Angyson

To paraphrase Alfred Adler, feelings of superiority really mask feelings of inferiority. My first impressions of this forum were that many of you did not distinguish between attacking Christians and attacking their beliefs, which are fair game. What kind of forum would you have if you scared away all Christians and were left with just infidels preaching to the unconverted ?

Acknowledge that a country whose motto is "In God We Trust " has given you separation of church and state, removed religion from schools, provided you with constitutional rights to freedom of religion and freedom of expression, amongst other things. It is for the most part, Christians who have given you these rights and in turn you use your freedom to attack not their beliefs , but them. I find this unacceptable.

Sure, they have made many mistakes, like beheading and burning at the stake some of their devoted believers. Must we do the same ?

Sven

Just a small question: How is any of this an argument for the existence of God?

I'll leave the many errors in your post to others. Just a hint: Especially the second paragraph is full of nonsense. Oh, I see Nectaris has already done a good job.

Nectaris

Does this have anything to do with the existence of gods?

Do you have any specific examples of this feeling of superiority coming through in someone's posts?

Also I think there's a reason why pithy sayings are not considered valid argument, because often times they are wrong. I would really like to slap the next person who uses the clause, "the exception that proves the rule," silly. Do I think my position is superior? Yes, in a way, because I feel I'm right. If I believed I were wrong in my position, it wouldn't really make much sense for me to maintain that position. Do I feel I'm a superior person? I would like to think not.


Don't you find it somewhat ironic that a country who has a motto proclaiming monotheism yet claims to have freedom of religion? I think we should look at the intent of the founders here and not a national motto that was added in the midst of the cold war. If you want to be inclusive why not restore the national motto to E Pluribus Unum. As it stands the national motto is saying that non-believers in the god of Abraham aren't equal citizens. Of course, that is only my impression.

Perhaps this discussion is better suited for C/SS?

If you find the behavior of posters on this board unacceptable, no one is requiring you to visit here. Telling people they're wrong and they better shape up doesn't doesn't encourage people to change--it only generates hostility. Before casting judgment on an entire group of people, perhaps you might want to stick around for a little while and actually try to converse with people. I'm the only one who can control my behavior as you are the only one who can control yours.

Perhaps if you a problem with a specific thread or poster, you may want to address it in the appopriate thread.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested doing that sort of thing. Stick around if you want to, leave if you don't like the general tenor of the posts. I would prefer the former as one more voice heard on any issue is almost always welcome even if it disagrees with me. In many ways that is preferable.

Dave

Angyson

"the second paragraph is full of nonsense "

I cannot defend what I do not recognize as nonsense.

Would you care to be a little more specific ?

Worldtraveller

That's a whole lot of (incorrect) assumptions, and wrong history you got there.
That motto was changed during the 50s, at the height of the cold war, during the 'pinko commie scare' of the McCarthy era. Many people are not proud of this country and what was done in the name of democracy during that time period. Our national motto, was, more appropriately "E Pluribus Unum" for much longer, and our country got along just fine before the Knights of Colombus pushed their religious agenda into politics and got it changed, inserted 'under god' into the pledge, and generally did a bang up job of knocking a few bricks out of the proverbial wall of separation.
This is a logical offshoot (and the phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson) of the first amendment. Just like it is a logical offshoot that freedom of religion necessitates freedon from religion.
You've been watching too much Fox news, and not studying enough actual history. Religion has not been 'removed' from schools. It is illegal for teahers/administrators in public schools to preach, proselytize, or otherwise push religion on the children who are in their classes while they are in their classes. If all of those specific qualifiers don't give you any indication of the limits to the law, then I'm not sure if it can be made much clearer.
But you wouldn't have a problem with that Hindu teacher preaching to your child during their math class, right?
Provided all of us with these constitutional rights, and I take exception to your wording. The powers of the government are derived from the will of the goverened, not the other way around.
That's a specious argument at best, and a baseless accusation to boot. Atheists are not 'attacking' xians. Read through many of the threads here. Examples abound of 'good' xians making death threats against those who assert and stand up for their fist amendment rights.
Is it your opinion that since xians 'gave us these rights' that it's ok for them to try and trample all over them now?
Now, as for "Christians who have given you these rights", do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? According to most history scholars, most of the framers of the constitution were definitely not what one would consider a good xian by todays standards. Remember, these men were all products of the age of enlightenment. They were mostly deists, and few of them supported organized religion in any way.
To be fair, there were a few devoutly religious men among them (I believe Patrick Henry was one), and they tried to get more religious references and special priveleges inserted into the constitution when it was written. Yet, read the constitution; you will find that the framers went out of their way to make sure the government did not support any religion, and to avoid any kind of entanglement with established churches.
Cheers,
Lane
References:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm
http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/thin...igion/id9.html
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/..._founders.html
http://pup.princeton.edu/chapters/i7500.html
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

Angyson

This forum is chock full of posts regarding the existence of God.

My point is that you should be taking a closer look at your methods of disproving this existence. It does noone any good to say all Christians are fools. Stick to attacking the fundamental beliefs, and cease attacking the believers.

In other words, we can agree to disagree without becoming disagreable.

Sven

I added that Nectaris had done a good job pointing it out. See his post.

Rightly so - it's called this way. How does this explain what your post is
doing here?

Do this in GRD, for example, please.

Can you point to any post in which Christians were called fools?

Vorkosigan

Angyson, unlike a Christian forum, a significant number of our posters are not American and do not have the mythical history of the US you proffer in the OP. Do not assume you are dealing with Americans when you post here.

Spenser

I don't think inferiority is really the word you wanted to use here. I think it should have been insecurity and that is what your post wreaks of... :thumbs:

Gooch's dad

Angyson, Christians don't "give" us atheists the rights you mention. Rights come from ALL the people, as the founding fathers made quite clear. We the people give the government some (limited) rights, but they are quite limited.

As for the supposed attacks on Christians, that really is nothing more than your opinion. I for one welcome Christians to come to IIDB and debate, and I'm glad that many intelligent Christians do exactly that. What good is your faith if it can't stand up to the challenges we present here at IIDB?