DOES ANY ONE KNOW IF LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE A RULE OR BAN AGAINST HIRING ATHEISTS. IT WOULD SEEM THEY SHOULD BECAUSE I CAN ENVISION OTHER OFFICERS BEING UNCOMFORTABLE AROUND THEM AND NOT TRUSTING THEM IN A SITUATION THAT MAY INVOLVE COVER MY BACK.
IT WOULD ALSO SEEM THAT AN ATHEIST OFFICER COULD NOT DEAL WITH MANY OF THE CRISIS SITUATIONS THEY ENCOUNTER. FOR EXAMPLE. THERE IS A VERY BAD AUTO ACCIDENT AND SEVERAL PEOPLE INJURED BADLY ONE OF WHOM IS NEAR DEATH.
HOW WOULD THIS OFFICER RESPOND IF SOMEONE ASKED HIM TO PRAY WITH US.
LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS. LETS HAVE SOME COMMENTS
Was it your intent to appear to be yelling your post or did you miss the lesson in school with regard to capitalization?
FYI: Any policy discriminating against someone based upon their religious preference would be a violation of standing federal laws.
What entertained me more were the fatuous examples you gave in support of religious discrimination. Let’s look at these.
Reason 1) Other officers would be uncomfortable around them and not trust them in certain situations.
Funny how that same excuse was used back when ignorant people didn’t want blacks hired as cops but that was TOTALLY different you would say. Other than this being a projection of how you feel onto everyone else, people are hired for jobs based upon their ability and prior work experience; not for the sole reason that they happen to agree with your mythological beliefs. Some people are uncomfortable around those of a different ethnicity; we call these people racist and recognize that how they feel is the result of ignorance and fear. You are uncomfortable around people who do not dabble in the fantasy role-playing of Christianity; we call people like you religious bigots because how you feel is likewise a result of ignorance and fear.
Reason 2) AN ATHEIST OFFICER COULD NOT DEAL WITH MANY OF THE CRISIS SITUATIONS THEY ENCOUNTER.
And you know this how? The fact is you don’t. Non-belief in some Santa Clause for grown-ups does not preclude one from possessing empathy or acting courageously. Let us address your absurd example of praying at an accident where someone is near death. A religious person like you might well pray, all the while doing jack shit for the injured person while they lay dying in a mangled car. While you are praying, the officer who understands that incantations and laying-on of hands is pointless, would be assisting with things that actually matter, like stabilizing the victim’s neck, ensuring an open airway, preventing excess blood loss; you know, the kind of medically proven shit that actually saves lives.
This doesn’t mean you can’t hold hands and stand around talking to yourself with your eyes closes, just stay out the way and let the professionals do their job. Don’t worry, we understand that after the person makes a full recovery you’ll forget about the Fire/Rescue team and EMTs that busted their ass to keep the victim alive and simply claim that Jesus did it all because, after all, that’s what you asked him to do isn’t it?
Finally, your question isn’t legitimate, it is an ignorant question posed by a bigoted ignorant person. I pity you enough to give a legitimate answer but only because I wish to expose your bigotry.
There is an old saying around these parts: If the shoe fits wear it. Are you not anti-religion, anti-bible, anti -jesus therefore anti- christ.
Direct answer to your question would be Damn right you are the anti-christ.
Even if someone were anti-Jesus that does not make them anti-Christ, you have yet to provide a single iota of evidence that the man Jesus was anointed by any deity. The Jews and Muslims certainly do not think he was the son of any god. Also there is a distinction between holding a position of being anti-Christ and being the actual supernatural boogeyman written about to scare ignorant adults into not asking questions.
Anti-religion, sure in the sense that I’m against any system which demands the surrender of reason and the freedom of thought in favor of blind obedience to the scripture of a single book.
Which brings us to being anti-bible. I’m against any book which claims to be written or inspired by a deity and above questioning. I’m against any book which commands the reader to execute people practicing a competing religion or for being a homosexual. I’m against a any book which claims that righteousness comes from one’s own willingness to murder their own child in the name of god or that one must accept without evidence that some god had his own child murdered on my behalf.
I can’t say I’m entirely anti-Jesus. As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him [Jesus] by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”
Lastly. “May it be to the world, what I believe it will be,(to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God.” -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Roger C. Weightman, June 24, 1826 (in the last letter he penned)
Ok Mr Smart ass I will give you the opportunity to respond to the post no 1606. You seem to like to stick your nose in.
Challenge . No Bullshit. Read the post and respond. As I said I don’t think either of you can relate to life experiences. You are lost in your lala land of theory and lies.
[QUESTION IN POST 1606]
Ask yourself the question. Would non-believers fair better under Christianity and civilized law or islam and sharia law?
The premise of your question is flawed. The first option is self-contradictory.
Christian religious law is not civilized. Burning witches, stoning unruly kids, executing gay people, stoning adulterers, etc is not in any sense of the word civilized.
We must first separate your false claim that current law is Christian and note the true nature of Christian religions law. Only then can everyone see that an atheist like me would fair no better under Christian religious law than I would under sharia. We are lucky that a majority of the founding fathers were well aware of the divisive nature of religion and set about founding a nation which follows neither of your options. Our laws are secular and our government functions with the principle that religion shall not dictate government policy and government shall not establish or otherwise endorse a religion.
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814
The men who wrote the bible were men used by God to put down what God wanted us to know. It’s accepted historically that the resurrection must of happened because of the eyewitnesses which included skeptics, people who were the enemy of Jesus and those who were his friends and the apostles themselves. Jews did not believe in a resurrected Jesus, they believed in an earthly kingdom. The apostles believed beyond all predisposed facts of the Jewish belief, and were even willing to die for him. The miracles and exorcism helped to confirm who he said he was.
“eyewitnesses which included skeptics” <- Who are these “skeptics” and what is your source?
“were even willing to die for him” <- Thousands of people have been willing to die for multiple religions, that does not make them true.
“The miracles and exorcism helped to confirm who he said he was.” – Circular reasoning. The Bible says miracles occurred and we should believe this because it is in the Bible. It is written that Mohammad performed over 1000 miracles. Does this confirm that he was the true prophet of god? No. Does this confirm that Islam is the one true faith? No.
Working for the Lord wrote:
Life as we know it happens only to be approx. 11,000 years old. If you count the genealogies of the beginig of ceation to now this is what you will come up with, not millions or billions.
You base your belief that life began 11,000 years ago on the genealogies of the bible, so how does your Bible account for fossils?
Were all the craters on the moon created in the past 11,000 years?
There is a satellite galaxy next to our Milky Way called The Large Magellanic Cloud. This collection of stars is around 160,000 light-years away from us and yet we can see it with the naked eye from the southern hemisphere. If everything was kicked off 11,000 years ago then we shouldn’t see the light from this dwarf galaxy for another 149,000 years, and yet we do.
The closest spiral galaxy like ours, Andromeda, is 2.5 million light-years away and we can see it.
In 2009 astronomers spotted the most distant object yet confirmed in the universe – a self-destructing star that exploded 13.1 billion light years from Earth. It detonated just 630 million years after the big bang, around the end of the cosmic “dark ages”, when the first stars and galaxies were lighting up space. To gauge the object’s distance, astronomers measure how much the object’s light has been stretched, or reddened, by the expansion of space. That burst had a redshift of 8.2, more distant than the previous GRB record holder, which lay at a redshift of 6.7.
I can continue to give you a mountain of evidence which shows beyond a doubt that we live in a cosmos Billions of years old. The ignorant superstitious men who wrote your bible had no way of knowing what we now know. They had no clue about physics or biology or chemistry. YOUR BIBLE IS DEAD WRONG. I’m sorry to break it to you but so long as you continue to persist in stultifying nonsense and superstition you will never know that reality is far more amazing than made up stories of the bible.
Atheist uses tools like science and the thought that when you die you simply cease to exsist, so no need to worry about judgment day when one dies, clever but wrong.
WTF does this even mean? Atheism says nothing about what happens when you die. This is just another example of your complete misunderstanding of what you are trying to attack.
Speaking for myself, I would have to say that there is no evidence which points to an afterlife (magical religious books are not evidence). We know that what we perceive as consciousness depends upon chemical processes within a physical brain. We know this because we can alter our perceptions and consciousness by altering the chemicals in our brain. There is no evidence or proposed method whereby consciousness can continue in the absence of a living brain. Essentially when your body and brain die, you’re gone as well. Now don’t fret over that fact, you won’t know you are dead. You won’t know anything in fact because knowing requires a brain in the first place. Imagine what it was like for the 13 billion years before you were born, you didn’t exist then and you will return to that after you die.
The idea of consciousness beyond physical death is a novel idea. Who wouldn’t love to fly around as a ghost and screw with the living? I for one would get the hell off this planet and explore the galaxy. I’d love to see the massive black hole at the center of our galaxy, witness a supernova up close, or the birth of new star. But alas, just because I think the idea sounds nice and perhaps dislike the idea of having a limited existence, I refuse to lie to myself and pretend that I know I will become immortal after I die. If you call that clever then I guess I’m clever. At least I’m not deluded.
The act of one mentally disturbed monster at an elementary school has given gun-ban advocates more tragedy to shamelessly exploit in their never-ending fallacious argument that taking weapons from the peaceful and the law-abiding will magically stop the mentally deranged from killing innocent people. The following is my response to a disingenuous question from just such a anti-gun advocate.
How many guns are enough for one individual? Do you have a gun shrine in your home? An altar for ammo?
I know you’re being disingenuous with your question but in order to give you a genuine response I need you to answer a question for me.
How many guns would it take to piss you off over the fact that I was buying that many guns? Now take that number add 5 more guns along with about 20 or 30 so-called high-capacity magazines and you have your answer.
As far as ammo, again, I need to know much would I need to get my hands on to make you cry like a bitch over the fact that I had that much ammunition, then you would have my answer.
Now, after all the guns and all the ammo had been delivered to my house I would make a special point to build a shrine dedicated to people like you for the sole reason photographing it and mailing to you for educational purposes.
Included with the photo of my newly erected gun shrine would be a copy of the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, printed in large type so as to make it easy for your ignorant ass to read it. Amendment II on the Bill of Rights would be highlighted and circled with a quote from Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis written on the back which reads; “Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent… The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”
Working for the Lord wrote:
Fine tuning requires a designer who has the skills of being greater than the design itself, which would be God. Random chance is so off the wall to be even considered as a way of life to have come into existence.
Working for the Lord,
Firstly, the claim that the universe is fine tuned needs to be demonstrated. Could it have been tuned some other way? If so, how would you demonstrate that? As far as we know the cosmos simply is the way it is and life appears to have adapted to fit a niche on the surface of one of the trillions of planets which have formed within it.
The error in your argument lies with your premise that the universe is “fine tuned” for life. Suppose I showed you a map of the United Stated and said “Is it not amazing that the Mississippi river was ‘fine tuned’ to exactly match the state borders so perfectly. It must have been designed because a river matching the state borders via random chance is so off the wall to even be considered. The designer who had the skills must have been greater than the design itself, therefore God did it.”
You would look at me like an idiot, kind of like I’m looking at you now. Obviously the borders match the river because the state borders were formed after the river. Likewise, life on earth appears so well suited to the planet because life has had 4.7 billion years to adapt to our planet.
As far as your assertion of chance, the probability of life arising on Earth is exactly 1:1 or 100%; we are here now after all.
If the universe needs a creator to explain the fine tuned order of everything, and this creator you label god obviously possesses order, what super-duper god maker created your god? Surely your god could not have come into being by random chance, that is so off the wall to be even considered.
Working for the Lord wrote:
My God didn’t come from random chance, he has always existed. God who is all knowing, all powerful. The first God being as I described is sufficient, only would man need more than one God, or at least think he does. This world could not have been in existence forever as we would have completely exhausted all energy by now.
Working for the Lord,
You assert that the universe must have been created because it has order which could not have come about randomly. When asked what created your orderly god you simply assert that your god has always existed.
You are making a fallacious appeal to special pleading, a spurious argument where favorable details are included or unfavorable details are excluded by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations. Essentially, you are attempting to present your god as the one exemption to the very rule you use to make your original argument, without justifying the exemption.
If your God can just “always exist” then what is prevents reality from “always existing”. Conversely, if reality could not have “always existed” and your god is real, what justifies your god being exempted?
You assert your god is sufficient but sufficiency does not imply necessity. There may be a first cause but that cause may not necessarily be an entity remotely like you describe.
Your claim that your god is all-knowing and all-powerful is a fallacious bare assertion. These are attributes which you need to demonstrate. You may not simply start with God is ______ and move on from there without justifying exactly how you know God is _______.
This world has not been in existence forever, in fact the history of the cosmos until now was 2/3 over before this world came into being. We are far from exhausting all of “our” energy, the star which provides all “our” energy has been fusing 700 million tons of Hydrogen into 695 million tons of Helium every second since it formed and will continue burn for at least another 5 Billion years.
But see, there in lies the problem…unbelief in something does not make it untrue. Lets say I abandoned my belief in God, my abandonment of belief does not make him any less real.
Lets say for example, I decided man never went to the moon, that it was all a hoax. Does that make it any less real that they did?
Truthfully, you can not prove God doesn’t exist any more than I can prove that he does. You can offer why you believe he does not, but you can’t offer fact based evidence that shows he does not. I can offer why I believe he does exist but can not offer tangible fact based evidence that he does.
Correct, non-belief does not equal non-existence. I never said that it did and atheism, despite what many misinformed people may say and what you may have been told, is NOT the assertion that gods do not exist. That position is called anti-theism.
Correct, your abandonment of belief in gods will have no effect on whether or not gods actually exist. Your abandonment of belief does not make your god any less real. Likewise, your current belief in no way makes your god actually real.
Correct, if you told me that you disbelieve the claim that man walked on the moon you would be contesting a positive claim; that man did walk on the moon. The burden of proof would be upon the person making the claim. Let’s say I am the one making the claim. I could point you to the mountains of evidence like moon rocks, photos, and even video. Fake you say! OK, I could point a laser at one of the three retro reflectors that astronauts left on the surface and show how reflected laser light can be detected by a photo multiplier. I could even show you images taken recently by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter here which show the actual landing sites and left over crap from 40 years ago. The last thing I would do is tell you to have faith. There is no need for faith because we have evidence.
(Now if I told you man walked on Mars, I would have no evidence for that claim and you would be justified in not believing that claim)
I cannot prove your god doesn’t exist, but then again nobody bears any burden to disprove any claim. There have been more than a thousand different gods which have been worshiped and claimed to exist throughout recorded history. Should you be expected to disprove all of those gods? NO. Does your inability to disprove Thor or Oden mean that belief in Thor or Oden is justified? Certainly NOT.
Imagine I told you that there was a teapot in orbit around mars, you would have no way to disprove that. Would that inability to disprove my claim justify some belief that a teapot was orbiting Mars? NO. The default position with regard to any existential claim is to disbelieve until that claim is demonstrated to be true.
Going back to what I said in my previous post, I am not claiming there are no gods. All I am stating is that the theist has not met their burden of proof and there is no evidence yet discovered which can demonstrate that gods either exist or are required for the cosmos to operate. This is the null hypothesis, which by definition can never be proven.
If you can offer a good reason why you believe then let’s examine your reasoning for any flaws. Have at it.
I freely admit to not being as knowledgeable about the whys and how’s of my beliefs, as you are about yours, you have obviously put much time and study into what you believe, where as I have just accepted what I believe to be true.
Having said that, I can not separate my belief in the Bible and God from my views on creation and how everything came to be. In other words, I look at everything through “God glasses”. In doing that I have automatically accepted the bibles account of creation.
Secularism is as foreign to me as Christianity seems to you. I don’t mean that to sound flip, we just have different world views. I do enjoy our conversations though, they challenge me and make me think.
You pretty much summed it up in your first sentence. My beliefs are based on much time and study and not simply accepting something a priori.
If you cannot separate your belief in God from the biblical views concerning creation then maybe you should consider separating yourself from a belief in gods. I know, its shocking to even consider what with hell and all but that BS goes away when you begin basing what you believe upon empirical data and the rejection of magical unsubstantiated superstition.
Those “God glasses” are keeping you from learning about reality. Imagine someone rejecting chemistry because he could not separate himself from his belief in alchemy or rejected astronomy because he could not separate himself from his belief in astrology. That person would be insisting upon being willfully ignorant of how the universe actually was, he would be rejecting reality in favor of fantasy.
Why would you purposefully choose to believe a story with absolutely no evidence to support it while rejecting scientific conclusions supported by mountains of the stuff. It’s insane that anyone would limit their minds in such a way.
You also have a misunderstanding of secularism as it is not antithetical to Christianity. Secularism relates to the principle of separation of government institutions, and the persons mandated to represent the State, from religious institutions and religious dignitaries. It is not impossible to be both a Christian and a Secularist, that is to say someone who believes in the precepts of Christ’s redemption on the cross, and that such belief should be kept separate from acts of government.
We do have different world views, no argument there, but you do realize that whereas you ignore evidence and reason in favor of what your holy book says, I discard anything which is contrary to or unsupported by evidence and reason.
I think you are being self-contradictory with your last sentence. You write that I am challenging you to think but by that same token you just admitted that you limit your own thinking via “god glasses”.
If the Bible is true and your god is real then there should be evidence which bears that out. You are being dishonest with yourself when you start with a conclusion that “X is true” and proceed to automatically reject anything suggesting otherwise simply because “X is true”.
The process of rational thought involves first admitting your ignorance; “I do not know if X is true or false”, sometimes called the null hypothesis. Then setting out to find evidence pointing in either direction and not moving in that direction until such evidence is found, no matter how strongly you may want one direction over the other.
To be honest, if you strip out all the evil shit in the Bible and stick with just the Sunday school kid version of a god who is nothing but caring , loving, and wanting of the very best for everyone, I might want that to be true. However, even if that was all the Bible said I could not simply accept it as true in the absence of reason and evidence. I know the universe does not exist according to my wants and desires and wishing for something to be true does not justify my pretending that it actually is.