Customer Discussions > Christianity forum

Are non-Christians (atheists, muslims, etc.) un-American?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 376-400 of 677 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 12:40:01 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JC:'Because humanity is NOT the only known source of ideas.'

-That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 12:53:46 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
"Because humanity is NOT the only known source of ideas."

Yes, it is. Humanity is the only intelligent species proven to exist. Any others are speculation (i.e., ideas).

Posted on Apr 26, 2012 12:56:12 PM PDT
Rev. Otter says:
"What does God want with a starship?"
-- J. T. Kirk

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:00:08 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
RO:'"What does God want with a starship?" -- J. T. Kirk

Bingo. That also applies when the object is cash, donations, and so on. If a god as described were to exist, and it failed/refused to provide what it's people needed/wanted, who would anyone else be to interfere in that ?

-George Bush says he speaks to god every day, and christians love him for it. If George Bush said he spoke to god through his hair dryer, they would think he was mad. I fail to see how the addition of a hair dryer makes it any more absurd.-

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:11:53 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:14:50 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:19:31 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JC:'Sloganeering is not productive discourse.'

Then, stop doing it. Your UNsupported claims ARE slogans.

'Do you have any thoughts of your own on the matter?'

Yes, anyone who wishes to suggest that any person of a different personal religious or nor religious view is somehow less a citizen of their nation is a mindless fascist bigot. I think that that's clear enough.

-Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church.-

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:20:09 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JC:'Not necessarily.'

JC:'Sloganeering is not productive discourse.'

Hypocrite.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:31:12 PM PDT
Cal

Her name is Annie Laurie Gaylor, Anna Nicol Smith is a different matter entirely.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:46:14 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:47:38 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:49:06 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JC:'Actually it is OUR school.'

Lie. PUBLIC schools belong to ALL of us, and when ONE group demands Special Privileges For Themselves in it, the answer is always NO.

'Do YOU have any original thoughts on the claim of humanity being the sole source of ideas?'

<Laughs> You don't, that's been well proven already. In any case, if YOU wish to claim that there is another source, The Burden Of Proof to back up that claim with EVIDENCE is also Yours.

Fail/refuse to back up your claim: -That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.-

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 1:50:15 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JC Hypocrited Again.

JC:'Not necessarily.'

JC:'Sloganeering is not productive discourse.'

YOUR public hypocrisy, YOUR earned consequence. Deal with, and stop throwing your tantrum.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 2:35:13 PM PDT
Me -- Actually it is OUR school.
AL -- Lie.

According to this site:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/2011-taxreceipt
3.6% of our taxes are spent on public education. I have not lied, and I would thank you to retract that statement.

AL -- redirect...

You can't (or won't) even answer the question. Why do you think that is?

AL -- That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Repeating a false slogan will not make it less false. So, we sit here each accusing the other. It's not very productive is it?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 2:41:52 PM PDT
Andre Lieven says:
JC:'3.6% of our taxes are spent on public education. I have not lied, and I would thank you to retract that statement.'

That's 3.6% of EVERYONE'S taxes. Thus, you delusional lunatics DON'T get to demand your delusions be taught there.

'You can't (or won't) even answer the question. Why do you think that is?'

Since that's another lie, it appears to be because you are a will serial liar.

'Repeating a false slogan will not make it less false.'

Then, stop doing that. Duh.

Posted on Apr 26, 2012 2:44:28 PM PDT
Oh brother, this is a silly topic. Of course they are not. America is about freedom, at least in its ideals. - Pastor Tim Royal
Your reply to Kindle Customer's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 2:47:33 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Apr 26, 2012 2:47:51 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 3:01:05 PM PDT
Bubba says:
Think LC had his tongue planted firmly in cheek when he typed that.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 3:04:30 PM PDT
Bubba says:
What other intelligent species do you feel exist? I will provisionally give you certain other mammals, such as other apes and certain marine mammals if you wish to consider some of them to be intelligent.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 3:31:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 26, 2012 4:27:45 PM PDT
mrs exp says: "I have always been up front about how I believe on these forums and while no Christians have criticized me openly I have "felt" their disapproval by their silence. Not one that I am aware of have ever agreed with me."

That says more about the group to which you claim membership than yourself.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 3:43:20 PM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 7:19:01 PM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Curly: It would be most pleasant to accept that however the evidence seems to be the opposite.

K: I agree that it would be more pleasant to accept this. I don't agree that the evidence seems to be the opposite, though I used to. What I have come to think is that the evidence appears to be the opposite, but in reality is not.

Curly: From christers denying Global Climate Change (and thwarting solutions), Bush/Cheney's crusade in Iraq and Afghanistan (which Obama eagerly continued [both are self-admitted christers who grovel in public to a "higher authority"]), the Republican "War on Women" (which includes assassination of abortion doctors, ending healthcare for women, ending heathcare for needy children, starving unwed mothers and their children, denying contraception to prevent more unwanted children, unequal treatment for female workers, etc.)

K: We are in agreement that all of these issues are real, and worthy of consideration, though I feel that they vary in degree of seriousness. But, I also think that they are not all directly attributable to religious belief. For a great many people, even Christians, these are economic issues, political issues, social issues, and science issues that are informed by ideologies that are not necessarily directly connected or caused by specific religious beliefs. A great many Christians accept evolution, object to these wars, support women's rights and choice, and believe that global warming is a real and serious issue. Admittedly for some Christians their political, social, economic, and scientific views are informed in greater degrees by their religious beliefs. But many, whether because of different interpretations of their religious beliefs, or because of thought and philosophy less influenced by their religious beliefs, come to different conclusions than those who support the "wrong side" of your listed issues.

Furthermore, it is now my opinion that what you have listed, in varying degrees, when directly connected to religious beliefs are not the majority you worry about. Rather, they are a vocal, admittedly influential, minority. Does that mean such issues are not worth addressing and refuting? No, absolutely not. But it does mean, in my opinion, that it does not lend itself to the generalization of Christians you have offered. The ones who reject evolution and fight for it to be removed from school curriculum or taught alongside Creationism are relatively few. The ones who reject global warming are relatively few, and don't reject it mainly based on religious beliefs, but on political ideologies. (They are wed to anti-liberalism and conservative ideology which posits global warming as a liberal conspiracy. Thus cognitive bias is an issue, but not necessarily religious belief.)

For most of these issues there are atheists who support the position you object to and Christians who support the side you support. Admittedly, for the issue of Creationism and evolution, there are not atheists lending their support. But from the wars, to global warming, to economic and some of the social issues, there are in fact atheists who fit in to your "Christian" position and Christians (quite a few in fact) who are in opposition to the issues you list, agreeing with you. And some Christians fall on both sides, accepting evolution, and or accepting global warming, while supporting said wars and having varying degrees of support for the various issues women are facing.

Curly: this topic (Are non-christians Americans?) which assumes the power to take away Constitutional rights and protections from "others", christers constantly assail and attack science.

K: Yes, but let's be honest here. The "topic" was started by an atheist asking the question, looking for Christian input. It was not started by a Christian making the statement. And, though whatever input we can mine as evidence from such a limited sample, we have not seen many Christians support the premise, and we have seen many Christians reject the premise.

Curly: The list is endless and I most of all object to our elected representatives prostrating themselves in public to self-appointed guardians of cults, such as the Pope, and professing their beliefs in non-existent critters. Belief in the non-existent is insane, not a ticket to public office. That there is joy in expressing that insanity rather than shame says more than I can write.

K: Yes, though there is an explicit de jure protection against such things in our political system, there does in fact exist a defacto religious test. It has existed since day one of our nation, and continues to exist. It exists in all nations to some degree. It is the rare nation today that elects a professed atheist to office, especially to the highest office. Some have managed it. Chile, with all of its religiously based politics, actually elected an atheist woman. The shame you see is, for the most part, a global reality though admittedly in some nations it is much less pronounced than it is in the U.S., and is only recently in any measurable decline in some nations.

Curly: And fools greedily suck it up for the ballot box.

K: Fools greedily such up all sorts of things at the ballot box, no matter what their religious beliefs are. Irrationality and cognitive biases are a decidedly human issue and for the most part we all suffer from it, whether religious or atheist, whether liberal or conservative.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 7:23:31 PM PDT
mrs exp says:
Bubba,
Of course.
exp

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 7:37:41 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
It's not intelligence, per se, that sets humans apart from the rest of planetary life. It is the fact that we are the species with true symbolic language at our disposal. Without language, ideas are rather difficult to formulate.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 26, 2012 7:44:22 PM PDT
Mr. Krinkle says:
Jeremy Crockett says:
BC -- How exactly is it arrogant to think that an idea came from the only known source of ideas--humanity?

Because humanity is NOT the only known source of ideas.

K: Even if it is true that humanity is not the only known source of ideas, it is not arrogant to think that it is. Do you think that it is arrogant to believe, (to assume in my opinion) that the entire universe was created for mankind?
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Christianity forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Christianity forum
Participants:  56
Total posts:  677
Initial post:  Apr 12, 2012
Latest post:  May 2, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions