Opposing Views: Sick of Hearing Christians Claim "Religious Discrimination"

[Balcerzak]

What I am saying is that atheists won't get anywhere by trying to force Christians to do things like not pray in school. The reason why is simple. You outlaw it, and even if your goal was to ban forced prayer for all students, you are going to instill the image of cruel teachers swooping down on preschool kids praying quietly in a corner before snacktime. Instead of, say, presenting it as a issue of rights (I have freedom of speech and I want the right to not say things I don't believe. Ergo, I shouldn't be forced to pray in school) which would result in probably getting a decent portion of Christians on their side.

You're misrepresenting the issue. The school prayer debate has never been about individual prayer on a student's own time. It has always been about state-sponsored prayer, either de jure or de facto. It has indeed always been represented as an issue of rights, and the fact that sponsored prayer fosters an attitude of conformance and support that prohibits a student's ability to keep quiet, even if not for technical grounds (depending on the particular regulations in place), then for social ones. The fact of the matter is, even when presented, pursued, and defended as a matter of rights, many Christian leaders have fought violently against such reform, and are in fact, still struggling to allow the reinstatement of state-sponsored prayer in schools, sometimes attempting to weasel their way out of it by not having a school employee be the one leading the prayer, but instead deferring it to a student acting in a leadership capacity of an official school club. This is still entirely different than a student, of their own will, quietly and unobtrusively praying whenever they like.

And despite this, there has been no common Christian support rallying behind this issue of free rights, like you claim their ought to be.

As for taking it to court, would you mind to explain why the heck you shouldn't? Seriously, in the issue presented here, whining about it online is akin to there being a flood and you complaining about your socks getting wet. I don't know state laws (and highly suspect there is likely an amendment that allows atheists in), but if you want the discrimination to end, you won't get far by spiting people instead of trying to work to resolve it.

Reasons why bringing the issue to court may not work:

• Standing. It was the reason why Newdow case was dismissed.
  
• Legal fees. If you can manage to attract the attention of the ACLU, you're probably okay, but for the average joe, civil court is usually out of their league.
  
• Proper order. Courts should be used as the final method of recourse. By the time you can utilize a court, the harm has already been incurred, and at best you can receive compensation for it. Preventing the harm is always preferable.

Bringing to light these issues to the general public, canvassing for awareness of the issue, and trying to sway and convince others is by no means spitting on anyone, and is in fact one of these necessary steps to attempt to reach a peaceful resolution of the issue.

Furthermore, North Carolina:

ARTICLE VI

SUFFRAGE AND ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE

Sec. 6. Eligibility to elective office.

Every qualified voter in North Carolina who is 21 years of age, except as in this Constitution disqualified, shall be eligible for election by the people to office.

Sec. 7. Oath.

Before entering upon the duties of an office, a person elected or appointed to the office shall take and subscribe the following oath:

"I, ..........................., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of North Carolina not inconsistent therewith, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of my office as ............................................., so help me God."

Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

Arkansas

Article 19.

Miscellaneous Provisions.

1. Atheists disqualified from holding office or testifying as witness.

No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

Maryland:

Art. 36. That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally

entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore, no person ought by any law to be molested in his person or estate, on account of

his religious persuasion, or profession, or for his religious practice, unless, under the color of religion, he shall disturb the good order, peace

or safety of the State, or shall infringe the laws of morality, or injure others in their natural, civil or religious rights; nor ought any person to

be compelled to frequent, or maintain, or contribute, unless on contract, to maintain, any place of worship, or any ministry; nor shall any

person, otherwise competent, be deemed incompetent as a witness, or juror, on account of his religious belief; provided, he believes in the

existence of God, and that under His dispensation such person will be held morally accountable for his acts, and be rewarded or punished

therefor either in this world or in the world to come.

Nothing shall prohibit or require the making reference to belief in, reliance upon, or invoking the aid of God or a Supreme Being in any

governmental or public document, proceeding, activity, ceremony, school, institution, or place.

Nothing in this article shall constitute an establishment of religion (amended by Chapter 558, Acts of 1970, ratified Nov. 3, 1970).

Art. 37. That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust

in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any

other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

Mississippi:

SECTION 265.

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

South Carolina:

ARTICLE XVII.

MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS

[...]

SECTION 4. Supreme Being.

No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennesse:

ARTICLE IX

Disqualifications.

Section 1. Whereas ministers of the Gospel are by their profession, dedicated

to God and the care of souls, and ought not to be diverted from the great duties of

their functions; therefore, no minister of the Gospel, or priest of any denomination

whatever, shall be eligible to a seat in either House of the Legislature.

Section 2. No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards

and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas:

ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS

That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:

[...]

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Edited May 23, 2010 by Balcerzak

[Kanami]

You're crazy Bal XD

I think the issue of why it shouldn't be taken to court is covered heavily enough now. Though I will make the remark "Stupid Americans, they'll sue for anything" (Would like to note, that's just an external (Non-American sentiment that exists where I live, and while I can't say I disagree with it, I am fully aware it doesn't apply to most/large portion of Americans)

I went to (what I assume to be) a Christian Highschool (Not in the US) and while they were rather lax on the forced prayer part, (didn't have to turn up) it was highly recommended, and there were constant rumors about it being beneficial to your appearance which would be unfairly transferred to the teachers opinion of you. (Must be Christian to become a teacher there). Whether these rumors were true of not were never confirmed, but there were definitely traces of it from my experience.

We did however sacrifice what is usually know as 'Career Education' for 'Christian Education.'

The former was what most other non-religious based school taught and it was mainly about how to apply for jobs, and finding what sort of course you'd take in future if you went to College, or what sort of apprenticeship people were looking for in the workplace.

Christian Ed however told us how god was great, study on the bible, and all this other stuff "I" don't care for. And essentially was a waste of time (No it was not an elective, but a core class to ones graduation)

Though I guess that's what you get for going to a private school XD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway personal experiences aside, I doubt it's possible for anyone to say "You can't pray here" while obviously, a Mosque wouldn't be ideal to confess your sins to the Holy Father, They can't exactly punish you for thinking/closing your eyes in prayer.

On the other hand though, compulsory classes like the one I explained above, the door knockings, invitations by strangers to come to their sunday session, really are an annoyance, and while I don't 'hate' Christians or any religious folk, I don't exactly like them either.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Going back to my personal experiences, one teacher in particular tried to force strongly encourage my participation in a Sunday session (School on a Sunday? Bleh). And after awhile I told him I was Buddhist (I'm not, and he'd implied I was an atheist before hand) I quote his exact words "That's fine, you should still come. Then you'll see that Buddhism is rubbish."

Honestly though, religion is like politics, one party wants you to follow them, and the other wants to pull you away. As if politics wasn't bad enough. While I agree that religion is used more as a medium to validate the actions of war, I still don't think that equates to Religion not having anything to do with war.

As for me, I switched to a different school, after 2 years, and for the last 6 months, some of the teachers were so persistent that I started calling myself an Anti-Christian to make them go away. Though I received a fair share of hatred from my peers XD

Edited May 23, 2010 by Nadesico

[Strawman]

I have only 1 very simple thing to say on this topic.

Most religions, yes even including Christianity(of which I am follower,are not even close to being followed and represented as they should be. Unfortunately, many(but not all) Christiians do not truly represent the Bible as they claim. The same goes for other religions I'm sure. Also not all Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc, are exactly alike and therefore making extremly generalized stereotypical statements just makes anyone who says them sound biased and uninformed.

[Snowy_One]

You're misrepresenting the issue. The school prayer debate has never been about individual prayer on a student's own time. It has always been about state-sponsored prayer, either de jure or de facto. It has indeed always been represented as an issue of rights, and the fact that sponsored prayer fosters an attitude of conformance and support that prohibits a student's ability to keep quiet, even if not for technical grounds (depending on the particular regulations in place), then for social ones. The fact of the matter is, even when presented, pursued, and defended as a matter of rights, many Christian leaders have fought violently against such reform, and are in fact, still struggling to allow the reinstatement of state-sponsored prayer in schools, sometimes attempting to weasel their way out of it by not having a school employee be the one leading the prayer, but instead deferring it to a student acting in a leadership capacity of an official school club. This is still entirely different than a student, of their own will, quietly and unobtrusively praying whenever they like.

And despite this, there has been no common Christian support rallying behind this issue of free rights, like you claim their ought to be.

Why would they want to rally when so many charming little stories like this abound?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=94397

Now, I understand perfectly that teachers are human too and there are idiots/asses of teachers (one of my friends had his grade bombed because he missed a unimportant class which he had already completed the work for to attend a important class meeting with another teacher for example), but so long as incidents like the above happen, there won't be much headway PR wise. I'm not against the idea of making it so that no student is forced to pray to a student in a public school. In fact, I fully support that no student should be forced to pray to any deity in a public school (private is a different matter). However, conversely, wanting to have the freedom to not say something needs to go hand in hand with the freedom to say something as well. If you go out and try to demand that things relating to Christianity, prayer, or anything of the sort be removed from school, though your intentions may not be wrong, you will come off as a monster seeking to silence innocent children, whom may not know any better. As-is, it isn't a question of the right of free speech at all. It's the exact opposite. It comes off as an attempt to silence one specific group of people from doing something that they view as not only harmless to the people around them, but as being an important part of their beliefs.

This is a large part of the reason why Christians don't want anything to do with atheists. Atheists tend to desire things which are opposed to modern Christian ideals, present them in ways which leave open a lot of room for interpretation, and then all it takes is a few idiots acting like idiots and overreacting to things they either probably shouldn't have or, if they should have, could easily be seen as both monstrous and against the first amendment (like breaking up a group of students quietly praying behind the school before class on finals day). When such things happen, what do you expect the response to be?

As for your list of laws, I don't doubt that they exist. With a large portion of the country having been founded by people fleeing persecution, it's not surprising. Plus, in a ('true') democratic society, the popular opinion goes, regardless of intelligence. However, when I claim ignorance of state law, I also include ignorance of laws repealing other laws. Often times, when laws get repealed (especially in constitutions) they don't get removed instead of simply being rendered null and void. In order to render all those laws inert, all it would take would be one short paragraph of a law stating their inertness. I don't doubt that those laws exist, but I do not know if they are still active. That is important as well.

[Balcerzak]

Why would they want to rally when so many charming little stories like this abound?

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=94397

Now, I understand perfectly that teachers are human too and there are idiots/asses of teachers (one of my friends had his grade bombed because he missed a unimportant class which he had already completed the work for to attend a important class meeting with another teacher for example), but so long as incidents like the above happen, there won't be much headway PR wise. I'm not against the idea of making it so that no student is forced to pray to a student in a public school. In fact, I fully support that no student should be forced to pray to any deity in a public school (private is a different matter). However, conversely, wanting to have the freedom to not say something needs to go hand in hand with the freedom to say something as well. If you go out and try to demand that things relating to Christianity, prayer, or anything of the sort be removed from school, though your intentions may not be wrong, you will come off as a monster seeking to silence innocent children, whom may not know any better. As-is, it isn't a question of the right of free speech at all. It's the exact opposite. It comes off as an attempt to silence one specific group of people from doing something that they view as not only harmless to the people around them, but as being an important part of their beliefs.

This is a large part of the reason why Christians don't want anything to do with atheists. Atheists tend to desire things which are opposed to modern Christian ideals, present them in ways which leave open a lot of room for interpretation, and then all it takes is a few idiots acting like idiots and overreacting to things they either probably shouldn't have or, if they should have, could easily be seen as both monstrous and against the first amendment (like breaking up a group of students quietly praying behind the school before class on finals day). When such things happen, what do you expect the response to be?

There are always "charming little stories" of things that go too far, religious or other context. ("Don't taze me bro!") The point of the matter is, no atheist organization I have ever been familiar with has ever, or would ever lobby for such treatment. In fact, in cases like these, it's typically a knee-jerk over-reaction of the school in question that goes far beyond whatever was actually requested in a misguided attempt to cover their asses.

Is praying in a teacher's office questionable? Not when you have the full facts of the case here, but when the teacher who shared the office walked in, it's likely he couldn't determine who led the prayer, or whether the other teacher was acting in a capacity of authority, or simply as a human being and a student's friend. Was this an over-reaction? Certainly. The school should have worked harder to get the facts of the matter correct. Were there circumstances that would serve to make them suspicious. Perhaps. I can't say anything further with just the linked article to go off of.

Why do you feel so strongly that atheists' attempts to avoid persecution have gone too far, and that Christians shouldn't be supporting the movement? Do you feel the same when the issue is on a racial divide, like in this article? "Sampson was told that by reading the book, 'Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan,' in a university work break room, he was guilty of racial harassment." Would you argue that the fight for racial equality has gone too far, and that it shouldn't be allowed to continue, or that whites shouldn't support it?

As for your list of laws, I don't doubt that they exist. With a large portion of the country having been founded by people fleeing persecution, it's not surprising. Plus, in a ('true') democratic society, the popular opinion goes, regardless of intelligence. However, when I claim ignorance of state law, I also include ignorance of laws repealing other laws. Often times, when laws get repealed (especially in constitutions) they don't get removed instead of simply being rendered null and void. In order to render all those laws inert, all it would take would be one short paragraph of a law stating their inertness. I don't doubt that those laws exist, but I do not know if they are still active. That is important as well.

Those aren't just laws. Those are State Constitutions. Only changeable by amendments, and thus those prohibitions cannot be simply overturned by regular statutes, and are still on the books. In several of the constitutions the wording in other articles explicitly includes notes mentioning how it was changed by amendment something or other, and gives the current text of the law, and not the historical text. Furthermore, checking simply to an encyclopedia like Wikipedia or whatever your poison of choice is reveals this same list of seven states as those that prohibit atheists from holding public office.

[quanta]

That, and punishing the non-believer was NEVER encouraged in the Bible.

Are you excluding the entire Old Testament from consideration or something (I know some (well... probably most in the U.S.) Christian sects tend to mostly ignore it in favor of the New Testament)? Even under the most generous interpretation, the old testament is well... yeah.

[Zkirsche]

Are you excluding the entire Old Testament from consideration or something (I know some (well... probably most in the U.S.) Christian sects tend to mostly ignore it in favor of the New Testament)? Even under the most generous interpretation, the old testament is well... yeah.

There are tonnes of biblical quotations supporting the equality of all religion. "Made in the image of god", "Love thy neighbout as yourself", the teaching of Agape etcetera. The only thing I can think of which doesn't support this is the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me", and in that I kinda believe we're all supporting teh same god, just under a different name and in a different way.

[WeaponsofMassConstruction]

Around 1000 years ago, pretty much everyone everywhere was religious to some degree, if by force or want. Now, atheists are all over the place, especially in developed/industrialized nations like Denmark, Canada, etc. I know people where I live who grew up in religious homes yet discarded that same line of thought, something which just didn't happen way back when. So what's the difference? The forward progress of society has pushed back tradition, as evidenced by social roles and classes morphing into a balanced, more "fair" system, and the same should apply to the increase of atheism. Atheism is simply a movement that will continue to pick up ground as countries make advances, and so if you think religion is a problem that is polluting people's minds, just spread knowledge, anything really, as that will contribute to progress which will in turn promote atheism. Just give it time; discrimination, perceived or real, against atheists will go away and pretty soon those who remain religious will be the ones to be denied jobs.

[Life]

I laughed at Bal's stuff for having Jews so low down on the list of "stay the fuck away". I thought half the world hated us?

[Crystal Shards]

Around 1000 years ago, pretty much everyone everywhere was religious to some degree, if by force or want. Now, atheists are all over the place, especially in developed/industrialized nations like Denmark, Canada, etc. I know people where I live who grew up in religious homes yet discarded that same line of thought, something which just didn't happen way back when. So what's the difference? The forward progress of society has pushed back tradition, as evidenced by social roles and classes morphing into a balanced, more "fair" system, and the same should apply to the increase of atheism. Atheism is simply a movement that will continue to pick up ground as countries make advances, and so if you think religion is a problem that is polluting people's minds, just spread knowledge, anything really, as that will contribute to progress which will in turn promote atheism. Just give it time; discrimination, perceived or real, against atheists will go away and pretty soon those who remain religious will be the ones to be denied jobs.

Um, there have always been atheists.

[quanta]

There are tonnes of biblical quotations supporting the equality of all religion. "Made in the image of god", "Love thy neighbout as yourself", the teaching of Agape etcetera. The only thing I can think of which doesn't support this is the commandment "You shall have no other gods before me", and in that I kinda believe we're all supporting teh same god, just under a different name and in a different way.

Remember any of the stories about how the Israelites conquered Canaan? Sure it's framed in the "those people are evil" type of deal, but it's remarkably different from the New Testament- where the aggressive conquering behavior the Israelites display in much of the Old Testament- would probably be condemned.

Also... those quotations and concepts you came up with don't support the equality of all religion. They're basically completely unrelated except in the sense that "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and Agape probably mean you shouldn't curbstomp sinners like the Israelites did to the Canaanites in the Old Testament. They say absolutely nothing about whether or not other people's religion is O.K. Whereas quotes like "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." definitely indicate that Christianity is the right way as opposed to other religions being the wrong way. Now I mostly agree with what was previously being focused on (punishment/violence towards nonbelievers), which is that those quotes indicate you shouldn't act violently towards nonbelievers (well except "made in the image of God"), but those are mostly New Testament, and the Old Testament (even if contains some similar things) is the half of the Bible that is often remarkably violent towards nonbelievers in a fire and brimstone type of way.

[Kanami]

"You shall have no other gods before me", and in that I kinda believe we're all supporting teh same god, just under a different name and in a different way.

Firstly the idea of "Have no gods before me" is claiming superiority to other religions, Christianity as a whole is monotheistic so "Lesser gods" aren't actually gods, and even if they were somehow some form of divinity, it's demanding worship be given to "God" before all others. So the idea of it being the same god under different names doesn't make sense to me.

@WeaponsofMassConstruction's Comment

While I agree with CShards that atheists have always been around, WoMC's statement made perfect sense to me as well. I'm familiar with Japanese mythology so I'll use it as an example, but Japan 1000 years ago had hundreds, even thousands of gods, there were even cases were multiple gods would be enshrined right next to eachother, and like many polytheistic religions each god had a certain jurisdiction. In most cases the gods in Japan were somehow connected to a good harvest (of grain, vege's etc). However with new technology people have become more self reliant, and no longer go to the shrines to pray for rain, a plentiful harvest etc.

A more simple example being Fire and the sun. In the past they weren't as common, but who needs a Sun god or a fire god when we can have it at the flick of a switch?

I laughed at the "That, and punishing the non-believer was NEVER encouraged in the Bible."

Clearly a case of someone only reading what they wanted to hear and see. I personally think that a "true Christian" should be based off of the old testament, not this new rubbish which was manufactured to suit the morals of more recent people.

[Kintenbo]

Firstly the idea of "Have no gods before me" is claiming superiority to other religions, Christianity as a whole is monotheistic so "Lesser gods" aren't actually gods, and even if they were somehow some form of divinity, it's demanding worship be given to "God" before all others. So the idea of it being the same god under different names doesn't make sense to me.

I laughed at the "That, and punishing the non-believer was NEVER encouraged in the Bible."

Clearly a case of someone only reading what they wanted to hear and see. I personally think that a "true Christian" should be based off of the old testament, not this new rubbish which was manufactured to suit the morals of more recent people.

Yes, Kirsche's statement was rather obscure. However, it's not a matter of superiority, for those who sincerely believe, it's a matter of looking at reality. Of course, to the non-believer, me claiming that it's a matter of reality sounds absolutely ridiculous, but that's how it is. Sorry Kirsche, while your statement is pleasant to the ears, it just doesn't hold water to God's reality.

For your retort towards my statement, I am perfectly serious, the Christian is not supposed to do the punishing. If you read in Acts, whenever the apostles' messages were rejected, did they cause a riot? No. Did they "kill the infidel"? No. What do you find so funny about that statement? Punishment is God's to perform, we the Christians aren't supposed to play God.

Are you going to refer to the Old Testament for an argument against my "That, and punishing the non-believer was NEVER encouraged in the Bible. Yes, the wars in the Old Testament were far from pretty. Yes, the punishment for those who antagonized Israel was far from lenient. No, that does not contradict my statement. Israel's enemies were killed because it was war, not some reckless "kill the infidel" mission. God punished Israel many, many times for its disobedience, do you call that God being biased? Yes, the non-believer is often referred as evil, but those who do believe aren't home free. All and all, the Bible views all men as capable of evil. Don't think for a second that those who believe in God are exempt from punishment. For those who accept Christ and are sealed by his blood, we won't suffer eternally, but we still get punishment in this life! If you're thinking "that's not fair", then you need to consider that salvation is offered to all. It's up to the person to accept it or not. Hell is something that all people are destined for due to their sin, but God gave ALL of us a way out, so if you try the whole "oh, how narrow minded" thing, try to think of this.

Now, all and all, if you don't believe, you don't believe. I can't make you believe this. Just keep in mind, if we Christians are in the right, you still have God to face. I pray when it comes, that you'll come in terms with God and wind up in the Beamus Seat of Christ and not the Great White Throne judgment (look it up if you have no idea what I'm talking about). Of course, if we Christians are wrong, this entire post is nothing but dribble. All I can ask is that you think about it.

[Esau of Isaac]

For your retort towards my statement, I am perfectly serious, the Christian is not supposed to do the punishing. If you read in Acts, whenever the apostles' messages were rejected, did they cause a riot? No. Did they "kill the infidel"? No. What do you find so funny about that statement? Punishment is God's to perform, we the Christians aren't supposed to play God.

So why was God fine with it when it came to the siege of Jericho? Or are you telling me that it was God who killed women and children, and not soldiers?

Are you going to refer to the Old Testament for an argument against my "That, and punishing the non-believer was NEVER encouraged in the Bible. Yes, the wars in the Old Testament were far from pretty. Yes, the punishment for those who antagonized Israel was far from lenient. No, that does not contradict my statement. Israel's enemies were killed because it was war, not some reckless "kill the infidel" mission.

Even though many of them were killed because God had claimed land for his children and they decided not to budge. It wasn't about them not being his followers it was about...I'm sorry, what else could it possibly be about?

It's up to the person to accept it or not. Hell is something that all people are destined for due to their sin, but God gave ALL of us a way out, so if you try the whole "oh, how narrow minded" thing, try to think of this.

That's not up to anyone. If I told you that your religion is false and you would only receive real salvation if you bent knee to me and served as my slave for your life, would you really give much thought to it? No, you wouldn't, because it's fucking ludicrous. And how is it not unfair for people to default to eternal suffering, again?

Now, all and all, if you don't believe, you don't believe. I can't make you believe this. Just keep in mind, if we Christians are in the right, you still have God to face. I pray when it comes, that you'll come in terms with God and wind up in the Beamus Seat of Christ and not the Great White Throne judgment (look it up if you have no idea what I'm talking about). Of course, if we Christians are wrong, this entire post is nothing but dribble. All I can ask is that you think about it.

And if I'm right, you'd have super powers equivalent to Superman and have a harem of supermodels. Not to mention you get to hang out with rock legends and ancient martial arts masters and fight to the death every day in battle royales composed of bloody combat in the middle of a concert of mythic badasses.

Now how can you not worship me, just in case you get this? It's way better than your Heaven, man.

[Defeatist Elitist]

From what I know about God, I figure that even if he does exist, he's either a dickhole or way less powerful than he pretends to be, so either way, I don't think worshiping him while on Earth (you know, the life I fucking know I have, not the life I have to not think about at all to try to pretend I might have) is going to help me much.

[Emblem Lugh]

I dunno that I would go as far as saying that atheists are discriminated against more than homosexuals, but I do think that there are some interesting points made in this article.

I disagree with that part myself. Methinks the author should try being an atheist homosexual for a day. Believe me, it's hard. :)

[Kanami]

Are you going to refer to the Old Testament for an argument against my "That, and punishing the non-believer was NEVER encouraged in the Bible. Yes, the wars in the Old Testament were far from pretty. Yes, the punishment for those who antagonized Israel was far from lenient. No, that does not contradict my statement. Israel's enemies were killed because it was war, not some reckless "kill the infidel" mission. God punished Israel many, many times for its disobedience, do you call that God being biased? Yes, the non-believer is often referred as evil, but those who do believe aren't home free. All and all, the Bible views all men as capable of evil. Don't think for a second that those who believe in God are exempt from punishment. For those who accept Christ and are sealed by his blood, we won't suffer eternally, but we still get punishment in this life! If you're thinking "that's not fair", then you need to consider that salvation is offered to all. It's up to the person to accept it or not. Hell is something that all people are destined for due to their sin, but God gave ALL of us a way out, so if you try the whole "oh, how narrow minded" thing, try to think of this.

Now, all and all, if you don't believe, you don't believe. I can't make you believe this. Just keep in mind, if we Christians are in the right, you still have God to face. I pray when it comes, that you'll come in terms with God and wind up in the Beamus Seat of Christ and not the Great White Throne judgment (look it up if you have no idea what I'm talking about). Of course, if we Christians are wrong, this entire post is nothing but dribble. All I can ask is that you think about it.

I won't refer to the old testament, I've read extracts and even a few chapters, but I'm not stupid enough to take the argument to a field I'm not confident in. And as an atheist, the bible (old and new) is nothing but another fictitious book to me.

I'll be honest though, you're comment

For those who accept Christ and are sealed by his blood, we won't suffer eternally, but we still get punishment in this life! If you're thinking "that's not fair", then you need to consider that salvation is offered to all. It's up to the person to accept it or not. Hell is something that all people are destined for due to their sin, but God gave ALL of us a way out, so if you try the whole "oh, how narrow minded" thing, try to think of this.

It's comments like these that made me dislike Christianity as a whole, just to be clear, I probably lean closer to those who bash religion, then those who are atheist and don't care about it. I went to a Christian Highschool, Junior and Senior, and alot of the kids I went to school with converted during the 5 years. I was even given detention once for telling a teacher to keep his own "hopeless religion" to himself. What provoked that comment was something similar to what you've just said.

"Hey you should worship God, cause if you don't you're destined to go to hell and suffer eternally, if God doesn't exist, that's that. But do you really want to risk eternal suffering? Better to worship now, then be sorry later right?"

Was pretty much the flow of the conversation. In such a case it's not truely worshipping a god you care for, but a tyrannical campaign waged on the fear of others. On the flip-side If were religious this would annoy me equally due to devaluing my beliefs to "You might as well worship God, just to be safe."

I admit this isn't a view promoted by all christians, and it's probably something many would condemn, and I don't mean to pick on a few rotten apples but saying "The bible doesn't teach that" doesn't really mean anything, hell Karl Marx's ideas were pretty good, just not practical. I can agree with religions that judge you on your actions, but honestly?

"Worship me?"

"Give my followers money(church)?"

"My son died for you" "If you don't believe I exist then you deserve to suffer?"

What is this? I admit the money thing is voluntary and not essential, but I strongly believe that people should be judged (supposedly by God) on their actions, not on whether they are willing to believe something they can't see. Faith and good-will are different, I see absolutely no reason why someone who did just as much good as a Christian should be condemned to anymore suffering then the Christian.

Christian doesn't necessary equal crazy fanatic

But it doesn't automatically equate to, or even indicate a "good person" either.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In certain cases I may be considered agnostic since I don't mind believing in the existence of gods. I don't deny Jesus may have existed (excluding any scientific stuff) or that some divine being created the world. However I do find other theories more believable. But at the very least I do not believe the reasoning of

"Where did God come from"

"He just was, has always existed"

As reasonable, infact I find it ridiculous, It's like saying "God said let there be light, and there was light" and saying screw the sun, light exists because God said so.

If God does exist, I agree with "Dark Elves Suck" and I'd like to give him a few good kicks or blows to the head for being incompetent, and making himself out to be bigger then he really is. And while it'll mostly sound like me just trying to sound tough, I'd personally take eternal suffering over worshipping such a figure.

[Kintenbo]

So why was God fine with it when it came to the siege of Jericho? Or are you telling me that it was God who killed women and children, and not soldiers?

Even though many of them were killed because God had claimed land for his children and they decided not to budge. It wasn't about them not being his followers it was about...I'm sorry, what else could it possibly be about?

That's not up to anyone. If I told you that your religion is false and you would only receive real salvation if you bent knee to me and served as my slave for your life, would you really give much thought to it? No, you wouldn't, because it's fucking ludicrous. And how is it not unfair for people to default to eternal suffering, again?

And if I'm right, you'd have super powers equivalent to Superman and have a harem of supermodels. Not to mention you get to hang out with rock legends and ancient martial arts masters and fight to the death every day in battle royales composed of bloody combat in the middle of a concert of mythic badasses.

Now how can you not worship me, just in case you get this? It's way better than your Heaven, man.

For Jericho, it was the whole "land was planned for them". Yes, the soldiers did the killing, which goes along with my "it was war" explanation. I can imagine that war back then wasn't that pleasant to the losers no matter the army. Yeah, why the children and women were killed, I'm not even sure, though I think it had to do with preventing vengeance. A matter of kill or be killed. If the Israelites had lost, I imagine the exact same thing would happen to them, or otherwise would be enslaved to the victors (which happened many times to them, by the way). Keep in mind, if you think that its contradicting "Thou shall not murder", don't forget that the Bible doesn't use murder and killing hand and hand. Executions of deserving criminals and war casualties do not line up with murder, according to the Bible.

Yes, it was a matter of war, in this case, a war to get the Israelites land. Yeah, the enemies didn't worship God, but that wasn't the main point of the conquest. God promised to give Abraham a great nation, and unfortunately for the people occupying what would be his nation, they were in that land. I'm pretty sure that there wasn't any unoccupied land on Earth at the time, except obviously Antarctica, so creating a new country unfortunately meant taking it from somebody. Obviously, no country gives away their country willingly, so the results of what would happen was obvious. Naturally nothing nice or friendly, but something that was necessary. War is never pleasant regardless of the time, but its one of the realities that will probably never go away. We view God as a God of reality, not one of sensationalism or political correctness.

As far as the third statement goes, Jesus, if you are to believe the Bible, did concrete things to prove his worthiness. It's not like people just suddenly jumped in like opportunists. And the unfairness of the suffering all lies in whether you believe God or not. According to the Bible, NONE of us are righteous, all sinners, children of Satan. By ourselves, reaching God is impossible. Yes, definitely nothing we as people would like to hear. However, if you are to believe God's existence, that's the reality of it. Of course, the whole "all are sinners" concept is probably a major thing that repels people, so I can understand why people are reluctant to trust the Bible. The Bible is not a feel good, warm, or fluffy book that tells people what they want to hear. It's meant to tell what the people need to hear.

As far as the last thing goes, such things would ultimately lose its flavor. Heaven is described as a place where nothing gets old, boring, and so forth. Naturally, something beyond our way of thinking.

Of course, those who don't believe in God will think that what is said is simply crazy, but it's what it is. I'm not going to be the one to hide behind a curtain that says God is all fluffy and bright. Yes, God has compassion, but then there is wrath. The problem I personally think is that a lot of churches try to stick on the pleasant side of God and completely neglect telling why he is so merciful, what he's keeping us from.

[-Cynthia-]

God is often presented as omniscient and omnibenevolent, which brings up the issue of why any sort of suffering exists. The retort to this is often. 'God is testing your faith'. Of course, this means God puts believing in him over the well-being of others (which is not very benevolent) or God somehow doesn't know about the suffering (not omniscient).

[Kintenbo]

God is often presented as omniscient and omnibenevolent, which brings up the issue of why any sort of suffering exists. The retort to this is often. 'God is testing your faith'. Of course, this means God puts believing in him over the well-being of others (which is not very benevolent) or God somehow doesn't know about the suffering (not omniscient).

One word: sin. Of course, one might debate "if God is all powerful, why does his creation sin". He gave us free will. When he created life, he wanted life, not robots. Satan, a former angel, deceived us to sin, and we listened. Hell was meant for Satan and his angels, and unfortunately, without Christ, we are one of Satan's angels. God does know of our suffering, and he wants us to repent, so it can be alleviated. Giving us free will, however, he's not just going to make us do it automatically. He wants the repentance to be genuine. It's not all a matter of him want us to recklessly believe him, he's the only one that can take away our pains. He wants us to acknowledge our problems.

[Phoenix Wright]

One word: sin. Of course, one might debate "if God is all powerful, why does his creation sin". He gave us free will. When he created life, he wanted life, not robots. Satan, a former angel, deceived us to sin, and we listened. Hell was meant for Satan and his angels, and unfortunately, without Christ, we are one of Satan's angels. God does know of our suffering, and he wants us to repent, so it can be alleviated. Giving us free will, however, he's not just going to make us do it automatically. He wants the repentance to be genuine. It's not all a matter of him want us to recklessly believe him, he's the only one that can take away our pains. He wants us to acknowledge our problems.

Why did He want us in the first place? Was He lonely or something? Why does He create a species knowing fully that over half the people He creates will go to hell? That's cruel and sadistic.

EDIT: Who's to say He didn't want robots? Many follow Him blindly, like robots. Never listening to anyone else, never changing an opinion. That's a robotic life.

Edited June 8, 2010 by MGS: Metal Gear Solid

[Kanami]

Why did He want us in the first place? Was He lonely or something? Why does He create a species knowing fully that over half the people He creates will go to hell? That's cruel and sadistic.

EDIT: Who's to say He didn't want robots? Many follow Him blindly, like robots. Never listening to anyone else, never changing an opinion. That's a robotic life.

Very good point, God even made an instruction manual for people called the "Bible" XD

Labelling Satan evil is all nice and well, but why didn't God just kill him? Surely doing what Satan did is worthy of execution? And the fact that many angels were also condemned along with him, it makes me think a political issue occurred, opposed to Satan just committing some wrong.

Pretty much an "I don't like what you're doing, you're exiled" type of thing

[Emblem Lugh]

Very good point, God even made an instruction manual for people called the "Bible" XD

Labelling Satan evil is all nice and well, but why didn't God just kill him? Surely doing what Satan did is worthy of execution? And the fact that many angels were also condemned along with him, it makes me think a political issue occurred, opposed to Satan just committing some wrong.

Pretty much an "I don't like what you're doing, you're exiled" type of thing

Well, there was a war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Heaven#Causes_of_Satan.27s_rebellion

[Kintenbo]

Very good point, God even made an instruction manual for people called the "Bible" XD

Labelling Satan evil is all nice and well, but why didn't God just kill him? Surely doing what Satan did is worthy of execution? And the fact that many angels were also condemned along with him, it makes me think a political issue occurred, opposed to Satan just committing some wrong.

Pretty much an "I don't like what you're doing, you're exiled" type of thing

Well, Satan's every bit a spirit as God is. You can't kill the spirit. Our bodies die, but our spirits don't.

[-Cynthia-]

Oh I forgot one part of the things Christians often say God is, all-powerful is almost always included.