Master Debater
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About cuchulain

  • Rank
    Stoic Atheist
  • Birthday 03/24/1978

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
  • Religious Affiliation
    stoic atheist
  • Marital Status
  • Ordination Date

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    citizen of the world
  • Interests
    reading, friends, philosophical studies, dungeons and dragons, science fiction, logic. Trying to understand others, and get them to understand me.

Recent Profile Visitors

2,056 profile views
  1. And the reason why abortion was illegal? It certainly wasn't the consideration of the people, but rather the condemnation of the church. That's my bottom line. When the church interferes with the law, bad things result.
  2. Recently it seems to be an issue. Thought I would make a topic about it. Now, the issue itself can be argued, HAS been argued. Did the framers intend for there to be an actual separation of church and state? Both sides of the debate have valid arguments, in my opinion. BUT...that was a long time ago, now wasn't it? I would like to think that as a country we have grown beyond nearly worshiping what the framers of the constitution intended. That we can think for ourselves on today's terms. So what I am asking is this: Should the separation of church and state exist, and how far should it go? Seems to me that it does exist to a certain extent, I of the most powerful, most infiltrating, most feared government bodies already enforces it. Just preach politics behind the pulpit and see what happens to that tax exemption. My view is that the separation is important. Not only for the rights of those like me, who are in the minority in this country. Look at scientific research. I remember big debates and grand speeches about the evils of stem cell research. The evils of abortion. Does anyone remember living in a time when abortion was flat out illegal? You don't have to remember, you can do research and see what happened. I think the term was back alley abortion? How many lives lost because of that? Of course, some Christian groups claim that the people who lost their lives were murderers and deserved it. I find such judgement from a Christian to be hypocritical at best. Prohibition? I doubt, seriously, that anyone here remembers that in their lives. At least in terms of alcohol. But what about the war on Marijuana? In school, I knew that if I wanted it I could easily obtain it. Lot's of kids did. The point? We try to outlaw something, and it makes it worse than it was. Not in all cases, certainly. But enough that we should consider our actions. Some of these particulars were initiated by church influence. So, my conclusion is that separation of church and state doesn't go far enough. I would like to see churches lose their special tax exemptions. I think if I pay taxes, the preacher certainly can too. A special claim might be made at the time of filing for charitable deeds, I think. Make that deductible. But otherwise, make it just like any other business. Keep prayer through the auspices of school officials out of school, unless it's a private school. If my tax dollars are going to it, they need to respect my beliefs(or lack of beliefs), and teach my kid science. Not the bible as literature, which is usually a poorly disguised conversion session. I don't want to see the ten commandments on court house property or in any other publicly owned parcel. Just like I don't want to see any OTHER religion represented in those places. You want a monument to the ten commandments? Let the church take up a collection, buy a piece of land, and put one up. I don't even care WHERE you buy the land, so long as it's privately owned. Want to put it directly across from the courthouse? Hey, if it's yours, go for it. Don't throw a fit if someone else does the same thing though. A little hypocritical to protest the removal of the ten commandments while calling for a Mosque to be shut down, don't you think? And let's get politics out of science, at least a little bit. I mean really, creationism is NOT a theory, by the scientific standard. Therefore it should NOT be taught in school science classes. There are no hypothesis, observations, testing, and conclusions given to what the church desperately wants to call a theory. It's not a theory if you cannot test it. That's basic elementary school science. It's a hypothesis. That's my view.
  3. You ask what's the harm? First, let's reverse it. Simple enough, isn't it? What's the harm in the government removing, or not allowing, the ten commandments on court house properties? What's the harm in removing "In God We Trust" from license plates, and the backs of all the police vehicles? It certainly wouldn't hurt you at all to do so, God as you have posited wouldn't mind. He's certainly not a vengeful God who would smite all of us for simply removing those words, would he? wouldn't hurt Christians at all to remove those words from PUBLIC property, and leave them on private. Next, small harms add up, don't they? So they let it be on license plates. So what. Right? No big deal. And that, "In God We Trust" on the back of all the police vehicles? Surely no harm can come from that. I mean, if I don't believe it isn't like it''s threatening or anything. And it's not. And hey, there's a precedent for it now, government allowing religion in. So let's go ahead and add some prayer in school(which has been in contention in the state of Georgia, which DOES allow all that other, by the way). Prayer in school, not mandatory, so if you are an Atheist, or some other religion, you don't HAVE to participate. No harm, right? Wait, we have a little more precedent now, don't we? Let's slip in some Creationism in science class. Oh, I don't mean REMOVE evolution, but we should certainly put in that equally valid Creationism as an alternative theory, right? Never mind that nobodies ever shown me the hypothesis, observations, testing, and results of that THEORY...which means it isn't. It would hurt the Christians who insisted on "In God We Trust" feelings if they didn't get extra attention. What's the harm? It's Government disrespecting one specific group of people in the state and country. If the Government chooses not to respect Atheist rights, why should any of the citizens? So, an Atheist in Georgia sits in his house instead of advertising his religious preferences. Because vandalism DOES happen in this state. Look it up. Specifically targeting Atheists. And the result of police calls(To police who go to school and hear prayer, and have "In God We Trust" on the back of their vehicle)? Rarely does anyone get caught. Even less than usual, in consideration of other vandalism crimes. That's the harm. It snowballs. And in Georgia, it IS the state endorsing one specific religion. Let's not fool ourselves. They don't mean Allah when they put that on their plates, and everyone knows it. They don't mean Taranis the Thunderer, or Zeus, or whoever you want to put in place. They mean specifically the Christian God. Now here's the thing. A majority of this state is most definitely Christian. But majority rules shouldn't interfere with the rights of those in the minority. And how long before the majority becomes a specific BRANCH of Christianity? Maybe one day, the state legislature is predominantly Baptist. Not bad for the Baptists. They pass legislation specifically geared for Baptists. Never mind that the Catholics want to practice their way, after all they are just the minority. And another harm? How do you think funding passes for things like STEM CELL RESEARCH? You think the Christians in the senate let that go through? Certainly not, not with their churches telling them how evil it is. And abortion. And other laws...I seem to remember reading something about Christian influence and prohibition, which led to a LOT more trouble than the alcohol did on it's own. That's the harm. But even without all that, how would YOU, as a Christian, feel...if the state decided to allow a sticker on the plates that said, "All hail Satan", and not anything else? Or, "Praise be to Allah"? I have NO QUALMS whatsoever about anyone practicing whatever religion they want to, in the privacy of their own homes or churches. Or, even if they want to have a public event on public property, like a park, and they pay the fee like everyone else. Let the religion protest in the streets if they file the proper paperwork, let anyone who wants believe and praise Jesus to the end of their days loudy and often and have a good time doing it. If you own a business and want to follow a Christian business model, like Hobby Lobby, great. It's your business, not mine, right? It's not Uncle Sam in their doing your books and keeping things going, do what you want. Jolly. Just keep it off Government documents and funding. What's the harm in THAT?
  4. ga. i allegedly have the right of equality in government endorsement of religion. if they violate that, it is harm to my right. i do not disagree that the government endorses jesus christ, merely that two wrongs dont make it right. also further examples that christians are clearly favored, and from your own mouth, so to speak. apologies are due to you for the previous messages tone and phrasing. i should not have said i would call you a liar.
  5. You are correct, in the literal sense. There is nothing in the phrase that specifies one religion. How about that? Now, using your brain, think about the state I live in and tell me honestly that you don't think they meant the Christian the way, if you do, I will directly call you a liar.
  6. its the one that's left out...
  7. No, it only costs the government, which is supposed not to endorse any religion, the respect of the common Atheist. Too high a price, in my opinion, but not in the opinion of my state's lawmakers.
  8. I might do that, but I would hate to pester. Probably I will just use the will power and stop reading and responding to the particular persons messages. But I do appreciate the response And no, it isn't you. You are too nice to ignore.
  9. Proud of my interpretation of the bible, certainly. Not necessarily proud that I foisted that representation onto others.
  10. if god were eternal and constant, why no more burning bushes or big stone tablets? when he changed, was he not perfect before or after the change? if he wrote knowledge of himself on our hearts, all the hullabaloo was unnecessary in the beginning, wasn't it?
  11. Should it be an absolute right if it puts another person in jeopardy? Take the hypothetical of a little girl raised by church parents that believe if God wants her to live he will heal her. And she dies. Should the parents be held accountable for negligence, or does the first amendment trump that?
  12. are always respectful. And I don't find you annoying in the least
  13. We had a pretty regular member for a while who was flat out calling other members stupid. He got warned for that. So far as most discussions go here, as long as you question the belief, ask about specific points, and try to be respectful, I think you'll do fine. There is nothing wrong with calling on someone in a debate to reconsider their position, especially if you have evidence why such should be reconsidered. As in all discussions, some people get offended by the very idea that they should be questioned. I remember one in particular, Child of God. He made some bold claims about being an emissary of God, and God giving him an inside scoop and such. Specifically, he talked to Angels. Not those exact words...but I paraphrase. I told him that if he could get one of those angels to tell him the exact bible phrase I wrote down randomly, that I would consider his position. Frustrated him something fierce. Then you have members who seem to take almost any kind of abuse thrown their way with good grace. I haven't seen them around lately, which isn't uncommon. Members pop up for a while, then take a break from the headaches we all cause each other, then come back. The rules of service are pretty fair, though. No personal attacks. That's fairly simple. Just don't name call, or tell people they have no brain, or something like that. I can say, for example, that I personally find Christianity abhorrent and a complete waste of resources. That's an example, and not necessarily true, by the way, but I can say that. So long as I don't tell someone they are abhorrent and a complete waste of resources.
  14. It appears a lot of us are on our own for technical issues, perhaps. Guess I will just have to use that good ole will power and ignore the posts of the person in particular.
  15. one difference though. the property and stones were originally private owned whereas the ten commandments issues seem to be always public first.