnipotent state which would be 100% in violation of the rights we the people reserved in the first amendment when we consented to be governed. You realise that would be breach of contract by the gvmnt I presume? The only person capable of not having a religion is someone who is dead, or brain dead.

Religions are comprised of beliefs, they need not be facts, and in law facts have no need to even be true or just or fair in their final analysis for court purposes. Hence the failure of law in the first place.

Taking that to is obvious conclusion how can gay be against a religion for thousands of years then an atheist come along and solely by virtue of being an atheist magically no longer be a religious matter? How can I take that seriously since it is patently absurd but it is after all one of the main themes atheists use.

On the contrary its impossible for something with beliefs and practices 'not' to be a religion since philosophical analysis tells us that its the core 'substantial' definition of religion in the first place.

 

well you cant be free from someone with a different religious persuasion than yourself. I dont think you can find any 2 people on the planet regardless of what religion they claim to have a summarily identical religion. It simply cant happen. What the first amendment is designed to do however is to keep one religion from dominating over all others, through the state and regardless of any label they wish to place on 'their' religion which includes the titles such as 'state' and 'secular' and so forth.

 

Why do some people have such a hard time understanding that secularism/atheism is NOT a religion. Think of it this way, what color is a Talosian's hair?

 

Me thinks you doth protest to much.
There is no issue, but some made up fantasy in your head.

 

Discriminate to your hearts content. Just don't do it publicly where it may be against the law. Unless you want the consequences. But personally, you have every right to discriminate, unless you take someones constitutional rights away while doing.
If that bothers you, living in the free USA is the wrong country for you.

 

Where do I begin with this?

1. Atheism is not a religion. If you think atheism is a religion, then tell me the difference between atheism and being non-religious.

2. You're an atheist towards all the gods you don't believe in. Is your atheism towards Zeus a "religion"?

3. Atheists don't assault people. If anyone assaults, it's the religious folks in the Middle East. You know exactly what I'm talking about. And let's not forget that Christian woman in the south who refused to give marriage licenses or whatever to gay people. How dare she impose her religion. Of course, the religious are a majority so they don't see how religious the world is and how insufferable it can be. You folks sure love the smell of your own (*)(*)(*)(*).

4. Even though it's unconstitutional to require a candidate for public office to be tested on their religious faith or to require a candidate to profess a certain faithh as a prerequisite for assuming office, at least eight states forbid atheists from holding public office. Oh, the hypocrisy of you (*)(*)(*)(*)-smelling loons.

5. Speaking of big government, most Founding Fathers were federalists. Case you haven't noticed, the anti-federalists lost the debate when the Constitution was ratified.

6. America was not founded as a Christian nation. Was not. NOT.

 

No as the law effects a baker no matter if the baker is a Christian or an atheist.

Moot point as secular law trumps religious rights and organic law.

 

Laws limit rights as all things are not permissible in our society.

Moot point as the law is as I perceive it as demonstrated by the ruling against the baker. Likely for every law out there there are those who feel that their rights are being infringed upon.

 

Yes I can. You know how I can? I can kill every single one of you.