Atheists: why the Christians?

[sandy whitelinger]

you are kidding right?
if any of these reasons affects one person it affect all of us.


the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
theocracy [θɪˈɒkrəsɪ]
n pl -cies
1. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) government by a deity or by a priesthood
2. (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a community or political unit under such government
theocrat n
theocratic , theocratical adj
theocratically adv
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
theocracy
1. a system of government in which God or a deity is held to be the civil ruler; thearchy.
2. a system of government by priests; hagiarchy.
3. a state under such a form of rule.


theocracy - definition of theocracy by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.


Definition of THEOCRACY

1
: government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2
: a state governed by a theocracy
See theocracy defined for English-language learners »

the·oc·ra·cy /θiˈɑ:krəsi/ noun
plural the·oc·ra·cies
1 [noncount] : a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders
2 [count] : a country that is ruled by religious leaders

Theocracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
i didn't know english was your second language...


apparently you don't know how congress works...

well it's really interesting when someone voices their opinion that happens to challenge theology, it gets gets censored...
i mentioned there was a time an atheist couldn't testify in court...
and i recall bush senior calling atheists unpatriotic.

Generally you are more coherent than this. Pick a definition out of all of those you wish to debate.

I understand how congress works. Explain how that had anything to do with my statement.

 

[waitasec]

Generally you are more coherent than this. Pick a definition out of all of those you wish to debate.

I understand how congress works. Explain how that had anything to do with my statement.

you said:

Now, since no Christian is running for office that I know of who is claiming to be the "immediate divine guidance" then that doesn't apply.

theocracy is a government ruled by religious leaders...
in our case it's the leaders who adhere to christian ideologies in regards to
morality... i think it would be immoral to take a way an individuals equal rights then to let them use it.

how often do you here politicians talk about their religion...?
is obama a muslim or a christian?

i just thought of the movie the minority report (i think that's what it's called)...did you ever see that?
somehow the actions of individuals in the future are made known and the moral police go out and arrest the individual before the act is even committed...
is that the ideal state you are looking to live in? is that living in a free society?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

you said:


theocracy is a government ruled by religious leaders...
in our case it's the leaders who adhere to christian ideologies in regards to
morality... i think it would be immoral to take a way an individuals equal rights then to let them use it.

how often do you here politicians talk about their religion...?
is obama a muslim or a christian?

i just thought of the movie the minority report (i think that's what it's called)...did you ever see that?
somehow the actions of individuals in the future are made known and the moral police go out and arrest the individual before the act is even committed...
is that the ideal state you are looking to live in? is that living in a free society?

You seem to be all over the place here. we are a country governed by a rule of law that is supposed to be constrained by Federal and State Constitutions. That a person of religious conviction might run and win office and follow the gudelines of their faith in no way constitutes changing America into a theocracy.

 

[Commoner]

You seem to be all over the place here. we are a country governed by a rule of law that is supposed to be constrained by Federal and State Constitutions. That a person of religious conviction might run and win office and follow the gudelines of their faith in no way constitutes changing America into a theocracy.

What do you mean, "might"?

 

[waitasec]

You seem to be all over the place here. we are a country governed by a rule of law that is supposed to be constrained by Federal and State Constitutions.

yes supposed to be

That a person of religious conviction might run and win office and follow the gudelines of their faith in no way constitutes changing America into a theocracy.

sure it has.

If you take a look at the changing religious demographics of Congress over the last 49 years, you'll find that Christians - Protestant and Catholic - have maintained solid representation. No surprise then that Congress has remained committed to the defense of the National Day of Prayer, the words "under God" in the pledge, the National Motto "In God We Trust," and more recently the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial.

Religious Right Now: No gods, no masters, no members of Congress - On Faith at washingtonpost.com

Faith on the Hill: The Religious Composition of the 112th Congress - Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

 

[Copernicus]

You seem to be all over the place here. we are a country governed by a rule of law that is supposed to be constrained by Federal and State Constitutions. That a person of religious conviction might run and win office and follow the gudelines of their faith in no way constitutes changing America into a theocracy.

That rather depends on which guidelines they follow, doesn't it? It is possible for one's faith to be in conflict with the law. For example, one might believe that a religious doctrine should be made part of the science curriculum and enforce a rule to that effect as an administrator. Governor Perry of Texas has claimed that his state actually enforces this practice. (Or he seemed to, anyway. He has a tendency to use the same language to send different messages to different audiences.) It is a clear violation of the Constitution according to our system of federal courts.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That rather depends on which guidelines they follow, doesn't it? It is possible for one's faith to be in conflict with the law. For example, one might believe that a religious doctrine should be made part of the science curriculum and enforce a rule to that effect as an administrator. Governor Perry of Texas has claimed that his state actually enforces this practice. (Or he seemed to, anyway. He has a tendency to use the same language to send different messages to different audiences.) It is a clear violation of the Constitution according to our system of federal courts.

But does that raise the level of our federal government to a theocracy? Or the state of Texas for that matter?

 

[Copernicus]

But does that raise the level of our federal government to a theocracy? Or the state of Texas for that matter?

I think that it is a matter of degree. We have a de facto religious test to hold public office in this country. If it were to become de jure, doctors would be accused of murder for performing abortions, and science teachers would be forced to teach religious doctrine as if it were science, then it would be hard to argue that we had a secular government any longer. We would have something very much like a traditional theocracy, where religious principles became a basis for the law rather than civic principles.

 

[IsmailaGodHasHeard]

I have noticed this, and I am annoyed by it as well. I believe that people who not know Jesus will be hostile to people that do.

 

[Copernicus]

I have noticed this, and I am annoyed by it as well. I believe that people who not know Jesus will be hostile to people that do.

I think that you could call me, an apostate Episcopalian, someone who does not "know" Jesus. Most of my friends and relatives are Christians, and I still love them. I am happy to debate with believers about the existence of gods on this web site, but I do not let that affect my respect for people of faith or friendship with them. Heck, I have even had friends who were Communists and libertarians.

 

[Meow Mix]

I have noticed this, and I am annoyed by it as well. I believe that people who not know Jesus will be hostile to people that do.

That's not true. Many Christians have many friends who aren't Christian. Many of my friends are Christian, and I'm an atheist.

 

[Quiddity]

That's not true. Many Christians have many friends who aren't Christian. Many of my friends are Christian, and I'm an atheist.

It's the opposite for me. Most my friends are either of a different faith, agnostic, or atheist. Don't know why that is....

 

[darkstar]

As a reply to the OP. I have a few friends that are Christian and a few friends that are also Atheist. We all generally get along. However, that being said, my Christian friends also see the reasoning behind Atheists' attacks on Christianity. You don't see many Buddhists or Pagans telling people that they're going to hell.
Also, having lived in an area with many Muslims, I can honestly say that most Muslims are willing to talk to you about their faith but I haven't been told that I'm going to hell by any Muslims in all the time that I lived in said area.
I HAVE been told I'm going to hell by many Christians. And why? Because I was wearing a pagan symbol around my neck and I was behind them in line at the grocery store.

Generally it's because there is a very outspoken and misled number of people that identify themselves as Christian, that actively go out and attack other people's viewpoints. The atheists that attack Christianity do it because "Christians" attack everyone else. It's also mainly having to do with the fact that it's one of the largest religions in the world, and most Atheists likely come from this background.

 

[Tellurian]

I can understand the reasoning for not believing in any sort of deity. However, it seems to me that most of the time atheists focus only on how wrong Christianity is, forgoing other religions. It isn't often that you see atheists saying how ridiculous Buddhism or Sikhism or Hinduism or whatever is. Why is that?
To clarify, this is TOTALLY not a "stop picking on the Christians" thread. D: I just noticed a pattern.

When and where do you see the Buddhists, Sikhs, or Hindus attacking the Atheists? Is it right or wrong for the Christians to be attacking the Atheists? Atheists often feel they have to defend their right to be Atheists from the attacks by the Christians. Atheists are discriminated against in several states by laws that say Atheists are not allowed to run for public office. Even though there is supposed to be a separation of religion from government in the USA the Christians keep pushing their beliefs onto others and corrupting our patriotic traditions by adding their religious belief to the Pledge, putting their religious advertising on our currency, taking taxpayer monies for their religious faith based initiatives, and having taxpayers spend exorbitant amounts for congressional and military clergy.

Christians have a long history extending from 391 CE in which they have slaughtered millions of people who did not believe as they did. The following is just one example of Christian hatred of Atheists that require the Atheists to stand up and defend themselves against the Christians:

Christian wants atheist registry - National atheism | Examiner.com

 

[Awoon]

All my friends are Human regardless of the labels they hide behind.

Has science ever determined, Christian, Catholic, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, Toaist, Buddhist or any other religious DNA in any Human?

 

[T-Dawg]

Wow, so much misunderstanding contained in one sentence. Which part of your life is "threatened" by Christianity and where did you come up with that bit of rubbish about Christians wanting to turn America into a theocracy? Do you know what a theocracy is?

Ooh, I forgot about this thread. I'll bite:

Yes, I know what a theocracy is. To put it briefly, a government ruled dominantly by religious doctrine, usually manifesting itself through a priestly upper class. In the case of Christianity, Christians fundamentally support God's divine kingdom over the (real) States that they live in. Since God's kingdom has the slight problem of not existing in any tangible way outside of the followers on earth who support said kingdom, Christians, or at least those who make Christianity the main focus of their life (as any real Christian would do), will generally wish to hijack the State in order to advance their religious agenda. I know this because I GREW UP AROUND CHRISTIANS (and most of the ones I've interacted with since conform to this as well) - it's not a secret that Christians want to spread their cult by any means necessary; it's in the Bible.
For example, many states within the United States at one time had provisions in their constitutions barring atheists from holding elected office (some states still have these laws).
More importantly, however, Christians want to advance their social agenda. I'm all for advancing social agendas, but in this case, the social agenda is a very bad one: Outlawing "deviant" sexual acts (ie, homosexuality), teaching creationism in schools as science, having public schools encouraging children to pray, cutting off women's right to have abortions, etc. (And these are just their goals for when they AREN'T in power! Traditionally, when Christians have been in power, their laws include the persecution of "heretics," crushing scientific progress if it is believed to contradict Church dogma, forced conversion of pagans, outlawing Christmas [yes, the real "War on Christmas" were perpetrated by fundamentalist Christians, specifically Puritans], trying to conquer the Holy Land, executing witches...)

 

[JMorris]

i choose christians because they smell like lilacs.

 

[Otherright]

All my friends are Human regardless of the labels they hide behind.

Has science ever determined, Christian, Catholic, Hindu, Atheist, Muslim, Toaist, Buddhist or any other religious DNA in any Human?

No, that's because religion is a learned behavior. There may be predispositions toward belief, but the flavor of belief is nurture, not nature.

 

[Awoon]

No, that's because religion is a learned behavior. There may be predispositions toward belief, but the flavor of belief is nurture, not nature.

I notice your religion is posting in here

 

[Otherright]

I notice your religion is posting in here

Actually, I'm more of a, for lack of better term, Secular Buddhist.