Okay, I just have to do it.

Atheists do not "refuse" to believe in a God anymore than a theist (Christian) refuses to believe in purple flying elephants. We simply lack belief in this God.

Belief is not something one turns on and off like a lamp. One either believes or they do not. When people insist that we really do believe they are saying they know better than us what our own individual thoughts and feelings are and that doesn't make one of us look very smart.

I can no more spontaneously "believe" in your God than you can spontaneously claim a lack of belief. Seriously, if beliefs can be turned on like lamps then they can be turned off just as easily. What would it take for you to honestly, sincerely, believe your God does not exist? Yeah, that's what you are suggesting we do by simply believing.

It is not a "fact" that your God exists. It is faith. If you had facts you wouldn't need faith. Unless you can bring your God to my home for dinner tonight for a nice chilled protein shake, it is your belief he exists. If you want to insist that it is a fact that your God exists, please feel free to trot out your proof and explain why you no longer have faith but facts instead. "I FEEL him in my heart," is not proof - it is an emotion.

Christians and other assorted theists have every bloody right in the world to believe anything they wish. If you want to believe in a God or many Gods that is your right and I would defend your right to believe until my very last breath. Would you defend my right to lack belief in the same way?

We don't need to hear the Word. I know more atheists that have read the bible cover to cover than Christians. Matter of fact, I can count the number of Christians I know that have read their own good book (cover to cover) on one hand.

I know the bible well, I likely know it better than most Christians. I didn't *just* go to church on a very regular basis I read the bible and studied the material. Quite frankly, that is what led to my atheism.

Christianity is not new material, it just isn't. If you research Christianity you will see it was borrowed from myths prior to Christianity. The Hindus, for example. Egyptians. Then we have holidays, Paganism anyone?

Just because I am not a Christian and I will defend my right to lack Christian beliefs, that does not mean I am anti-Christian. That is a cop out and nothing more. We know it, so do you.

Christians are not being persecuted in the US. The only difference between today and 100 years ago is that now Christians are being forced by law to follow the same rules as the rest of us have had to do since the beginning of the Bill of Rights. That is not persecution and if you insist it is then you have to say that the rest of the country has been persecuted since the beginning of the Bill of Rights.

The founding fathers were not all Christian. They were an assorted bunch, everything from pantheist, Pagan, Christian, atheist, and deist. And while I am bringing up the beliefs of others Hitler was not a Catholic or any other type of Christian. But I admit, that is a topic for another day.

Yes, Christianity is the majority religion in the US today. However, that is changing. Christianity numbers are dropping by just shy of 1% annually. This has been tracked since at least the '80s. The two fastest growing groups are Pagans and atheists. It's true, deal with it.

Considering the fact that Christianity is going down in numbers it has been estimated that by somewhere around 2040 or so, Christianity will no longer be the majority religion in the US. Assuming this is true, are you really sure you want your religion in public schools? If you set the tone today for religion/public schools, do realize that in the near future you may just get your wish. However, your future generations may not be worshiping the Christian God but perhaps Ra, the Sun God while dancing naked around a maypole under a full moon at midnight. Is this what you want? This is what many Christians today are pushing for.

We are not out to convert the world. We don't care what your religion is, we just don't want to participate it in and we don't want to follow the same rules. We happen to disagree with a great many of the beliefs Christians want to (and have) put into law. If we promise not to try and convert you, would you grant us the same favors?

We do not worship a devil. If we lack a belief in the supernatural such as the Christian God, it is quite safe to assume we lack belief in a supernatural devil or demon as well.

We do not eat babies. Amazing, I know but we really don't. Some of us actually have our own children and we don't eat them either.

I fully realize this list is not directed to all Christians. You know who you are. Most Christians are honest, decent, kind individuals following their path in this life. They are doing the best they can. Guess what? So are we.

About 10-20 years ago we nonbelievers made up about 14% of the US population. Since we are one of the fastest growing groups today you can rest assured that number is significantly greater now. We are here to stay, we aren't going anywhere. We aren't growing in numbers by recruiting, it doesn't work that way. People are being educated in sciences more today than any other time and people are making these choices on their own.

Wouldn't it make more sense to work together as a community and not worry about what everyone else believes? We are all in this world together, it only makes sense to be peaceful, respectful, and considerate of others. Keep in mind, it is likely a bunch of atheists and Pagans taking care of you when you are in the hospital. I've been in medicine for over 20 years now and I'm here to tell you, you can't spit in a hospital and fail to hit a nonbeliever somewhere. We are professionals, we are part of your community. Instead of focusing on differences let's find ways to make life more harmonious.

Whew... okay. I'm done.

OMG!!!!!!!(*G=Goodness) People people what in the world is going on in here?I was under the impression that this site was about bonding and support for a group/family of people with the common goal to get healthy.I am all for debates and people expressing opinions and feelings,but it seems like people are taking things a bit tooooo personal.Listen we are all adults {most times :myscared: } How/who/what ever you choose to worship is you personal choice isn't that why we as a culture of people are /have fought in wars so that people can have that right? Lets get back to being family n here and supportive of each of us being different yet still the same.

I have found that people on this board, whether an atheist, an agnostic, a jew, a christian, etc., respect one anothers right to believe, or not believe, whatever they find comfort and solice in. I suppose that translates to peace.

IMHO, one of the threads, no the thread with the most animosity, has been about religion (and the intertwined politics of both the USA and religion), but the heat has not been about religion, but has been about the refusal of some to except the different ideology of others.

Some people feel that their belief system includes giving them the right to question (ad nauseam), and to critique other people's choices, and then to tell them why they are wrong and what they must do.

Telling a person that he has no right to question, critique and instruct on the correctness of another person's path is seen as an attack on that person by that person and others of that person's persuasion.

If you want to believe in a God or many Gods that is your right and I would defend your right to believe until my very last breath. Would you defend my right to lack belief in the same way?

Absolutely.

Some Catholics were being threatened with excommunication for voting for candidates that supported abortion in the 2004 election. While it did not come from the Vatican, some US Bishops around the country did put the word out to their dioceses.

Would you mind providing some reference for this? I have been voting in local, state and national elections for a long time and my church has NEVER attempted to influence my vote.

Would you mind providing some reference for this? I have been voting in local, state and national elections for a long time and my church has NEVER attempted to influence my vote.

I remember that when it happened, there was a big controversy on the news. If you insist, I will google for it.

I remember when it happened because their was a big contraversy on the news. If you insist, I will google for it.

I think the controversy you are referring to involved the threat of excommunication made toward legislators who voted against pro-life legislation. And that was two (I believe) very over-zealous priests (one may actually have been a bishop), who quickly back-pedaled and faded into the woodwork. The Catholic Church does not tell its membership how to vote. That might work somewhere else, but not in the USA.

Actually, it was a pretty big issue (again) a couple of years ago. People were up in arms over this.

Prez Kennedy even made it clear to the Vatican that he doesn't tell the Pope how to run the Vatican and the Pope doesn't tell him how to run the country.

Another big issue came with John Kerry.

This is not something new, this has been going on for a very long time.

Bubble Butt....I promise not to accuse atheists of eating their young, if you will cease denigrating the Catholic Church. Do we have a deal?

Some Catholics were being threatened with excommunication for voting for candidates that supported abortion in the 2004 election. While it did not come from the Vatican, some US Bishops around the country did put the word out to their dioceses.

Then there is also the San Francisco gay adoption issue. The city finally had to write the Vatican a letter essentially telling them to buggar off. Just like Kennedy told the Vatican in the 60s that he won't tell the pope how to run the Vatican, the Vatican will not tell him how to run the US. San Francisco had to do the same. One of the pope's buddies (someone under him) was telling the bishop over SF to tell a Catholic City official how to vote regarding this issue. It did not go over well at all as the city official (even being Catholic) disagreed with the pope and made it more than clear. He was one of the people that signed the letter telling the pope to hush himself.

The Vatican has also instructed the bishops to pass on the word to the various churches that the US Catholics are to open their arms to more illegals in this country. Correct me if I am wrong but I don't see the Vatican taking in any of the poor dears. Then there was another one, if there is a law that goes against the Catholic church they are to disregard the laws of the US. That one came to a head - yet again - during the San Francisco ordeal.

The Vatican really seriously needs to buggar off in a big way. Can you imagine the reaction if Bush (assuming he had the nerve) told the pope how to run the Vatican? Or better yet, can you imagine if Bush told those under the pope within the Vatican that if Bush disagrees with a Vatican policy those under the pope should ignore the pope? The pope would be throwing 20 different kinds of temper tantrums if the tables were turned and others started behaving like he does, and popes before him.

The Vatican issues orders to the bishops. The bishops tell the various churches and the churches work it into their sermons. This is not some big secret, this is how the church has worked for thousands of years and they don't hide that fact.

Seems to me the Vatican should be busy enough making Momma T a saint for keeping money from the starving people. Why they are trying to run the US is beyond me.

JFTR, I have no problem with Catholics. Most are fully unaware of what is going on within their church. There is a certain level of trust they have for their church and rightfully so. My problem isn't with Catholics, I was one. I was born and raised Roman Catholic. My problem is with the Vatican and the way they do things. It's just too underhanded for my tastes.

Bubble Butt....I promise not to accuse atheists of eating their young, if you will cease denigrating the Catholic Church. Do we have a deal?

Sorry, no can do. I tell the truth about the Catholic church and I won't cover for them.

::Edit, double post

http://www.priestsforlife.org/elections/parish.htm

>>All legitimate authority comes from God and is responsible to God. Nations as well as individuals must follow his law.

Protecting human life is no more a sectarian creed than the Declaration of Independence is a sectarian document. Because all rights depend on life, the right to life is the most fundamental issue in any campaign.

The Church does not endorse candidates or parties. The Church does, however, urge us to look at every party critically, and to evaluate every candidate in the light of how his or her policies would advance human life and dignity. Loyalty to a political party is not wrong, but loyalty to Christ and His teachings must take precedence. The Church, moreover, speaks of the demands of the Gospel to voters, candidates, and public officials alike, and does not change her message because of who is in power or who is running for office.<<

>>The Priests for Life website is one of the most comprehensive tools on the internet for information on abortion, and the Church's response to this evil. Please link your parish website to ours and publicize the web address in your bulletin and other parish literature. The section www.priestsforlife.org/elections gives specific focus to our political responsibility, and includes the following resources, among others:<<

http://www.insidethevatican.com/articles/the-return-of-the-king.htm

>>There are only three possibilities open for Americans who would see genuinely Catholic moral and social principles articulated and defended in public life:

1. "re-take" the Democratic Party, expelling those interest groups which have taken possession of it in recent years, making it a party in support of many things Catholics cannot support
   
2. complete the takeover of the Republican Party, so that Catholic principles apply on all issues, not just a few
   
3. create and build a genuinely Catholic party, in alliance with as many other Christians, Jews and men and women of good will as possible.<<

Looks like the church has something that is working:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-06-02-religion-gap_x.htm

>>Republicans target the most faithful for political conversion so aggressively that critics say they skirt the law. At the White House, President Bush has courted people of faith with his policies and language. They are a huge group: In 2000, one in four voters said they attended church every week.<<

Vatican tells church members to break city laws and follow church instead, however it didn't work. In the end of this entire ordeal the Catholics found a way around the Vatican that made everyone happy (city and Vatican):

http://www.sfbaytimes.com/index.php?sec=article&article_id=4783

>>Two weeks ago new Vatican Number Two and former San Francisco Archbishop William Levada issued a directive instructing San Francisco’s Catholic adoption agency that it must follow church doctrine and ban adoptions by gays and lesbians. Gay Catholic Supervisor Tom Ammiano wrote, and on Tuesday the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed, a resolution demanding that the group give up the planned ban, which would violate both city and state law, or face a loss of city funding.<<

Children are still being adopted to gay families but Catholic Charities (San Francisco funded, not privately funded) no longer makes the final determination on who gets to adopt the children. They were already adopting children to GOOD homes even though sometimes they were gay homes, they are still just as involved as they were before with the exception of making the final decision on which home the child would go. A million cheers for Catholics instead of the Vatican!

I think the controversy you are referring to involved the threat of excommunication made toward legislators who voted against pro-life legislation. And that was two (I believe) very over-zealous priests (one may actually have been a bishop), who quickly back-pedaled and faded into the woodwork. The Catholic Church does not tell its membership how to vote. That might work somewhere else, but not in the USA.

I hope this is good enough for you. I am not going to pay the $5 to purchase the whole article.

I hope this is good enough for you. I am not going to pay the $5 to purchase the whole article.

Does this help?

http://www.catholicvote.net/news_releases/releases/2004/102504Chaput.htm

Actually, this is a better link. It's more comprehensive:

http://www.catholicvote.net/news_releases/index.htm

http://www.insidethevatican.com/articles/the-return-of-the-king.htm

>>There are only three possibilities open for Americans who would see genuinely Catholic moral and social principles articulated and defended in public life:

Inside the Vatican is published by lay people, not the Pope, and it does not speak for the Church.

Sorry, no can do. I tell the truth about the Catholic church and I won't cover for them.

I thought you were opposed to bashing other people's beliefs? My mistake.