Why do atheists care about religion?

Bible quotes don't mean much to me. It's just a book written by men.

of extreme badness of all kinds. Some would notice that the "godly" people were the worst offenders in many areas, the natural result of which would be a desire of the non-religious to walk away in disgust. And here's your thread, right on time.

Of course, it's easy for Paul to talk about badness, it's his job to plug the party line. Except that he experienced many of those things himself back then, but says that the severest problems would come "in the last days", and all at the same time. That's from the same book that produced other prophecies even stranger, therefore even more "super-natural" when they were fulfilled. 2 Pet 1:19-21. It takes time and desire to study the bible. Most won't 'buy out the time' because they lack the desire. After all, why study a religious book when we've already determined that religion is detrimental to humans?

are for the most part meaningless. The book was intended and edited over the centuries to mean what anyone wanted it to mean which,of course, makes it for the most part meaningless. Something which did not happen without intent.I have often wondered why anyone would write a bible when the audience originally was totally illiterate except of course for the priesthood.

For strong atheists, those that firmly believe there is no God, you could label their belief to be one of faith but that still wouldn't make it a belief system.

For weak atheists, those that hold no belief that there is or is not a God, their belief is faithless. It is also not a belief system.

I personally do have a belief system or religion called secular humanism. Many atheists I encounter have the same beliefs and wear the same label. It is truly a belief system.

For me the effort is more about fighting for the rights I should have but am robbed of because of governments religious bent. Perhaps you could offer some of your own insight into these questions.

their rights are being denied. Why should they be denied the right to hold public office or testify just because they don't believe in God? I wonder if anyone has done a Supreme Court challenge on these laws?

They would probably simply go about their business if this weren't true.

As for the Boy Scouts, they should be able to get public funding and use public land just like anyone else like someone who wants to open a midnight basketball game to get kids off the street. They shouldn't be discriminated against just because they believe in God than the atheists should be discriminated against because they don't. Let the atheists start their own Boy Scout equivalent.

Diana

I have no objection to what anyone believes as long as they dont insist on trying to shove it down my throat by,for instance,quoting passages from their "Book" which generally are meaningless when taken out of context.

Can't be done without rendering the whole thing useless. The bible is context-determined, by its own claim:
2 Pe 1:21; 23 Sam 23:2; 2 Tim 3:16. Herod killing the children refers directly to Micah 5:2, as does the conversation at John 7:40-44, among others.
Jer 31:15 and Mt 2:18 furnish the last bible reference, at the very end, of Moby ****.

Say, did someone mention Moby ****? Allow me, please, to use my Moby **** analogy here. (Just try to stop me. )
Someone with an irrational fear of water might revise that book, or partially quote from it, to omit any references to the seas. (The last chapter ends with a 'roll on, thou deep blue ...' quote.)That's their privilege- freedom of speech, and all that- but they would be presenting a completely false view of it. Most of us would avoid such a non-productive discussion. I wonder why that's not the case with the bible?

About the Boy Scouts. I wanted to be one, but didn't want to have to say things I didn't believe. How does a young boy in a small (largely religious) town start his own Boy Scout organization? He doesn't.

When I was older, I learned that people who were religious did not trust disbelievers. That was another disappointment. It seems it is taught in Church that we are not to be trusted because we 'don't have a moral compass'. No matter how upstanding I am as a citizen, I'd be looked upon with suspicion by many, should the 'dirty secret' ever come out.

Some of the things atheists can't to, as mentioned above, like testify in court, should have been remedied a long time ago. I wonder what the problem was? Maybe it was because at one time, people had to put their hand on a bible and swear to tell the truth -- That would certainly have been a problem with atheists. But, suppose the words of an atheist could have made a difference one way or the other, in court? It seems to me the people who were hurt would be everyone in that town or state, though the religious may not have seen it that way.

BTW, thank goodness the blue laws in Texas have been repealed. This took place a number of years ago, but I remember being able to buy a hammer, but no nails. A suite but no shoes. Things like that. My mother was in the hospital in another city. She wanted to be able to walk around in something besides a gown that was open in the back, and she didn't want to walk on the cold floor in her bare feet. My dad went out to remedy that situation only to find he wasn't allowed to buy house shoes, because it was Sunday! Good grief.

Of course, as a child, I thought that Christians worked on Saturday and Jews worked on Sunday so each could have their holy day off.

I also didn't think anything of having a couple of hours off on Good Friday and Christmas off. Any day off was good. The school district here has Yom Kipper and Rosa Shanna off (forgive the spelling). I'll take all I can get.

As for moral compass, my father was an atheist and he was one of the most moral men I knew. Always thought of it as more a matter of upbringing and empathy than hard and fast rules. How would you like someone to do that to you? Can you tell anyone from the highest mountaintop what you did? If either answer is no, don't do it.

Diana

Or, 'Can you look your fellow in the eye afterwards?' is also a good standard.

Forgive the spelling?? I'm religious- I forgive nothing!! Even Rosa thinks there's something fishy about it.

BTW bible trivium: Rosh Hashana appears only once in Hebrew, at Ezek 40:1. There it has only a secular, timekeeping meaning.

Such people are under discussion at Matthew 23; the speaker seems not to have approved of such. Although they were the religious and secular law of his place and time. He must have been a seditioner.

Some Bible Belters (!) allow for a glass of wine now and then; others do not. They can be found at 1 Cor 14:7~. (The "Christian" singer Amy Grant caught flak for allowing as how she liked a cold beer now and then. That may have been her way of signaling her crossover into secular pop. If so, it worked, and she continues successful professionally.)

Say, do I need to start nagging you, too, into a study of the bible, as opposed to religion? You don't want that; we religious types are determined naggers ... of others.

These situations are sometimes funny ... until they happen at such times.

Imposing the will of a religious majority on the minority does not seem to be funny at any time.

Dan

if I had been trying to buy shoes to go with my new suit. Dragon's mother was in an entirely different situation. I think my post carried that information. Anyway, no feedback from Dragon.

Maybe my religion makes me tolerant while yours makes you rigid. << smiley
Did you see the smiley?

atheist position on the rest.

I refer you to my statement:

http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?forumID=50&threadID=260572&messageID=2567542#2567542

Dan

nativity scene on the town hall is OK by you?

That's imposing the majority on the minorities, jews, muslims, atheists, etc.. The town hall should not endorse any religion, it should be secular. Everyone's rights should be respected.

How about if EVERY religious group gets to put up a display?

Government should give no religion any endorsement. Only a secular government truly respects the rights of everyone.

How about if EVERY religious group and the atheists gets to put up a display? Everytime you answer, you prove that atheists are able and willing to impose the will of the minority on the majority. Allowing any group access and use of public ground/buildings is in no way an endorsement of that group.

a "display" to put up.
Back in California the local congregations got permission to set up a table in a main intersection in the local [indoor] mall. (Private property; for-profit.) We had two or three people with a layout of literature, available for the asking. Because of the circumstances we did not even mention donations, nor did we have a 'tin cup'. AFAIK it still goes on.
Those who were there- mostly like my semi-invalid father-in-law- very much enjoyed the conversations which were almost always friendly.
We shut it down when the mall went into Xmas selling mode, so the locals could worship their god$ in peace.

So if the town took your suggestion you could maybe move the peyote chewers into our slot in November.

They just can't do it on public property. Put it on the church lawn or a private residence's lawn. They may practice however they wish but not with public support.

OK, then?

Dan

YOU are imposing the will of the minority on the majority.

No. We oppose the imposition of the majority on the minorities. The majority has the right to believe what they want. They don't have the right to impose their beliefs on others.

I'm just saying they have to find non taxpayer supported areas to practice in. Please explain how that is imposing the will of the minority on the religions?

Dan