Are atheists in some ways worse than fundamentalist religious folks?

Maybe because I have better things to do than sit on SH all day!!!

Your point?

You wanted proof. There it is!!!

No, that supports my argument that Conservatives can rile up the mindless masses any time they want to. We will know there is a war on Christmas when the National Guard comes into a church on Christmas Eve and ends the mass.

Demanding that our government not support one religion over another is not a war against Christianity. Rather, it serves to remind us that we live in a "Democracy", not a "Theocracy". We do recognize a separation between church and state - which we should.

"No, that supports my argument that Conservatives can rile up the mindless masses any time they want to." I'm guessing that you would most likely say that about ANY site that was used as a reference!

Taking into consideration that over 80% of Americans claim to be Christians of one form or another, doesn't it stand to reason that Christianity would be recognized first and foremost? While it's true, we don't live in a theocracy, this is NOT a democracy either, it's a "Representative Republic" that's moving quickly towards an oligarchy with a communist administration, and his "trickle up poverty" ideals at the helm!

If we use tax payer money to favor a religion, then we will be a theocracy. Whether you like it or not, many law abiding, tax paying citizens are not Christian. Those who are not do not wish to pay for "your" religion with "their" tax dollars. If you want to erect a 1,000 foot crucifix - go ahead. Just put it on the church lawn and pay for it yourself.

What part am I lying about? I said "religious people" not religious fanatics/nutcases.

" . . . . . Atheists demand anything religious be removed from public view."

I have to tell you, I have traveled around this country a little bit. I have seen crucifixes and stars of David, etc., etc. Not once have I ever heard of an atheist demanding that a church remove the crucifix from the top of a steeple.

If there is any evidence that anyone ever demanded that all religious symbols be removed from public view, please cite it.

Well, when it comes to some memorials, there is a dim view taken by many Atheists if a cross is erected to memorialize dead veterans. It's really a generic symbol at that point since not everyone believes the same.
Even when the Christmas sean arives, Atheists would like to see all reference to religion removed. As an example, the hysteria over stores puting up Christmas and Chanukka displays.

No, that is completely untrue. Atheists only object when taxpayer funds are used to favor religion. Such state sponsored religion is unconstitutional. A cross is not a generic symbol, it is a symbol of Christianity. When have you ever seen hysteria over Christmas displays? - (Other than the fact that they're up before Halloween).

"At least religious people don't demand the country conform to their religion"

What planet are you on? Many religionists demand exactly this, from Tehran to Texas.

No atheist demands that everything religious be removed from public view. What many atheists rightly demand is that you cannot use tax dollars to promote your religion on governement property. Figure out the difference, and stop being so dishonest. You want to advertise your religion in "public view"? Go right ahead - but do it with your own damn money, on your own damm property.

I would add that not only atheists demand secular government. Even some religious founding fathers, and some people of religious faith today, and agnostics realize the wisdom in keeping religion out of government and civil affairs.

eligion should be in secular affairs either. The problem is Atheists aren't willing to let a prayer be said on their behalf.

Why should they? Just prectice what you believe and let others have their belief- or lack of belief. Why can't people just let others to their own beliefs? That is truly the American way.

I'm not sure. We have religious emblems all around us even in our most prized icons. Most don't even think about it. The rest would like to kill each other off.

"The problem is Atheists aren't willing to let a prayer be said on their behalf."

What an arrogant and rude thing to say. Would you like it if I told you that I will "think for you?" That's exactly the same sentiment that is expressed when you tell people you will "pray" for them. Why are religionists so incapable of understanding how rude this is? Lack of empathy? Lack of intelligence? Both?

Is it? Time and time again we get the response they are offended by it.

I said "religious" people, not fanatics. You can do what you will with them as far as I'm concerned. I hate it when some wag gets up in my face and asks me if I'm born again, and if I say i'm a member of chuch "A" they spew some ridiculous rhetoric about how that church don't follow the Bible and are condemned.
You and I are on the same side of the fence there.

I wonder given all the arguing between Christian hardliners and atheists in America, if either has an opinion on agnostics?

As an atheist I do and always have. They are doing nothing more than trying to cover their ass with a modern version of Pascal's Wager. Face it if there was an all knowing god he/she/it would see right through the CYA tactic and know you never believed. At best it is an excuse to be apathetic about it.

As an agnostic I disagree. For me it has nothing to do with Pascal's Wager. I don't believe that any of the world religions has the answer. But, I feel that the nature of the origin of the universe is a question that is beyond the reach of civilization currently. The idea that a singularity potent enough for all the matter in the universe can simply come into existence from nothing is pure conjecture- and is about as speculative as ID is. We as a civilization are just beginning to understand the universe.

I truly feel that the only honest conclusion that we can draw from everything we know is that we don't yet know enough to completely understand. Everything else is just belief in my opinion.

That really sounds like a long excuse for apathy. The big bang and the expanding universe are facts. Plain and simple. The latest results from CERN just add more proof to the story.

None of our "civilizations" ever proved anything and they are not meant to. Knowledge proves things and the knowledge of an imaginary being has proved nothing in all it's form for thousands of years. All gods are man man and nothing more than superstitions of the ignorant. The knowledge of science has proven much in just a few hundred years and continues to do so.

Whether you agree or not does not change the Pascal's Wager aspect of it.

I don't think you get the point. The big bang and expanding universe are facts- as is evolution. I see an elegant universe that seems to be structured for the evolution of life.

The other fact I pointed out is that science (which is only beginning to understand the workings of the Universe) has no answer- and can have no answer at this point as to the cause of the Big Bang. I have never said that I know what it is or isn't- only that the question is unanswerable. To make an absolute statement without any supporting evidence is not scientific- and is about as valid- in my opinion- as the ID conjecture. And it is the reason that more scientists are agnostic than are atheists.

I respect your right to your philosophical opinion, but my opinion is not based on apathy- quite the opposite- I have given it a lot of serious thought and research.

has a crow ever become a pigeon? Adaptation and mutation I can agree with, evolution, no

Your statement suggest the old "micro-evolution" vs "macro-evolution" argument. That is not an honest argument - scientifically speaking. No one ever suggested that an organism of one species suddenly turned into an organism of another species. That is a false characterization that is easy to negate. I believe you are repeating an argument that you heard elsewhere. "Macro-evolution" is nothing more than an accumulated series of "micro-evolutionary" adaptations.

Sorry but evolution is a process of nature. I have had very many of these debates and frankly-I am tired of them. If you are really interested in knowing something about natural processes do some research into the subject. Find out just what the evidence in favor of evolution is- from the scientific viewpoint. If you really research the subject you will see that evolution is much more than "just a theory" and you will see that there is no scientific theory of Intelligent Design- that is is not possible to make a positive case using all existing evidence for Intelligent Design. It is only based on a collection of anti-evolution arguments- many of them already discredited creationist arguments.

Good luck if you decide to research the subject.

I'd like to clear up your definition. There is a difference between agnostic and atheist so you can be one or the other or a combination. Agnostics don't know or don't have sufficient "knowledge". simple put, an agnostic does not know whether God exists. Atheists "know" that god does not exist. Most often, agnostics are weak atheists. Strong atheists can also be agnostics. An Agnostic Atheist might say for example, I believe that God does not exist, but I don't claim to have personal knowledge of this. A gnostic atheist is one who claims to know that God does not exist. A gnostic theist is one who claims to know that God does exist. are we all confused now...

"Atheists "know" that god does not exist."

No, they don't. That's gnostic atheists only. Agnostic atheists don't believe in any gods, and don't claim to have (or need) any definitive claims on the subject.

There are four types of people: agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic theists, and gnostic atheists. Most atheists are agnostic, most theists are gnostic.

and your point is??? We went from your lame definition ""Agnostic" almost always means "agnostic atheist". If you don't believe in any gods, you're an atheist.

"Agnostic" is just almost always something that pussies say because they fear harassment from friends and family who are religious."

To you bringing a colored chart that is more than most people care to know. I was trying to correct you and keep it simple. You should have started out with your fancy chart to begin with if you already knew the definitions. Personally, its not that big a thing to me and probably to most people....

Would it help you if I bought you a dictionary.

Atheist means 'I believe there is no God'

Agnostic means 'I believe we can't know if there is a God or not'

Like most people, you are incorrect, and are attempting to correct someone who knows more about this than you do. Atheist means "absence of belief in gods", and agnostic is not some separate category, but rather a modifier to both atheism and agnosticism (though almost always atheism):

A cute little graphic doesn;t mean you're correct.

I know what my beliefs are and am amazed by the arrogance of someone who would turn around and say 'actually, that's not what you are and what you believe at all'.

Especially when they're wrong. You can throw out a dozen little pictures (and thus try and hide from actually having to prove anything) but if they're all derived from a false understanding, then each and every single one of them is going to be wrong. Here's some actual proof for you, brought to you by the Oxford English Dictionary, one of the most respected bastions of our language:

Definition of agnostic
noun
a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

adjective
relating to agnostics or agnosticism. (in a non-religious context) having a doubtful or non-committal attitude towards something:
"until now I’ve been fairly agnostic about electoral reform"


Definition of atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves in the existence of God or gods:

"he is a committed atheist"


Now if you have any actual evidence that contradicts the Oxford English Dictionary, please post it. By evidence I mean not some silly little picture someone else made and you copied thinking it's true when it isn;t and that it makes you look smart when it doesn.t Actual proper evidence regarding the meaning of the word 'agnostic'.

I really don't agree with that assessment. Just because someone does not see it the way that you do does not mean that they are being weak. My philosophical outlook did not come from upbringing or other people's viewpoint. It comes from an intense interest in processes that govern our universe and what they can tell us about the nature of our existence. I truly believe that the answer is not simple- and the nature of our existence is beyond human comprehension at this point. I don't make a definitive statement as to what is or is not the cause of the existence of the universe- because I am not qualified to.

Then tell me what about this is incorrect:

I will tell you that I am not really into categorization. I think that people are individuals and not all viewpoints can fit neatly into a definitive philosophical school of thought.

Personally I believe there is purpose to the universe- the evolution of intelligent life. I don't believe than any of the world religious faith systems have any relevancy to the nature of the existence of the universe. Personally I don't understand how a singularity potent enough for all of the matter in the universe could simply come into existence by itself. I am not saying that the cause of all existence has to be supernatural. It may well be natural processes tat brought about the "big bang" But I just believe that it is very profound and beyond our comprehension at this point. And I believe that is really the only thing that can honestly be said about the nature of our existence. I am not sure- and I don't really care what category that puts me into- I am just being honest about my beliefs-my attempts to understand the true nature of our existence.- I don't believe it is weak or strong- it just is what it is.

that is hogwash, agnostic means not knowing, and one can be agnostic about other things besides belief in a Creator.

Argue away with this, then:

nope