Liberal Atheists are at it again.

[Sparko]

It is not necessary to remove voluntary religion from government in order to ensure that involuntary religion is imposed on the populace. If you can't see the difference between members of government providing themselves and their employees with religious facilities vs government establishing a state religion, then you will never convince anyone who can.

Then why do they keep removing the 10 commandments and religious monuments from Government property? It is just Government providing for themselves and not imposing anything on the populous. It is government ground.

[Mountain Man]

Then why do they keep removing the 10 commandments and religious monuments from Government property? It is just Government providing for themselves and not imposing anything on the populous. It is government ground.

Because atheists have such low self-esteem that they're deathly afraid that any unbiased person who is confronted with religious truths will join our side instead of theirs.

Like Jerry Falwell once said, "What's the worst that can happen if we put the 10 Commandments on the wall of a public building? That people will read them, take them to heart, and put them into practice? Would that really be so bad?"

[One Bad Pig]

I appreciate you moving the goalposts. You're allegedly attempting to accurately represent my argument, remember?

[Cow Poke]

I disagree.

So, probably, do the vast majority of both atheists and agnostics, but this is Jimmy we're talking about.

[Jedidiah]

The difference is conservatives go by the things the founding fathers actually wrote. Liberals reinterpret according to their own political positions.

[Jedidiah]

There is definitely no need when there isn't a state religion.

I quite agree that there is no need for any religion to be discriminated against if there is no state church. It still happens. The point, if I may return to it, is that the congress shall make not law is aimed at eliminating a state denomination, not protecting any minority denomination. You are really simply telling me that laws are not magic.

[Jedidiah]

I will refrain from attempting to have any honest discussion with you since based on the above it is obviously impossible.

Because I point out that ff has never made any attempt to honest discussion, that means I would not do so? How does that work?

[firstfloor]

I appreciate you moving the goalposts. You're allegedly attempting to accurately represent my argument, remember?

at #172 - Calling the other side 'superstition' is hardly likely to achieve mutual understanding.

[firstfloor]

So, probably, do the vast majority of both atheists and agnostics, but this is Jimmy we're talking about.

[Cow Poke]

The difference may seem small, but atheism and agnosticism are actually vastly different worldviews.

Finally! The post I can amen!

[JimL]

well I think there is quite a bit of difference between atheism and agnosticism. So does your opinion override mine? If so then why would not the person who claims there is no difference between Christianity and Atheism not override your opinion?

After all, A Christians doesn't believe in 99.99% of the gods out there, just like an atheist!

Christianity, unlike agnosticism, is the exact opposite of atheism. So, poor analogy!

[One Bad Pig]

No, it's not.
When you're seeking mutual understanding, using something you KNOW is offensive seems rather counter-productive. That IS an issue here.

Sometimes I can be deliberately offensive because I know what you think and I want to draw attention to what I perceive as some incongruity or other.

Whatever floats your boat.
No, you're not. Again, however, deliberate offense is hardly likely to foster mutual understanding.

What I do want is to understand your position and make sure that I do not misrepresent it while still arguing against it, if it is worth doing so.

Respectfully, I don't believe you.

You did not explain why you think that your faith is not the same as superstition.

You haven't indicated any desire to know that. Further, your definition of 'superstition appears to be rather off.

From Merriam-Webster online:

Source: superstition

1 a :a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b :an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2 :a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

© Copyright Original Source

I object to being labeled 'superstitious' because not one of those definitions comes close to accurately describing my beliefs.

Well, no. I'm pretty sure you know that, too.
I don't recall you ever approaching me that way, let alone 'most of the time'.

Enjoy your break. Perhaps think on ways you can make your actions bear some resemblance to your words when you come back.

[Psychic Missile]

When those in power seek to suppress it.

Why would those in power suppress their own opinion? I'll quote myself in case you forgot: "Also, if you imagine a dominant minority scenario, you can assume I refer to that group when I say majority."

[rogue06]

Finally! The post I can amen!

You actually tried to report it but did a and are now trying to cover it up, didn't ya?

[Roy]

Then why do they keep removing the 10 commandments and religious monuments from Government property? It is just Government providing for themselves and not imposing anything on the populous. It is government ground.

Since when was having a monument of the 10 commandments necessary for Xtian worship? It is in no way a facility for religious observance. They don't even have them in churches.

You know this.