Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath

[cuddly_tomato]

Atheists can be fundamentally crazy as well, so back off the hate on religion.

but the percentage is a lot lower than religious fundamentals

Only due to the fact that religious people are still have a very large majority. Just like in religious groups, certain atheists are getting seriously out of hand and are seeking the erradication of all opposition to their own religious beliefs, much to the chagrin of more reasonable atheists.

honestly, do you grasp the meaning of "percentage"? this is not intended as flame, just checking

Yes, but without specifying which particular percentage, the word is meaningless. Do you mean percentage of world fundamentalists whatever their creed? If so my statement is accurate. Or percentage of fundy atheists vs percentage of fundy theists? If so then I would still say that it is accurate, although you would probably disagree.

If you take these threads as any kind of indictator, the amount of fundamentalist atheists is actually disproportionately higher than theists. I would ascribe this more to it being on the internet though, where atheism is 'in vogue'.

Without doing an actual survey though, who is to know?

 

[Archaeology Hat]

I advocate uh... militant agnosticism.

 

[s-l-u-g]

Oh, why can't they see that being bitchy like this makes people hate them. Like the PeTA effect.

Mind if I steal the term, "PeTA effect," that sounds like a great way to describe whinny protesters who only become less popular by protesting.

well actually PETA were massive hypocrites who killed animals all the time. kept them in cold storage too. penn and teller. watch it.

 

[Specter_]

Atheists can be fundamentally crazy as well, so back off the hate on religion.

but the percentage is a lot lower than religious fundamentals

Only due to the fact that religious people are still have a very large majority. Just like in religious groups, certain atheists are getting seriously out of hand and are seeking the erradication of all opposition to their own religious beliefs, much to the chagrin of more reasonable atheists.

honestly, do you grasp the meaning of "percentage"? this is not intended as flame, just checking

Yes, but without specifying which particular percentage, the word is meaningless. Do you mean percentage of world fundamentalists whatever their creed? If so my statement is accurate. Or percentage of fundy atheists vs percentage of fundy theists? If so then I would still say that it is accurate, although you would probably disagree.

If you take these threads as any kind of indictator, the amount of fundamentalist atheists is actually disproportionately higher than theists. I would ascribe this more to it being on the internet though, where atheism is 'in vogue'.

Without doing an actual survey though, who is to know?

i don't care about creed, that's why i generalized with "religious fundamentalists" and to respond to taerdin as well as you:
no, i don't have a chart to show off. but name one case in which a group of atheist killed someone for believing in a god (not for living by a certain book sent down from heaven, mind you).
now, i admit that atheist are easily offended by forced religious stuff but i also like to think that a "fundamental atheist" is an oxymoron. so far in my life i have yet to meet an atheist who tries to force someone to not believe.
again i have to admit, it's fun to screw with religious people, like letting the jehovas witnesses do the math on their chances for salvation, but after all is said and done, it's still their choice to believe in god or not.

but to sway back on topic, this is not about pro's and con's of religion, i leave that to everyone to decide for themselves, but that is exactly the point of this discussion: the inauguration does not offer that choice, since the oath contains a phrase concerning god. my opinion, as said before is simply this:
let the person choose wether to mention some invisible guy or not

but then i'm an agnostic, so maybe i'm talking out of my arse after all

 

[kenji8055]

It doesn't matter. Either way it won't happen, not because it shouldn't but because it would never be allowed. If he doesn't believe in God then he would still have to swear, do you think that an atheist could become president... not bloody likely!

See in the great debate of science vs religion at least science can admit that it's wrong in fact there are areas of it where that is their goal. Religion has to be right and if it isn't then it must be devine will or some other such cop-out.

 

[Specter_]

It doesn't matter. Either way it won't happen, not because it shouldn't but because it would never be allowed. If he doesn't believe in God then he would still have to swear, do you think that an atheist could become president... not bloody likely!

he still has to swear an oath on something he has no regard for, thus making the oath worthless. and that's the whole point of "let him choose". or let him swear on the constitution instead of the bible. just leave god out of the basics and if he wants to he can bring it in himself

on regards of "it won't happen":
it is true, because

Spoiler: european rant on americans

in my narrow-minded and prejudice-ridden opinion, the majority of us-americans are religious retards (mind, retards when it comes to topics of religion and god, not retards who believe in god) who have the invisible man stuck up so far in their rectum they see the devil in everything foreign, alien and/or different

 

[beddo]

Hopefully the U.S. won't go completely secular. Whether you all like it or not, the country was founded on the belief in God. We are a tolerant country--come and practice whatever you want. Just because you are offended by "In God we Trust" on our money or mentioning God in an oath or in the courtroom...

It was founded on the principle that all people are made equal but that didn't work out did it?

No other nation has roserisen to power so quickly. To get to where the US currently is in status, it took the Roman Empire 500+ years.

Actually the USSR rose to become a super power quicker than the US. It's not really a surprise that the US did it faster than Rome. The land the US 'conquered' was practically empty and America does not actually have the same sort of power that the Roman Empire did.

More importantly it was down to technology. It's a lot easier to progress if you have guns and build everything using slaves, just look at Egypt.

This is mindboggling. All religious laws have a "ten commandantscommandments", all modern law is based off of that document. So why can't we have a sculpture of the Ten Commandants outside of a courthouse??

Not all religious law have ten commandments, pretty much just the Abrahamic ones. Also, the there is no original document of the ten commandments. If there was do you not think they would be put under serious scientifc scrutiny?

All we think we know is that the ten commandments were inscribed onto stone tablets, no-one knows what they look like so a sculpture wouuld be a best guess at most. Also, it wouldn't exactly sit well to have "Thou Shalt Not Kill" written outside courts that have the death penalty would it?

 

[thedo12]

as an atheist/agnostic (and yes thoose terms do not contridict each other) , I just find saying "so help me god" hilarious.Look at it from our perspective, it would be like if the president said "so help me magical pink unicorn" to christians.



also, atheism is not in anyway a religion, just check out there definitions.

religion:
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

atheism:
Disbelief in of the existence of God or gods.

there is nothing in thoose two definitons that overlap.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

i don't care about creed, that's why i generalized with "religious fundamentalists" and to respond to taerdin as well as you:
no, i don't have a chart to show off. but name one case in which a group of atheist killed someone for believing in a god (not for living by a certain book sent down from heaven, mind you).

There have been thousands, not one. All of them killed, by atheists, for nothing more than refusing to give up their religious beliefs. But if you want *one* case I can provide that very easily....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Alexandrovich_Florensky

I wonder if you have ever heard of this guy either?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josyf_Slipyj

Look up what happened in the Solovki special purpose camp. Eight metropolitans, twenty archbishops, and forty seven bishops of the orthodox church died there.

Read about Felix Dzerzhinsky sometime, then come back and tell me atheists have never hurt or done any wrong in the name of atheism.

now, i admit that atheist are easily offended by forced religious stuff but i also like to think that a "fundamental atheist" is an oxymoron. so far in my life i have yet to meet an atheist who tries to force someone to not believe.

Read the religious threads on this forum. Plenty of evangelical atheists calling for an end to religious beliefs merely because it doesn't sit well with them. More than a dozen I guess, without actually counting. I know of exactly two theists who are fundamentalist and want their particular views forced upon others.

again i have to admit, it's fun to screw with religious people, like letting the jehovas witnesses do the math on their chances for salvation, but after all is said and done, it's still their choice to believe in god or not.

So you are sociopathic then. Thank you for sharing that at this stage, it saves me from having to respond to any more of your posts.

 

[Specter_]

There have been thousands, not one. All of them killed, by atheists, for nothing more than refusing to give up their religious beliefs. But if you want *one* case I can provide that very easily....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Alexandrovich_Florensky

from the very wikipedia-article you prompted:

In 1924, he published a large monograph on Dielectrics, as well as his The Pillar and Ground of the Truth An Essay in Orthodox Theodicy in Twelve Letters. He also worked simultaneously as the Scientific Secretary of Historical Commission on Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra and published his works on Ancient Russian Art. He was also rumored to be the main organizer of the plot to save the relics of St. Sergii Radonezhsky that had been ordered destroyed by the government.
[...]
In 1928, Florensky was exiled to Nizhny Novgorod. After the intercession of Ekaterina Peshkova (wife of Maxim Gorky), Florensky was allowed to return to Moscow. In 1933 he was arrested again and sentenced to ten years in the Labor Camps by the infamous article fifty eight of Stalin's criminal code (clauses ten and eleven - agitation against the Soviet system and publishing agitation materials against the Soviet system). The published agitation materials were the monograph about the theory of relativity.
[...]
He served at the Baikal Amur Mainline camp, until 1934 when he was moved to Solovki, there he conducted research into producing iodine and agar out of the local seaweed. In 1937 he was transferred to Saint Petersburg (then known as Leningrad) where he was sentenced by an extrajudicial NKVD troika to execution. According to a legend he was sentenced for the refusal to disclose the location of the head of St. Sergii Radonezhsky that the communists wanted to destroy. The Saint's head was indeed saved and in 1946, the Troitse-Sergiyeva Lavra was opened again. The relics of St. Sergii became fashionable once more. The Saint's relics were returned to Lavra by Pavel Golubtsov, later known as archbishop Sergiy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josyf_Slipyj

again, from your wiki-source:

In reality, this was the first step in the planned liquidation of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church by Soviet authorities. After being jailed in Lviv, Kiev, and Moscow, a Soviet court sentenced him to eight years of hard labor in the Siberian Gulag.

At this time Soviet authorities forcibly convened an assembly of 216 priests, and on 9 March 1946 and the following day, the so-called "Synod of Lviv" was held in St. George's Cathedral. The Union of Brest, the council at which the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church formally entered into ecclesiastic communion with the Holy See, was revoked. The Church was forcibly "rejoined" to the Russian Orthodox Church.

Slipyj's prison writings managed to circulate. In 1957 Pope Pius XII sent him a congratulatory letter on the 40th anniversary of his ordination to the priesthood. It was confiscated, and also on account of his circulating writings, he was sentenced to seven more years in prison. On January 23, 1963, he was freed by Nikita Khrushchev's administration after political pressure from Pope John XXIII and United States President John F. Kennedy. He arrived in Rome in time to participate in the Second Vatican Council.

[...]

He died in 1984

on solovski:

Many prisoners were members of the intelligentsia, and represent the cream of Tsarist and revolutionary-period Russia.

if you sported unwanted thoughts you were killed. easy as that. but to sport such thoughts it was best to be educated. many priests received education. coincidence? i think not.

Felix Dzerzhinsky

wiki:

Tens of thousands of political opponents were shot without trial in the basements of prisons and public places throughout Russia - and not only opponents. People who happened to be intellectuals, capitalists and priests were shot simply for who they were.

again, educated people are the enemy of all dictators, no matter what profession they follow

Plenty of evangelical atheists

ok, i'm sorry, but i don't get this. what is an "evangelical atheist"?

So you are sociopathic then. Thank you for sharing that at this stage, it saves me from having to respond to any more of your posts.

hmmm, it makes me a sociopath that i encourage people to think about what they are telling other people is the best way to live?
or do you mean that i'm a sociopath because i take glee out of trying to make people realize that their leaders are a bunch of money-mongering, bs-feeding chimpanzees?

 

[Taerdin]

so far in my life i have yet to meet an atheist who tries to force someone to not believe.

Really? I can't seem to 'turn a corner' on the internet without atheists attempting to convince religious people that they are wrong, or that its stupid to believe in 'magic' or however you like to say it. In fact you almost admit to being like that yourself...

i take glee out of trying to make people realize that their leaders are a bunch of money-mongering, bs-feeding chimpanzees

BS feeding? As in you try to make people realize they should not believe in their religion because YOU feel its BS? Interesting...

i have to admit, it's fun to screw with religious people, like letting the jehovas witnesses do the math on their chances for salvation, but after all is said and done, it's still their choice to believe in god or not.

Of course its their choice, but why would you screw with religious people? Didn't you just profess that you don't try to convince people of what to believe? This sounds very much like you're trying to convince them to not believe, thereby painting yourself as the very epitome of the atheist you claim rarely exists. I on the other hand claim that - at least on these boards - they seem pretty rampant, constantly making arguments to theists and agnostics alike that what they believe is wrong, thereby telling them what to believe.

 

[Specter_]

Really? I can't seem to 'turn a corner' on the internet without atheists attempting to convince religious people that they are wrong, or that its stupid to believe in 'magic' or however you like to say it. In fact you almost admit to being like that yourself...

no. at least i think i'm not trying to convert someone. i'm just trying to make them THINK about what they believe

BS feeding? As in you try to make people realize they should not believe in their religion because YOU feel its BS? Interesting...

again, and to use the jehovas witnesses example, i'm merely pointing out flaws in the, yes i call it that, shit they're trying to feed me. like "only 144000 souls will gain salvation" when in germany alone they have over 1 million followers. in my opinion that's not a good quota considering all the other shit i'd have to go through if i joined their religious system, like refusing vital operations

Of course its their choice, but why would you screw with religious people? Didn't you just profess that you don't try to convince people of what to believe? This sounds very much like you're trying to convince them to not believe, thereby painting yourself as the very epitome of the atheist you claim rarely exists. I on the other hand claim that - at least on these boards - they seem pretty rampant, constantly making arguments to theists and agnostics alike that what they believe is wrong, thereby telling them what to believe.

i screw with them because they come to my door, disturb me at whatever i am doing and want to talk to me about god. so i chat with them. if it turns out they have some fundamental flaws, i point them out and amuse myself with their struggle to maintain their press on me to join their ranks.

while this might sound pants on head retarded in this thread i usually stay well out of any religious debate since honestly i just don't give a fuck. BUT as soon as religion touches me, someone i care for or politics i do get involved, because then it usually affects me as well and i will not accept that some invisible guy or a bs-feeding chimpanzee has any more influence on my life than they already do in these so-called secular governments

 

[rekabdarb]

well its too late now isn't it eh?

hopefully the next 4 years don't suck because of him

 

[cuddly_tomato]

--snipped for space--

He has already said "again i have to admit, it's fun to screw with religious people". That is sociopathic. You see, sociopaths don't think of other people as people, they think of them as abstract entertainment. With that in mind, do you really think you are going to get anywhere? .

Trust me it will be less stressful if you just step away. Read the thread over, there are plenty of reasonable atheists you can respond too.

 

[Archaeology Hat]

--snipped for space--

He has already said "again i have to admit, it's fun to screw with religious people". That is sociopathic. You see, sociopaths don't think of other people as people, they think of them as abstract entertainment. With that in mind, do you really think you are going to get anywhere? .

Trust me it will be less stressful if you just step away. Read the thread over, there are plenty of reasonable atheists you can respond too.

This.

 

[exocel]

speaking as an atheiest i took it more as implying the gravity of the position, that you f up and you would need a dietys help to ...un f it up i guess. ive never found it offensive.

 

[bickster]

The topic of religion and god is always a very tricky one, as a catholic and a believer in god, I of course would have no issue with any mention of god being in anything. But on the same hands I do take point and understand people who choose to not believe in a divine existence and in this case agree with them. The North American Nations are supposed to be nations that do not pursecture against religion and leave you free to make your own choices and it is very unfortunate that the only way to do that is to NOT make religous references at all if you are in a seat of power.

Nobody would prosecute or be upset for a president or prime minister being a person of religion, nor should they if that person is of non-religion. When they are sworn in their first duty is to the people of this country and keeping them all happy, having the phrase of "so help me god" I think should be more then allowed as a matter of fact, as it is Obama making a personal swear to himself, not the nation.

I would however agree on the fronts of removing it from being sworn in at a court of law, or anything that references the nation as a whole. Even as a catholic I believe that "In God, we trust" should not be on currancy, as not everyone is a believer of god or his will. This is just my opinion on this situation anyway.

 

[Tekrae]

Well most states in the USA seem to be Christian from what I've seen (I live in the UK) - Evolution is not allowed to be taught in many states - So I dread to think what would happen if that part wasn't mentioned.

 

[Humility]

Catering to one group or another is a slippery slope. The neo nazis and white supremacists are offended that Obama is a black man. Should he wear a opaque suit and paper bag over his head and hide his race? Hard core feminist groups are offended that he isn't a she. Should he have surgery to make himself gender neutral so as not to make any sexist differences? He is speaking his words. Some deaf person could be offended that he wasn't signing as well. Or if someone who didn't speak English was watching and was offended that it wasn't in their language. Should we require that all our political candidates express themselves in every form of communication possible so no one is left out? Of course not, this is all absurd.

His skin is black. His gender is male. He is speaking words and they are in English. He is also a Christian. And Christians put their faith in God. I would be more concerned if he said he was a Christian and didn't act like it. (In fact Christian tradition says that a person who claims to be a Christian and doesn't act like it is WORSE than an atheist, someone who doesn't believe at all.) Our politicians should be who they say they are.

We elected Obama the Christian and if he didn't behave like Obama the Christian then we'd have a real problem.

 

[Alex_P]

Having seen the inauguration, I really feel like they should've removed Roberts altogether. All he did was bungle the words.

Letting Obama say the oath (and whatever else he wanted to append) without a prompter would've worked better.

-- Alex