 |
|
|
|
 A voice vote to change the DNC party platform turned to chaos Wednesday night.
September 6th, 2012
03:24 PM ET
Conventions leave atheists asking: What political party represents me?By Dan Merica, CNN Washington (CNN) – This convention season has not been good for atheists. The word "God" was reinserted in the Democratic platform after it had been removed. A plan to raise atheist billboards in the convention cities was stymied by opponents. And though there were preachers and rabbis and other religious leaders opening and closing each day of each convention, there wasn’t an avowed atheist talking up unbelief on either convention’s speaking list. The political lockout has left many nonbelievers asking, “What political party represents me?” “We are deeply saddened by the exclusion of a large number of Americans by both parties,” said Teresa MacBain, a spokeswoman for the group American Atheists, in an interview on Thursday. “It amazes me that in modern-day America, so much prejudice still exists.” After word spread Wednesday that Democrats left God out of their platform, atheists rejoiced. “Truly amazing news,” wrote Loren Miller on Atheist Nexus, a popular atheist blog. “The Republicans remain in the firm grasp of right-wing Christian religiosity, and I really don't know what it's going to take to free them from it.” But the convention committee immediately received huge pressure get God back in the platform. Even President Obama, according to CNN reporting, said, “Why on earth would that have been taken out?” when he first heard of the omission. In an awkward session that required three voice votes on the convention floor, the Democrats opted to add “God” back to the platform. For atheists, the Democrats were seen to be taking away a hard-fought victory. “We had 24 hours of joy as we felt (that) finally our government values all people,” said MacBain. “But that was short-lived. The vote last night angered many atheists and left them feeling excluded once again.” Online, atheist websites and Facebook pages went from upbeat to downcast as news spread of the platform revision. “Obama was the first president to acknowledge non believers,” Mark Musante wrote on the American Atheists’ Facebook page. “I wish he would stick to his guns.” Musante was referring to Obama’s 2009 inauguration speech, when the president said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers.” Beverly Sitherwood, on the Friendly Atheist blog Facebook page, accused the Democrats of “Pandering for power.” Some atheist leaders used the platform defeat as a rallying call. “I guess a tiny step was too much to ask for,” David Silverman, president of the American Atheists, told CNN. “This was a clear message to the 16% of the voting population - we don’t count. Well, guess what, Dems - we do. And we vote.” Silverman says that 16% of the voting public identify as nonbelievers. According to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 12% of the electorate in 2008 was made up of people with no religious affiliation, though experts say the number of avowed atheists is much smaller. While acknowledging atheists, Obama has given platforms to high-profile religious leaders, including Rick Warren, a megachurch pastor who prayed at his inauguration, and Catholic Cardinal Timothy Dolan, who is giving the final prayer of the convention on Thursday night. American Atheists’ plans to raise billboards ridiculing the presidential candidates’ faith ended in failure. After the group put up billboards in Charlotte, North Carolina, the site of the Democratic National Convention, last month, it quickly removed them due to “physical threats to not only our staff, but the billboard company as well.” American Atheists had also planned on a billboard in Tampa, Florida, to coincide with the Republican National Convention there. But American Atheists said that all the billboard companies in Tampa rejected a sign taking aim at GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith. Perhaps because of the Republican Party’s ties to conservative Christianity, atheists tend to be Democrats. According to a 2012 Pew study, 71% of Americans who identified as atheist were Democrats. “The Republicans who spoke at the RNC seemed more like televangelists than politicians,” MacBain said. “The message was clear from the RNC: Get God, or get out.” The Republican’s 2012 platform mentions God 12 times, many of which describe the “God-given” rights that the Republican Party says are inherent to the American idea. Though most atheist groups claim that there are closeted atheists serving as representatives and senators, only one has come out as such. In September 2007, Rep. Pete Stark, Democrat of California, affirmed his atheism in a speech at the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University. soundoff (3,922 Responses)« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next »
Next entry »Catholic bishop convicted of shielding priest
« Previous entryDems: God never left our party
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
atheism absurdity of gentiles, ignorant slaves of Scientology, terrorist self centered, secular s, First they deny truth absolute Muhammed, foundation of American consti tution and than accepted truth absolute atheism not by their mind and heart, but for a self serving reason, Turned around and declared Jerusalem capital of Jew's terrorist self centered, secular's, deniers of truth absolute people. Way of atheism Pharisees, criminal goons to atheists fool humanity.
Science be upon you, Paki turd!
Islam is a poorly concocted mock up of Judaism and early Christianity. It's an embarrassment even by the embarrassing standards of religion. Muslims, grab a clue. Just delete two words and you are there: 'there is no god but allah' -> 'there is no god'
Quran is written with letter Q, Quantified, one has to know instance to understand Quran, meaning path of truth absolute quantified, there is no comparison between book of savior ism Bible and Quran. In divine language word ism, absurdity called religion Christianity does not exist, borne out of Judaism, filthy secularism defiance of truth absolute of Persia and Egyptian pagan origin , Jew's criminal secular s pretending to be Hebrew, but Theen Allah, way of truth absolute, source for peace, Shalom among humanity, Quran quantifies it and Hidat explains the La, limit's absolute to reach peace Islam in life. Christianity, corruption of truth absolute labeled a bible has nothing to do with truth absolute but justification of Mithra ism, filthy savior ism, foundation of filthy racism. World can never have peace in presence of Jesus, denial of truth absolute, humanity need to work together for elimination of Jewish criminals and their illegality.
"borne out of Judaism"
Where do you think ISLAM came from? DOLT! Abraham was the father of both Israel and Ishmael, the latter being the b@stard offspring of Abe and his wife's maid, who then went on to father the Arabic people. It is so obvious that insane jealousy in your Arabic "father of Islam" called Mohammed, directed toward Israel, was the cause of him writing his own version of Judaism for the Arabic world. Get real, man!
Both the Nazi and Communist Parties are Atheistic. If the primary determinant of party choice is Atheism then you have two choices. Conveniently you have one on the right and one on the left. I don’t really see what you are complaining about.
That's a fine historic example, except for one problem. Neither of those parties has been in power in the US!
A modern party for Atheists would be a hypothetical Center party, but of course the DC Machine won't let anything but the phony pigeonholes of far-Left and far-Right be the only two apparent choices we have. So your statement is irrelevant.
there is actually an atheist party in Americahttp://www.usanap.org/ and yes the communist party s atheist however the Nazi party is christian
If a Communist party that happens to profess atheism is active in the US, that does not mean that all US atheists or even the majority of said group is fvkkin Communist!
As a believer in God, no problem! God has been blasphemed, cursed, scoffed, and God will still be God.
You are correct. "god" will still be "god," which is, nothing more than a figment of your imagination.
by that you mean hes evil and sadistic
Then why the fuck doesn't he smite me. I've blasphemed that bastard for most of my life and nothing's happened yet. Your god is a wuss.
Muslims do not support atheism absurdity of evolution, but existence of truth absolute Muhhamed, atheism absurdity of evolution is a fundamental of atheism, pagan ism, self center ism, product of observation of animals,having nothing to do with physical science, To learn causes of mayhem among atheists please visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go and click on Like.
ISLAM SOURCE OF ISLAMFILTHYSTUPIDITY!
Bugger off, old chap!
The problem, as I see it, is that atheism has no relationship to any political or social ideology. An atheist could equally well be a Marxist, monarchist, libertarian, or fascist. I assume that what is being asked for is a complete separation of religion and politics. But, how is that possible. The ver term "atheist" implies some conception of god.
I am an atheist, and yet, somehow, I don't really expect the conventions to be all about me, myself and I. If people want to discuss God, they have every right to do so. There were plenty of candidates who did not mention God. I do acknowledge that the Republicans seemed like they were trying to turn their convention into a tent revival, but really, it isn't about excluding me. it just illustrates to me how ridiculous they are. Fellow athesists, I'm sorry, but you're making the group sound like a bunch of whiners. The fact is, the majority of Americans believe in God, and that is their right. Plus, one really can't be a politician and NOT spout off about God. Do you guys really think Obama isn't intelligent enough to figure out that Christianity is nonsense? There's no way a man of his intellect would believe in such hogwash. However, he needs to pander, so let him pander. Really, who cares? I'd much rather have the Dems yapping about God 24/7 and win the White House than have the Republicans not mention it and then win and impose their psycho beliefs on us. The important part is that the right wing religious extremeists don't win. As long as they don't win, the Dems can talk about God all they want.
There is no Convention. ☺
Atheists feel ignored. Of course. Most people aren't going to waste their time listening to nonsense. Atheists spew nonsense, nonething more. Who wants to hear that? What party represents atheists? That would be the FOOLS PARTY. "The fool has said in his heart there is no God". ....Psalm 14:1 .
I'm sure all those believers of Thor, Zeus, and Apollo don't feel ignored then?
Once again we are treated to the same old tripe about "My fairy tale book says that anyone who doesn't believe in the same fairy tale that my fairy tale book tells me to believe in must be a FOOL!" Science damn you! Don't you ever think for yourself?!
BS. But I will tell you that if you happen to have a bunch of old bibles lying around, you can use them as TP. I find Psalms to be the most like Charmin, by the way.
atheists are NOT real Americans and would never be considered!
Come out of your bunker...
http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2012/06/14/farah-atheists-arent-real-americans/
That's just horseshit in so many ways.
That's about as stupid as saying "Native Americans are not real Americans and would never be considered."
becomes atheism,
People need to understand the difference between religion-in-politics and the politics of getting (re)elected, which requires appealing to the large number of swing voters who find religion a major factor in their voting choice. It's stupid, yes, this religious pandering and as much as I hate it, as an atheist myself I understand that it's just the chatter needed to pass the health reform and tax reform bills I want. I think it's naive for people to read too deeply in the DNC's choice to reinsert God into speeches–but at the same time I can see why it's necessary to bring up the issue.
USA secular nation of secular laws. Democrats have really stirred up a hornets nest and have just fueled the great rising flames of Secularism in the US. Blacks, gays, now Atheists. Truth and reason are on our side in this cultural war!!!
Fred
"Religion is here to stay. This country was founded on a belief in God."
NO IT ABSOLUTELY WAS NOT! The exact phraseology is "freedom of religion"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
That does not mean you have to believe in any religion to live here! It means if you want to, you may practice your religion and you will not be targeted by the government.
Science does not support hinduism absurdity of evolution, but existence of truth absolute God, hinduism absurdity of evolution is a fundamental of hinduism, pagan ism, self center ism, product of observation of animals,having nothing to do with physical science, Please visit http://www.limitisthetruth.com/ and click on word choice to open file.
lemme guess... your religion of choice is the only true one, eh?
Allah U Akbur. Moslem is THE ONLY religion of peace. Take my word Bro!!
As an atheist it makes little difference to me. I see no evidence that either party follow the god they profess. It is words to pander to the majority of the population. It is not like I haven't witnessed this behavior all of my life.
It's kinda like a perfect storm: the near 100% lying from politicians whose only goal is power, combined with the delusion and hypocrisy of religion. What a frightful stew of hate and intolerance, all practiced under the banner of love.
I find it ironic that someone using the name "End Religion" would whine about hate and intolerance.
Steve, given all the horrors that religion is responsible for, ending it would be an act of kindness, not one of hate and intolerance. Nice try at shifting the blame, though.
Fred, even your boyfriend thinks you are way over on the small side. It's the only reason you can be out in front of anything.
The issue is not necessarily one of Truth, but of engagement. If atheists as a class decide not to vote in November, a growing voice muffles itself and will not be heard by the parties in contention. Whether it's desired or not, the overarching worldview of the candidate (what most of us call religion, belief system or philosophy) _does_ enter the political discourse. It remains for all citizens to let their voices be heard and to check the candidate's beliefs at the door for him or her.
Steve said: "I find it ironic that someone using the name "End Religion" would whine about hate and intolerance."
Do you tolerate a pet pooping outside of the box. Do you tolerate sheep that stray to where they are eating poisonous root vegetables that will poison themselves and you too if you make milk/cheese from them? Of course not. Religious folk have to be herded for their own good by the few people with full control of their minds – atheists! Nuff said.
@steve: "I find it ironic that someone using the name "End Religion" would whine about hate and intolerance."
I do whine. Guilty. However I do not hate religious folks. The majority of my family is religious. I certainly don't hate them for it. The vast majority of the world suffers from the delusion. I don't know them so I couldn't hate them. I don't think I've really hated anyone since I was in elementary school and the school bully kicked me on the playground. Even then, I might have felt different if I could have understood he likely came from a family that practiced violence on him. But I was a kid, so I probably wouldn't have cared even then. Fortunately we grow up and hopefully learn some compassion.
I'm not certain intolerance is defined the way you think it is. I would like to end organized religion as a practice, yes. That's kinda like saying I'm intolerant of people who play games if I call for the end of organized football. You can still gather in fields and throw the ball and play the game, whatever flavor of game you want to play, I don't care. But if the football players gather into an organization that espouses violence to others, suppression of women's rights, and whatever other silly rules the football commissioner commands them to play by and which intrude on others' lives then it concerns me.
I do hope religious people grow out of their delusion. Doesn't mean I don't invite them to my parties, as does any religion that excludes gays. It doesn't mean I tell them to "get out of the country" or "go back to where you came from" as do some other intolerant folks. It doesn't mean I gather them and burn them in ovens, or at the stake, or whatever other wonderful tortures have been practiced by intolerant folks throughout the world's history.
Even after all this, in the end if you still think I'm intolerant, it doesn't excuse any religion's intolerance. Especially when they mostly purport to be based on love.
The tolerant shall always tolerate the intolerant. It is one of the raw deals in life, but you get to choose which side you will live on.I believe the intolerant have it much better.
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world : the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw
OTOH
Is it unreasonable to think the world should bend to my will ? That the World should grant unto me ALL that I demand and more, that I should take and take and take all the while dumping my ruin and waste upon the the world ? Is it unreasonable that a man should work to adapt the world to himself ? Am I the unreasonable man that "progress" depends on ?
Carlos,
You know, as in everything, there must be a balance. Complacency and stagnation go nowhere, but rash change just for change's sake or without regard to repercussions can lead to wrack and ruin.
OTOH
I appreciate your your perspective. Your use of the word "balance" is key. Do you suppose "We" have reached a tipping point here ? Is this a place where two world paradigm stare each other down ? One where Man dominates the world, and the other where man adapts himself to the laws of the World (nature). The struggle,to evolve even to survive is in any case a matter of adaptation. Could it be, where the Question of the existence of God is concerned, tolerance either way may be part of that paradigm shift. A "live and let live"
@ carlos:
"Is this a place where two world paradigm stare each other down ? One where Man dominates the world, and the other where man adapts himself to the laws of the World (nature)."
First, I don't agree with the supposition of the 2 "sides". There's far too much variation for sides, however I suppose you're just trying to get to the essence of the battle between those who believe and those who don't. However there isn't any person who can dominate the world, for goodness sake. Ask the people from Pompeii.
***
"The struggle,to evolve even to survive is in any case a matter of adaptation. Could it be, where the Question of the existence of God is concerned, tolerance either way may be part of that paradigm shift. A "live and let live""
I like the logic leap you made there but the contention is basically this: Christianity had 700 years to settle into its current relatively moderate state. With the advent and widespread availability of catastrophic weapons, we don't have time for Islam to do the same. Aside from that most religions are not content to be quietly practiced. Some require domination of others, whether publicly stated as a goal or not. Some require constant proselytizing and weeding of its values unbidden into aspects of people's lives, such as in politics. Religion is not content to live and let live. It divides and incites violence. End it.
Once that's done we can continue/begin other seemingly insurmountable tasks: breaking down national barriers, smoothing over racial barriers as we all interbreed and become one brownish race, until finally we can begin live with one another as equals. We can move past all these things that keep us divided. It'll just be a while.
@End Religion:
you're just another whiny little 2%-er who is mad because he can't have his way.
Religion is here to stay. This country was founded on a belief in God.
Of course, you are free to leave the country and go live somewhere else.
Bye.
@fred:
"you're just another whiny little 2%-er who is mad because he can't have his way. Religion is here to stay. This country was founded on a belief in God. Of course, you are free to leave the country and go live somewhere else. Bye."
I am whiny, agreed. I am getting my way. The country you live in is great enough to separate church and state, mostly. Religion has diminished. It does seem I am getting my way, even as you kick and scream into irrelevance.
I have no doubt cults will indeed stay. You really can't fight crazy. I'm satisfied to see them publicly embarrassed and belittled into the dark recesses of the world.
@fred:
The United States was not founded on religion, another fallacious argument brought about by your determined ignorance to only ape what you hear instead of researching the facts. The truth which likely takes you 7 seconds on Google to find.
End Religion,
Yes, let us end religion I am fine with that. I have one concern. As you put it "atheists have been quiet long enough" will Atheism be the new religion ? Will there be no tolerance for those who wish to gather in faith, to wonder at the miracle of life.Or will there be a "Louder" atheism ? Will the intolerance that has plagued mankind simply morph into the Church of the non-believer ? You refer to "religious folks" in general terms lumping those who Proselytize with those who quietly assemble or individually nurture a spiritual life. It is not hard to imagine this growing Atheist movement replacing the old religion you wish to end. Proselytizing is just proselytizing after all.
@fred:
So I decline your offer to have me leave the country since, while it has its flaws, it seems to me to be an acceptable option. Especially since it wasn't founded on any religion.
end religion No it was not founded on religion. But Christianity had a strong influence on the thinking of the founders and it takes very little study to find that out, since they often acknowledged it.
Fred, even your boyfriend thinks you are way on the small side. It's the only reason you can be out in front of anything.
@carlos:
"will Atheism be the new religion ?"
atheism is to religion as transparent is to color. Its an oxymoron.
***
"Will there be no tolerance for those who wish to gather in faith, to wonder at the miracle of life."
I would have to assume that in any group of humans there will be some reason for intolerance, real or imagined. Our "fear of the other" is so ingrained and indeed responsible for our initial survival that I don't know if we could ever see the end of it as a reason to kill one another. If you're asking me "if atheists ruled the world would we allow religion" I'd have to say that knowing the nature of a few, they find it harmless enough in its moderate practice that there's no need to outlaw it as a rule. Many athesists really don't care what you believe or if you want to gather with others who share your delusion, just stop bringing it to my door, stop thrusting it into public policy, stop using it as a way to divide and then take advantage of others, stop using it as a reason to kill. Its supposed to be about love, until it comes to "mine is better than yours" and then you all start killing each other and anyone nearby.
As for the miracle of life, it is awesome, surely, but there isn't anything supernatural about it. Why not gather with your group and come to understand it from a factual point of view instead of from a magical one? I know, i know, magic is more fun and not so taxing on the brain as science.
***
"Or will there be a "Louder" atheism ? Will the intolerance that has plagued mankind simply morph into the Church of the non-believer ?"
I don't know. I can't see the future. I'd have to assume any group of humans will find some reason to hate. I would just like to see less reasons, and religion is a big one. I'd certainly hope atheists in the future wouldn't form a church since that'd be a bit crazy. Humans are very social animals though. The majority do crave being in groups. But I think its a little misguided to think atheists want to sit around together and talk about our non-belief in the context of a world that doesn't believe. We do gather and talk about it now, but that's because religion exists and we see it as an issue possibly preventing our continued existence, or at least hindering progress. Religion is by definition keeping us in ignorance since it based on Iron Age concepts, most of which have been discarded as we've advanced.
@carlos:
***
"You refer to "religious folks" in general terms lumping those who Proselytize with those who quietly assemble or individually nurture a spiritual life."
I lump "religious folks" together because I can't take the time to address each branch of the deluded directly. I can't be expected to know which brand is the "true" one if you folks can't even agree amongst yourself. Gather 10 random ones of you in a room for a long enough period and you'll be upset soon enough about which of you owns the franchise on "the truth". I don't care if you quietly assemble or not. If it hints at ever leading to violence, or preaches hate, which nearly all are guilty of even in the face of purporting to be based on love, its a danger to mankind. Maybe Jainism is the only "safe" religion. I don't know. It's just an opinion.
***
"It is not hard to imagine this growing Atheist movement replacing the old religion you wish to end. Proselytizing is just proselytizing after all."
I suppose it isn't hard for you to imagine, since religious folks are driven by fear. It would then be rational of you to fear living a life based on fact, reason and logic instead of magic. If you're insinuating asserting the facts of science as "proselytizing" you may want to check a dictionary.
proselytizing: converting (someone) from one religious faith to another
atheism: a lack of belief in any god
There is no religious faith in atheism, therefore we are not proselytizing. We're simply hoping one day religious folks see through their self-imposed veil of ignorance and begin living in a world based on facts, reason and logic instead of magic and invisible friends.
@takawalk:
"No it was not founded on religion. But Christianity had a strong influence on the thinking of the founders and it takes very little study to find that out, since they often acknowledged it."
Referring to a "creator" in general would be as acceptable to the founding Deists as it would to the founding [insert your favorite religion here]. This is another popular argument that doesn't take into account the fact that Darwinism and the theory of evolution didn't exist yet. I don't feel good blaming Iron Age folks for not knowing about germs and believing leeches took away our disease. Likewise I couldn't blame founding fathers who didn't have the benefit of knowledge of evolution for using god to fill the gaps of their ignorance. I can however blame YOU for using an Iron Age myth to fill in your gaps in knowledge.
To End Religion,
Your comment "I lump "religious folks" together because I can't take the time to address each branch of the deluded directly".
illustrates my point exactly, where expedience replaces scientific findings we start down a dangerous slope indeed. We have learned through the scientific study of human nature that expedience can have lethal consequences for men women and children when we lump them under such headings as "Jews", "Evil doers", "Deluded folks".Let us not kid ourselves Any "Group" of humans claiming an absolute high ground on "the fact" should watch carefully lest they become drunk with their "superior" status in the Race, for this is where "solutions" often are expedient, deadly and atrocious. I would agree to end foisting our views upon one another, I have agreed to go first. I will speak against proselytizing where I see it whether it is from those who Believe in a god or from those who do not believe in a god. Peace.
@carlos: "Your comment "I lump "religious folks" together because I can't take the time to address each branch of the deluded directly".
illustrates my point exactly, where expedience replaces scientific findings we start down a dangerous slope indeed. We have learned through the scientific study of human nature that expedience can have lethal consequences for men women and children when we lump them under such headings as "Jews", "Evil doers", "Deluded folks".Let us not kid ourselves Any "Group" of humans claiming an absolute high ground on "the fact" should watch carefully lest they become drunk with their "superior" status in the Race, for this is where "solutions" often are expedient, deadly and atrocious. I would agree to end foisting our views upon one another, I have agreed to go first. I will speak against proselytizing where I see it whether it is from those who Believe in a god or from those who do not believe in a god. Peace."
I'm not sure what the fascination is with people tying atheism to Nazis. It's a fear tactic and shows you're near the end of your tolerance for our discussion. Google "Reductio ad Hitlerum"
I never even insinuated hurting or killing ANYONE. Religious people are deluded, but I am not asserting we get rid of them. I've lumped them together because I can't take the time to make separate arguments for those who believe in talking snakes versus those who believe in 72 virgins upon death versus those who believe in magic underwear and on and on. You don't have to like it. Doesn't mean I'm stripping away their humanity as individuals. I simply can't argue a case for person on the planet. To assert this is somehow the beginning of my further argument for extinction of them is preposterous and disingenuous. You're again clutching at straws here at the end of your argument.
I don't even see standing behind evolution as claiming high ground on anything. It is a fact of our shared reality. No group or person needs to claim it as his own. It is a fact for anyone to relish. As for god, I do not believe, but I've never claimed to be able to prove or disprove the existence of an original creator. I personally kinda think it'd be neat if we're all just a computer simulation on some nerdy 12 year old's super-computer. There's just no proof, so I see no reason to believe it that delusion.
To End Religion'
I believe it is possible to believe in a god and evolution.
The Proof That God Does Not Exist
There Are No Believers in the World: There Are Only the Make-Believers and Non-Believers
Sharon Esther Lampert
Okay SEL, as you wish. I am a Make Believer. Now as for the question of existence, how can you and I coexist ?
Carlos, send me $10.72 in U.S. cash and I will let you go on without bothering you about pesky science n' facts n' stuff.
To End Religion
I do not find science or facts in the least bit "pesky" since there is no science that can prove there is no god. May I suggest we save ourselves the postage, I'll keep my $10.72 and you keep yours on these conditions: When ever I see a "Believer" push his/her beliefs on another person I will take issue with them and publicly admonition them. You will do the same, when ever you witness a non-believer push their views you will admonish them. Through this system of self policing we may find a way to co-exist.
@carlos:
"I do not find science or facts in the least bit "pesky" since there is no science that can prove there is no god."
You either choose to live deluded or not. Google Russell's teapot if you don't know about it yet. I would guess you already know that in debating any issue a negative can't be proven. It doesn't imply victory on the point, only that if you are asserting a fact it is upon you to prove it to others or it remains a non-fact. This is where you likely say you don't need to prove anything to anyone, god doesn't require proof. And yet, proof is exactly how we go about defining the facts of our shared reality. The issue then rests with the unfortunate detail that religious folks don't want to share reality. They want to live in a world of magic out of fear and uncertainty. Which wouldn't in itself be so bad except it doesn't end there. The magic fairy realm then gets pushed into other aspects of life to varying degrees. Sadly, the convictions of many within the fold of religion are such that they can't help BUT to weed their way into others' lives. Their religions dictate proselytizing and even world domination, and so by definition cannot be "live and let live" scenarios. Live and let live WOULD be nice but religion simply doesn't allow it, and since religious folks don't live by fact in our shared reality they feel its OK to go ahead and follow their fairy leaders commandments to perform the opposite of "live and let live".
"May I suggest we save ourselves the postage, I'll keep my $10.72 and you keep yours on these conditions: When ever I see a "Believer" push his/her beliefs on another person I will take issue with them and publicly admonition them. You will do the same, when ever you witness a non-believer push their views you will admonish them. Through this system of self policing we may find a way to co-exist."
We're likely both civil enough to go ahead and do as you suggest without money or the expense of postage, you're right. However we're likely doomed, since by defintion religious folks who truly believe as their various gods command likely cannot "live and let live" and still remain true to their god's commands. On the flip side, atheists have been quiet long enough. Religion is slowly beginning to die, sped up recently by the access to information the internet allows which clears away religious ignorance pretty effectively. This means religion is getting smaller and crazier as rational people fall out of it. With easier access to WMD, mixed with crazier religious nutters, religion has the potential to quickly become more deadly than ever. End religion now.
DEADICATION: The Proof That God Does Not Exist
There Are No Believers in the World: There Are Only the Make-Believers and Non-Believers
Sharon Esther Lampert worldfamouspoems dot com
DEADICATION: The Proof That God Does Not Exist
There Are No Believers in the World: There Are Only the Make-Believers and Non-Believers
Sharon Esther Lampert
http://www.WorldFamousPoems.com
DEADICATION: The Proof That God Does Not Exist
"There Are No Believers in the World: There Are Only the Make-Beleivers and Non-Believers" Sharon Esther Lampert
http://www.WorldFamousPoems.com
"There Are No Believers in the World: There Are Only the Make-Beleivers and Non-Believers" Sharon Esther Lampert
http://www.WorldFamousPoems.com