Why do atheists care about religion?

Live with it?

Why should I be refused the ability to hold public office and/or testify in a court of law simply because I refuse to conceed a belief in some god? If you were in a car acciedent in Arkansas that I witnessed and you were injured why should you not be able to call me as a witness?

Why shouldn't I be able to buy a beer on Sunday when I don't believe in sins? Should we cancel Saturday beer sales because of muslim beliefs?

Why should public policy be decided on any religious belief? Why should things like stem cell research be impeded by the President's religious belief when he is not a representative of the people?

These are things that affect all of us. That's the point.

Have you run for office? Have you unsuccessfully tried to buy beer on a Sunday?

Public policy has always respected religious beliefs, especially Judeo-Christian, because the nation was founded by people of those beliefs. It is part of the nation.

If you want to change it, write your elected officials or, if you can, run for office yourself. Do something proactive about it.

Simply complaining about the evils of religious belief or bemoaning its influence on our nation will do nothing besides upset those who do see the benefits of religious influence on our society.

I have been denied beer on Sunday in both Arkansas and Georgia.

especially Judeo-Christian, because the nation was founded by people of those beliefs. It is part of the nation.

Christians were part of the mix in the founders but far from a majority...

were really interested in Judeo-Christian principles I would suggest you read "American Gospel" by Jon Meachem. It is a long but far from boring book as the subject is a complex one and not quite as simple as your post tends to make it.

but the laws and principles upon which our country was founded were based upon societal norms that were established primarily by Judeo-Christian religions.
Those same laws were approved by delegates from each state and can be assumed to reflect the views of the nation at the time.

You are if I say so.

It's not the thinking about the "man" that causes the trouble, it's acting on what we think he wants us to do. So "Most of the trouble in the world today centers around religion", as someone once said.

You have a choice: The religion of the bible- Christianity- is "no part of the world", beginning with abstention from voting all the way to abstention from killing other humans for any reason. Most of Clay's objections would go away with no further action required.

Much of "Imagine" describes the coming new system we've been talking about for thousands of years, and we didn't need drugs to get in the mood.

And those threads usually get locked through the godlike power of the Mods.

at the current bottom of this thread.

that their religion isn't really right. The way to prove it is is to make everyone believe like them. There is no room for disbelief or debate - my way or I will kill you.

Much of the West doesn't understand the difference in all the Muslim sects. They don't understand why it is OK for them to kill each other by the thousands but not for anyone else to kill even one. I have been reading about Islam and two of the first four leaders of Islam (after Mohammad) were killed by opposing groups. Much of what they're fighting each other about and want to impose on the world isn't in the Koran. But they have to be right because the alternative is unthinkable to them.

Diana

It seems to me that the biggest majority of religious people cannot and will not accept that their belief might be wrong. They are convinced that they are right and everyone else is wrong, period. I don't understand, I freely admit that there may or may not be a God, we just don't know. Why is it so hard for them to admit that they just might be wrong?

I have a friend that calls himself a pan-millennist (sp?) - things will pan out in the end. Another one said that, when she died, she would be with her loved ones or she wouldn't know anything. They both accepted that this is their belief but they might be wrong.

Diana

....why religious groups are so quick to boycott movies that call into question anything they've been taught to believe. The irony of course is that such boycotts usually boost ticket sales.

There are other forms that we might consider as "kooky" but not quiet dangerous. But...and as you noted.... that radical Islam approves of any action against anybody that furthers its own cause is quite dangerous. It defies even the basic human logic contained within us exists whether we adopt any form of religion or not. I think it's normal for anyone who adopts a specific religion to feel that they have found the right path to follow and that others not on it will either fail or have a lesser chance of success. Unfortunately, I will say that Christian peoples, are often guilty of beating each other on the head about whose choice is right and who's got the only chance of eternal happiness in a hereafter. My own church has been known for such and is anything but alone in that regard.

and from what I understand, they are not actually affiliated with any recognized Baptist organization but are a rogue church community. That makes it look even worse for the legitimate organization(s) that bear use the same word "Baptist" as well as the Christian community as a whole. It tests both the mettle and the characteristic of restraint that Christians are expected to have. It would be logical for others to expect them to be dealt with as wayward family by the larger Christian community....similar to how we expect the larger Muslim population to deal with their radical faction. As for myself, I don't see Westwood as having any part of family that deserves attention by other Christians except to try to put distance between the two. Perhaps that's how some Muslims feel about those who blow themselves and others to pieces...that they have no responsibility to any but their own family.

pointy head.

... part of human nature.

Maybe my expressing that opinion could be viewed as heresy by many religions. Maybe to say that the "fault" is not in our stars but in ourselves could be viewed as tearing at the keystone that holds the whole building called religion up. Through out human history, man has done horrible things because he thought the gods told him to. That, or political leaders were savvy enough to twist religious doctrine to persuade people to do things that really were very...umm... ungodly in nature.

I would be one of the last people on the planet to say we need to get rid of religion. I would be one of the first people on the planet to say we should ignore religious leaders... especially when they tell us to do something that will hurt or kill others. I personally see very little difference between sending a devout person to blow themselves and others up, and the christian pogroms throughout the centuries. The crusades, the massacre of the Huguenots, the battle between religions in Ireland, the Jewish Holocaust... or the disagreements that lead to the creation and divisions between Sunni and Shia islam... all of these conflicts had political reasons for them happening.

Is god political? Is religion political? In a practical sense, the answer is a resounding yes. Religion serves as a very real set of guidelines to organize the way we live together, socialize together, and conduct trade and business.

Is god a comfort? Is god an explanation of why things happens that are otherwise unexplainable? Of course god is.

Is god the embodiment of "faith"? I believe so.

Is outspoken atheism, as practiced and preached by some people the same thing as religion? Well, if you take into account that both views are an attempt to explain the world around us and are basically unprovable by logic but only by faith... then I would have to say that they are 2 sides of the same coin. One side says you have to have faith that there is something more, so be happy... and the other side saying there is nothing more, so be happy with what you have.

I split the difference myself and spent sometime studying the philosophical side of Taoism when I studied aikido years ago. It lends itself to learning how to get along with the world and finding your place in it.

All in all though, my belief about atheism, religion, life, the universe, and everything, is that it all is accountable to the fundamental nature and behavior of the human species and how we choose to view the world. Bottom line is that it is part of human nature to insist that others think the way we do and it threatens our own belief structure when we are refused that camaraderie.

Of course this is just my own opinion but if you refuse to believe what I want you to believe then I'm gonna hold my breath until you do!

would ignore Jesus who said (paraphrasing):

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Love your enemies.

Do good to those who spitefully use you. (whoa! That's getting a little radical)

If you aren't looking at what Jesus said, you aren't looking at a Christian leader. Anyone who contradicts Him is not a Christian leader.

I was referring to contemporary religious leaders of all religions but I guess if I don't make that distinction then my comments might be misunderstood. The devil is in the details, as they say.

Are you choosing to overlook the qualifications I made in my statement... "we should ignore religious leaders... especially when they tell us to do something that will hurt or kill others."

It strikes me that the idea's you just mentioned... "Love your neighbor as yourself...Do unto others as you would have them do unto you...Love your enemies...Do good to those who spitefully use you." These idea's go very well with my statement that we should ignore those who use their religious leadership to preach violence.

As such is the case, are you asking my particular position on Christianity in particular? Are you asking me to comment upon Jesus, the religious man and leader of men, or his embodiment as Christ the messiah, foretold by hebrew beliefs and scriptures?

leaders. The use of 'especially' does not limit your statement. It simply focuses attention on a subset of 'ignore all'. It does not limit the 'all' phrase.

I take it by your comment that you would categorically reject Mohammad (sp?) who did advocate violence.

My response to your last question was not.

To repeat myself...

"I was referring to contemporary religious leaders of all religions"

because they are dealing with a known commodity. I believe even Hitler once stated something similar...that it was easier to control people of religion than those who had none. Unfortunately and throughout history, many leaders had room for only one religion in their realms. The others were seen as potential threats. Why? Because they represented something like a labor union does today to a businessman. They have power that could be difficult to handle. That was the case in earlier Europe and elsewhere. The events you mentioned had nothing to do with wars of religious ideology but of controlling people and security their loyalty to an earthly leader. There were three basic ways that leaders dealt with people of unwelcome religions who refused to join the "party". They were either heavily taxed but allowed to remain, were made to move elsewhere, or were eliminated.

You may breathe at will. It's better than having your rotting corpse stink up SE.