Atheist Group Takes Issue With Police Awards Ceremony Held at Theological Seminary

Seminary-compressed
Photo Credit: CMF Media

OVIEDO, Fla. — A prominent professing atheist group has taken issue with an awards ceremony for a Florida police department that was held at a theological seminary and included an invocation.

The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) recently sent a letter to Jeffrey Chudnow, the chief of police with the Oviedo Police Department, to outline its objections to the event that took place this past March.

According to reports, the Oviedo Police Department Awards Ceremony and Career Track Recognition was held at Reformed Theological Seminary on March 31 and included a time of prayer.

“Allowing prayer at an awards ceremony sends the message that the police department not only prefers religion over non-religion, but also Christianity over all other faiths,” the letter from FFRF read. “Non-religious officers face the difficult choice of not attending the event and possibly forgoing well-deserved recognition, leaving the event when the invocation begins … or enduring a religious ritual that they might find distasteful or even deeply offensive.”

“Additionally, OPD awards ceremonies should not be held in churches,” it continued. “This practice forces employees, who may be of varying religions or have none at all, to enter into a Christian house of worship.”

Chudnow, a Jew, replied to the letter by advising that there had been no complaints about the event and that he himself was not disturbed by the location or the service.

“I can assure you that neither the Oviedo Police Department nor the City of Oviedo … have any intention of establishing a religion,” he wrote. “Also in this regard, no attending individual is required to engage in any prayer they do not want to participate.”

  • Connect with Christian News

Chudnow also corrected FFRF in noting that the event was not held in a church, but in a multi-purpose room at the facility.

FFRF wrote a second time, stating that there was indeed a complaint—their own, and that others might not have complained because they feared “persecution.”

“[W]e ask that you consider holding official ceremonies in facilities that are not connected with a religious organization like the Reformed Theological Seminary,” it stated. “Surely there are plenty of secular options in your community, public schools for example.”

Chudnow responded, contending that even at the U.S. Supreme Court has the Ten Commandments hanging on its wall, but FFRF asserted in response that the display is actually the Bill of Rights and not the Decalogue.

“As a private citizen, the Free Exercise Clause protects you. But, when acting as chief of police of Oviedo Police Department, you are the government. And the First Amendment prohibits government from impinging on citizens’ rights; it does not give the government any rights,” it argued this past week in regard to the award ceremony.

FFRF asked that Chudnow confirm in writing that his department will discontinue hosting ceremonies at religious facilities and cease offering prayers at the events. It is not known whether Chudnow plans to do so or ignore FFRF.

As previously reported, throughout America’s early history, a number of the Founding Fathers issued proclamations calling inhabitants to prayer, including in 1798, when President John Adams proclaimed a national day of humiliation, prayer and fasting.

“As the safety and prosperity of nations ultimately and essentially depend on the protection and blessing of Almighty God, and the national acknowledgment of this truth is not only an indispensable duty which the people owe to Him,” he wrote, “…this duty, at all times incumbent, is so especially in seasons of difficulty and of danger, when existing or threatening calamities—the just judgments of God against prevalent iniquity—are a loud call to repentance and reformation.”

President Abraham Lincoln also proclaimed a National Fast Day in 1863.

“[I]t is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord,” his proclamation read.

“[I]nsomuch we know that by His Divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people,” Lincoln said.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Oboehner

    This group seems to have a psychotic obsession with the activities of others, they should seek help.

    • sangrita

      Or maybe they just find what’s going on to be inappropriate.

      • Oboehner

        Sounds like a personal problem they should keep to themselves.

        • sangrita

          Not going to happen, sorry. Church and state are a toxic mix.

    • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

      They are “obsessed” with making sure government officials follow the constitution.

      • IzTheBiz

        How about being obsessed with doing volunteer work, helping the poor and needy, You know, all the things Christians do that atheists can’t be bothered with, because they are too busy promoting their own religion. Try doing some good for others instead of sticking your snout on Christian news sites. Really nothing else to do with yourself?? I can give you some suggestions, but it’s probably too much work for no pay!

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          How about being obsessed with doing volunteer work, helping the poor and needy, You know, all the things Christians do that atheists can’t be bothered with

          OK, now you’re just lying about atheists. I’ll just say that Christians rape children, how’s that?

          Try doing some good for others instead of sticking your arrogant snout on Christian news sites.

          Whine harder — CNN decided to print a story about atheists, and you WILL get comments from atheists.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Many of atheists do quite a bit of volunteer work. Though it is a bit more difficult to organize without the built-in community and backing of tax shelters like churches. But that doesn’t stop us from getting out there and doing charity work despite the difficulty in organizing.

          Also, atheism is not a religion, it’s the absence of religion.

          • Frank Dorka

            Interesting note: Three richest Americans, Zuckerberg, Gates and Buffet are also the biggest single contributors to charitable institutions…also atheists as well.

          • rebeccadewhirst

            We know all about that organizing….community organizing like Obama has done in his past doesn’t cut it

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            We, who?

            Community organizing can accomplish much, if done properly / efficiently. As previously stated, churches have a built-in community already established, so that definitely helps in their case.

          • Chikkipop

            Tell us what was wrong with Obama’s community organizing.

            Can’t wait to hear this!

          • IzTheBiz

            Are you saying that an atheist group can’t start a not for profit? try again! I am sure a few of you are adopting disabled kids etc.
            No such thing as a person without a belief system. Whether you believe in a deity is besides the point!

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            No, Biz, that’s not even close to what I said. I said that, as a group, we’re more difficult to organize. As an organizer for a local atheist group in my region, I speak from experience.

            Regarding belief systems, you’re half right, everyone has a belief system of some sort (go back and re-read my previous comments and you’ll see that I never said there are people without belief systems, I specified absence of religion), but that doesn’t mean it’s religious, so whether you believe in a deity is the point when defining whether you’re religious or not.

          • IzTheBiz

            What is your definition of deity?

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Don’t be flippant, you know exactly what I meant. The standard definition of deity, a god or goddess. If you have a point, make it.

          • IzTheBiz

            It’s your version of reality that is flippant! subscribing deity status to an object of worship is NOT the issue, when in fact someone can worship a tree, dog etc.A deity is one who you worship, pay homage to, etc.. Who did Stalin worship? or Mao Tse Tung, Actually, they were atheists and subscribed deity like status to themselves. hence the people payed homage to their photos. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck it probably is a duck. By excluding a vast majority of humankind, including buddhists,
            hindus, you therefore in your arrogance you exalt yourself as somehow
            superior to the vast majority of people. Such is the arrogance of atheists. Is this your main past time? Do you go to buddhist sites, Hindu sites and rant on against their worship? Or is that just another example of double standards from a practicing atheist? hmmmm!

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            No, my “version” of reality is based on science: observation and evidence. There’s nothing flippant about that.

            “subscribing deity status to an object of worship is NOT the issue”
            Then why did you bring it up? This really seems to be coming out of nowhere, and you’re way off topic now.

            “when in fact someone can worship a tree, dog etc.A deity is one who you worship, pay homage to, etc”
            Pointless hair-splitting.

            “Who did Stalin worship? or Mao Tse Tung”
            No one.

            “Actually, they were atheists”
            Yes.

            “subscribed deity like status to themselves.”
            No, to the State. To the Party.

            “hence the people payed homage to their photos.”
            As an idol, representative of the State, of the Party.

            “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck it probably is a duck.”
            Could be a goose, or a loon in your case. 😉

            “By excluding a vast majority of humankind”
            Where did I do this? Seriously, you seem to just be making stuff up now, even more than before.

            “in your arrogance you exalt yourself as somehow superior to the vast majority of people.”
            I exalt no one, especially not myself.

            “Do you go to buddhist sites, Hindu sites and rant on against their worship?”
            The answer to your question here is a resounding “No” for 2 reasons. 1: Buddhists and Hindus don’t have a habit of forcing their beliefs on others by means of the U.S. government. 2: I’m not ranting on against anyone’s worship, I merely pointed out to you that atheists do volunteer work and that atheism is not a religion, it’s the lack of religion. So you’re attacking a strawman here, please stick to the topic.

            “practicing atheist”
            What does that even mean? How does one practice not being religious? That’s like saying your favorite hobby is NOT collecting stamps, or NOT playing cards. How very silly…

            hmmmm! Indeed! Silly, Biz.

          • IzTheBiz

            Very post-modern! define the terms as you decide. Anything that is not part of your definition is pointless hair splitting typical of a practicing atheist. I get it , you want to force YOUR beliefs on others-i.e homosexual marriage etc. but others can’t object. And last I checked Hindus and buddhists are proselyting. I guess you must spend alot of time on Christian sites, so you feel you are being proselyted. Funny that! Missed the UN agenda on spirituality??

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Now you’re just not making any sense, Bizzy… you clearly have no idea what the term postmodernism even means.

            Again with the “practicing atheist” bit? So, again I ask, what does that even mean? How does one practice not being religious? That’s like saying your favorite hobby is NOT collecting stamps, or NOT playing cards. How very silly of you, Bizzy…

            And no, I don’t want to force my [lack of] beliefs on anyone. Again, you’re attacking a strawman. I merely pointed out to you that atheists do volunteer work and that atheism is not a religion (by definition), it’s the lack of religion. So you clearly can’t stick to the topic, Bizzy… you just want to pick a fight, albeit a very specific fight over things I haven’t even said. Is this stemming from another comment section where you lost the fight with an atheist and you want to try the same arguments again on a different person? If you can’t stick to the topic, then perhaps our discourse is best ended.

            “And last I checked Hindus and buddhists are proselyting.”
            Where? Specifically, when and where have they pushed their agenda / attempts at conversion by means of the United States government? Please, Bizzy, show me.

          • IzTheBiz

            Postmodernism is relativism. It means you define the terms and argument based on your perspective.
            So, Christians are trying to convert you via the US governement?? really?? sounds like you are paranoid! And there is no Islamic agenda influencing your government? No Saudi influence, I presume? All a conspiracy theory, I guess ? Have you been asleep under a rock?
            You say that you don’t have a belief system, but if that was true you wouldn’t so dogmatically stop other people from exercising their civil liberties-i.e homosexual marriage and prayers etc. . There is a word for it-its called totalitariansm and its what atheists excel at.

          • IzTheBiz

            and by the way, your prescence on Hindu blogs is sorely lacking, so I
            thought I would help you out and give you a link. You can tell them all
            about your wonderful liberating experience of atheism and how they too
            can be enlightened! https://vedicambassador.wordpr

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Thanks, Bizzy, but I’ll take a pass on that invitation, as Hindus don’t have a habit of forcing their beliefs on others by means of the U.S. government. When they start trying to violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, I’ll be there to push back. Again, you’re attacking a strawman here, please stick to the topic.

          • IzTheBiz

            funny, I don’t believe you!

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            On which count, Bizzy? My first hand account of charity organizing? You won’t believe that, but you’ll believe a Bronze Age text of ancient stories and superstitions, none of which were first hand? Or you don’t believe the basic dictionary definition of atheism?

        • MIAtheistGal

          I helped create a non-profit to assist low income and the homeless get to work on time, every day. I assume that counts.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            That’s awesome! What’s the name of it? I’ll share it with my local atheist and skeptic meetup groups.

          • MIAtheistGal

            I’d rather not say, so as not to d0x myself. You know, death threats and such from folks who disagree with my religious beliefs…

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Fair point. You never know with these delusional types.

        • Steve Dustcircle

          Atheists are the biggest champions of generosity and donating of time, without the fear of a small-nubbed penis-scared god watching over

      • Oboehner

        Which part is that exactly?

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          The establishment clause of the first amendment.

          • Oboehner

            Nope, the religion was not established by the awards ceremony, try again.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You need to read supreme court opinions.

    • IzTheBiz

      Thats because they ARE a religion!

      • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

        Atheism is not a religion, it’s the absence of religion.

      • sangrita

        That’s cute, you drank the same kool aid Oboehner did.

        • Frank Dorka

          Atheism is as much a religion as abstinence is a sexual position, not collecting stamps is a hobby and baldness is a hair color.

    • MIAtheistGal

      Obsessed with making sure the government follows the constitution? You bet! Why aren’t you more concerned?

      • Oboehner

        Which part exactly?

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          There are links in the story to copies of the letters sent by the FFRF, which list very detailed cites of court opinions. Why not educate yourself?

          • Oboehner

            So it’s not there, got it.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I see you’ve opted to stay ignorant. Quelle surprise.

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church (something we should all be concerned with, whether religious or not), and to educate the public on matters relating to non-theism.

      • Oboehner

        Do show the separation of church and state in the Constitution, then do demonstrate how their religious beliefs trump those of others, I’ll wait.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          It would be nice if we could actually have a well-reasoned debate. Unfortunately, you’re too ill-informed to make such a discussion possible. Simply put, nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase ‘separation of church and state’ exist, yes, that’s true. So, according to you and every other fundie that trots out this tired old argument, if the words don’t explicitly appear in the Constitution then the idea they refer to isn’t constitutionally guaranteed. Stating it in these simplistic terms is your weak attempt to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term “separation of church and state” doesn’t appear in the Constitution.

          Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term “separation of church and state” may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated “the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

          A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state.

          Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women’s constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the Constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the Constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the Constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the Constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the Constitution.

          It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an open atheist. In fact 92% of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of church and state is a misinterpretation? The reality is that the Constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said “The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.” Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the Constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only people like you, who argue against this separation, could see how you benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity…

          • Oboehner

            If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance… load up the BS.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Says the one who believes in fairy tales…

    • Steve Dustcircle

      Another idiot that wants a theocracy. ^

      • Oboehner

        Another deluded idiot thinks I do. Good lord, a ceremony held at a theological seminary, the horror!! Someone might see something religious there – even thought it is just a venue, nothing more.

        • sangrita

          But he’s right – you DO want a theocracy.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Christianity is so good and vital to all no American should oppose it. The Non-religious who hate Christianity are supporting evil purposefully.

    • Chikkipop

      Nonsense.

      You are terribly misguided, and this results in insult to others, but the greatest insult may be to yourself, because if you are an adult you should know better.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        I love America, but today’s America insults Christianity too much. The land belongs to God, not to the Americans.

        • Chikkipop

          Think about what you’ve just said:

          The land belongs to an invisible, magical being. No one can see this being except in their imaginations, and yet they will talk about him as though he were real, and claim he owns things.

          Of course Christianity is criticized! It is a prominent superstition, so I am more likely to speak up about it than I am about Voodoo.

          You have simply made a very common mistake, choosing to believe a popular magical story before you had the wisdom and awareness to spot the problems with it. Many people do this, and fortunately many are realizing it.

          This is something you can do too!

          There is no evidence, or any sound reason, for belief in ghosts, fairies, angels, gods, or any other magical creatures invented in the minds of (mostly) men.

          If you think atheists are simply trying to be insulting instead of reacting the way anyone should react when presented with an obvious myth, you’re cheating yourself and those upon whom you could have a good influence.

          Disagreements can often involve sharp words, but most atheists want nothing more than to see their fellow human beings awakened to the emptiness & false promises of the ancient superstitions they have unwittingly accepted.

          There is nothing these outmoded and false beliefs actually provide that isn’t already available to caring, compassionate – and thinking – people!

          Think about it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            God prohibits magic. Your Pre-christian barbaric European ancestors converted to Christianity because Christianity is true.

          • Chikkipop

            Fascinating!!

            Point out to a believer that she is claiming to know of a magical invisible being, and she replies that the magical invisible being —- ready for it? —- “prohibits magic”!

            How does she know this? Most often, we find that those who claim to know such things will point to – of all things – a very old collection of writings by people. Nowhere does the actual magical being make itself known.

            How strange; you would think someone in possession of such amazing information about this being would win a Nobel Prize, and yet none of the people who claim such incredible knowledge about a being unlike any we have seen ever seems to present convincing enough information to win such a distinguished prize.

            If I had such astounding information as the believer so strongly claims to have, you can be assured I’d be willing to present it and subject my claims to the best scrutiny!

            The mind of the believer is fascinating! 😉

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            It’s a historic fact, although today’s secular Westerners seem to have flown from the outer space by a spaceship or something to destroy Earth’s mankind with depraved immorality; they are so different from their normal noble-minded forefathers – just making money by showing off church buildings. I prefer racists to pervs. Racists do not force boys into girls’ restrooms like today’s pervs do. The West’s departure from the Holy Bible is a mega tragedy upon the earth always. You need Christianity to get saved and have a sound mind.

          • Chikkipop

            Why do you want me to read an old book? How has it so firmly convinced you to stop thinking for yourself like a modern person should?

            And what is this “depraved morality” you go on about?

            Tell me who has the greater problem with morality:

            the one who attempts to understand and seek to acommodate some people who are not like the rest of us,

            or the one who angrily calls them “pervs”?

            Do you think our “noble-minded forefathers” were so noble when they said things like this?:

            “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”

            “Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”

            “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.”

            “What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because of suspected heresy? Remember the Index Expurgato-rius, the Inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter, and the guillotine; and, oh! horrible, the rack! This is as bad, if not worse, than a slow fire. Nor should the Lion’s Mouth be forgotten. Have you considered that system of holy lies and pious frauds that has raged and triumphed for 1,500 years.”

            Are the founders (John Adams and Thomas Jefferson) who said these words — strongly condemning ancient superstions — “noble-minded forefathers”? Of course there were also many who believed in gods, and many of those were desists, not Christians.

            But remember, this was *hundreds* of years ago, BEFORE our present day scientific understandings, when evolution was not yet understood, and knowldege was still primitive by our standards today..

            “You need Christianity to get saved and have a sound mind.”

            “Saved” from what, and by whom?

            As for having a sound mind, how odd then that it is the fanatic believer in invisible gods whose mind appears to be unsound. It seems that growing out of crazy superstitions is a first step toward a sound mind.

            You can go on and on just like the other fanatics — Christians, Muslims, Mormons, Scientologists, etc. — but unless you can present sound reasons and evidence for your fantastic claims, you should not be surprised to meet with disdain.

            Your silly moralizing means nothing without an intelligent and rational basis.

    • MIAtheistGal

      Sigh. It gets tiresome that anyone who wants the secular promise of our constitution enforced is automatically labeled as a Christianity hater. I don’t hate Christianity. I just do not want to be an outsider because the majority in this nation believe different religiously than I do.

      By the way, you’re an atheist, too, I just believe in one less god than you do.

    • JOE

      Have you ever wondered why it’s OK to make jokes about Catholics, Jews, Christians, the Pope, the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Hungarians, the Chinese, the French (including French Canadians), the elderly, bad golfers, men/women, blacks/whites, etc, but its insensitive to make jokes about the Muslims?

      Well, it’s time to level the playing field and be politically correct, by including our friends, the Muslims, on this grandiose list…

      1. If you grow and refine heroin for a living, but morally object to the use of liquor, You may be a Muslim.2. If you own a $3,000 Machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but can’t afford shoes, You may be a Muslim.

      3. If you have more wives than teeth, You may be a Muslim.

      4. If you wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon to be unclean, you may be a Muslim.

      5. If you think vests come in two styles, Bullet-proof and suicide, you may be a Muslim.6. If you can’t think of Anyone that you haven’t declared jihad against, you may be a Muslim.

      7. If you consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing, you may be a Muslim.

      8. If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses, other than setting off roadside bombs, you may be a Muslim.

      9. If you have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four, then you, too, may be a Muslim.
      10.If you say you love your daughter, sister, mother, aunt, or any other female relative and then you’d kill her if she’s raped; you’re most definitely a Muslim.
      11. If you enjoy throwing homosexuals off roof tops, you are a Muslim.12.if your a moron you just might be a muslim.
      If you find this offensive and do not forward it, you are part of the problem here in America … but if you delete this, you are most likely a Muslim!—LIBERALISM Is It Mental Illness or Demonic Oppression?

      • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

        If you’re going to keep copying/pasting this garbage, could you at least clean up the formatting to make it less scattered and more linear to read through? Thanks in advance.

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Grace, how can your god be good when he created evil? Isaiah 45:7

      I continue to be amazed when I see Christian women defending a bible that denigrates women.

      • 4Given

        The word “evil” in that scripture is a mistranslation from the Hebrew word meaning calamity or adversity. (2) The context of Isaiah 45:7 makes it clear that something other than “bringing moral evil into existence” is in mind. The context of Isaiah 45:7 is God rewarding Israel for obedience and punishing Israel for disobedience. God pours out salvation and blessings on those whom He favors. God brings judgment on those who continue to rebel against Him. “Woe to him who quarrels with his Master” (Isaiah 45:9). That is the person to whom God brings “evil” and “disaster.” So, rather than saying that God created “moral evil,” Isaiah 45:7 is presenting a common theme of Scripture – that God brings disaster on those who continue in hard-hearted rebellion against Him.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Oh, what a load of nonsense. That is the biggest hand-waving, goal-post-moving load of apologetic garbage I’ve seen in quite some time.

          Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33

          I … create evil. Isaiah 45:7

          What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10

          Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38

          Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

          Face facts, your god is evil.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Those all means calamities. Evil empires get calamities from God. USA is next if it does not repent. You hate Christianity as criminals hate police officers.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            No, they are examples of your god doing evil. The USA is better off without your evil god. And no, I don’t hate Christianity, I just think it’s terribly misguided.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Typical hand-waving, goal-post-moving apologetics.

          Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33
          I … create evil. Isaiah 45:7
          What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10
          Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38
          Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

          Face facts, your god is evil, your own book says so.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        The evil there means calamities, nothing to do with morality. USA must fear God.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Why must we fear something that does not exist? Your god is evil and make-believe, we’re better off without it.

    • Steve Dustcircle

      You’re an idiot, Grace. There is plenty of wrong that Christianity has done to America. Get some sane knowledge and come back.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        You guys are bad horrible descendants who betray your own good grandparents. Americans would have been just another illiterate savages on earth just like the rest if they had no Christianity. Christianity is the Western civilization( that includes USA)’s conscience and good intelligence. Today, no one respects America, and the American lifespan and the entire quality got shortened because today’s secular Americans dishonor God and disgrace their noble Christian American forefathers. You will never understand America if you have no Christianity. America has no greatness if it has no Christianity. Immorality is despicable. Read the Holy Bible to get saved and retrieve humanity.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          I continue to be amazed when I see Christian women defending a bible that denigrates women.

        • Chikkipop

          You must have been homeschooled to be so ignorant. Homeschoolers control what their young students learn, which so often prevents them from truly getting an education and learning to think for themseleves.

          America was never a Christian country. Western civilization is based upon the ideas & values of the Enlightenment.

          Morality is not tied to an invisible being; it is the work of human beings.

          Stop embarrassing yourself with such childish fantasies, grow up and face the real world. Then you will understand that the reason many do not respect America is because it has so many ignorant & superstitious people in it!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I went to public schools. Americans( all others for that matter though no other bash their own good forefathers. Americans hate their Christian forefathers because today’s America hates Christianity, the only true noble religion) do not know how outsiders view them. You guys are forever Christians’ descendants who’ve gone wayward. The West neither has conscience or morality apart from Christianity; today’s Westerners do not know it because they study neither the Holy Bible or the history of the Western civilization. That’s why De-christianized Western culture is only immoral and nothing noble. Every good thing was from Christianity. The West needs Christianity for the truth and honor and meaning.

          • Chikkipop

            I am sad for you and those like you.

            Your ignorance and gullibility are astounding.

            You have little understanding of history, and you believe an ancient story about an invisible being which no reasonable adult in the 21st Century should fall for.

            Your ideas about morality being connected to belief in a magical invisible being are primitive and foolish. Anyone with a decent understanding of the evolution of living creatures knows that morality is a product of our minds, a result of millions of years of adapting to our environment.

            To ignore or fail to even try to undertand reality in favor of a childish tale from ancient times – when so little was known and understood about the world – holds back your progress and holds back all of our progress, as we wait for our fellow human beings to grow beyond such ancient superstition.

            It is not an insult to say you are seriously deluded — it’s a plea for you to wake up!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            I feel sorry for your grandparents; that’s part of the reason I write. Listen to the Christians in your land and live. Read the Holy Bible(John ch.3) and repent of your sins to get saved. USA has only insane immorality apart from Christianity. The godless secularists are not converting into anything, but just destroying the children in the land.

          • Chikkipop

            What “sins” are you speaking of? What is this “insane immorality” you speak of?

            I live an ordinary life like many others; I’m good to people, I think about my actions, I try to help make the world a better place; what is it that I need to be “saved” from, and who would do the saving?

            And again I ask you: why do you and your fellow believers not take your astounding information to the Nobel Prize committee? Alfred Nobel specified in his will that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes for those who confer the “greatest benefit on mankind”.

            Why limit yourself to commenting online when you could have such great impact, AND win over a million dollars?!

            You have made a very strong claim of a god who “saves” us if we “repent of our sins”. Now, show all the world **how you know such an amazing thing** and get the reward you would richly deserve!

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Grace, how can your god be good when he created evil?

      Behold, this evil is of the Lord. 2 Kings 6:33
      I … create evil. Isaiah 45:7
      What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? Job 2:10
      Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good? Lamentations 3:38
      Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it? Amos 3:6

  • Dan Jones

    Atheist’s are sad… live and a life that means nothing because there is nothing to look forward too after they die… I love Jesus, for I will have eternal life with HIM!!!

    Always be a true light that is .shininginthedark.c

    • MIAtheistGal

      Provide proof, real proof, and you’ll have made this atheist a believer. That’s all I ask for, proof of God, Jesus, or any other supernatural being.

      • Frank Dorka

        That is what I have always said. One little shred of indisputable fact, and I will again be a believer. Otherwise, faith is just hearsay and not reliable at that.

        • 4Given

          If you were to truly investigate creation, you would quickly find that it takes more faith not to belive in God than it does to believe in our Creator.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            That’s self-contradicting. It requires absolutely NO faith to NOT believe in something. Or look at it this way: “Believe” and “have faith” are basically synonymous, right? Especially when we’re talking about believing and/or having faith in a god? So, when you say “it takes more faith not to believe,” you’re saying “it takes more faith to not have faith.” Does that make sense to you?

          • bfport

            You believe that YOU exist, don’t you? You believe that you are able to think logically, don’t you? You believe that your body is an amazing myriad of complex organs and systems, all interacting in amazingly complex ways, don’t you? You believe that you have your very own, truly unique DNA structure, don’t you? You do believe that there is only ONE you, don’t you (even if you have an identical twin, you aren’t quite the same)?

            You don’t just NOT believe in God (or a Creator), you DO believe that all that amazing “stuff” that is uniquely YOU just “mysteriously” came into being!

            You have a LOT of faith to believe that YOU originated from absolutely NOTHING. To summarize what you have faith in: “Given millions of years, absolutely nothing can, voila, become the brilliance that is YOU!” That’s what you believe if you don’t believe in a Creator. Perhaps YOU have placed all your faith in the “god” known as the THEORY of EVOLUTION (notice it’s theory NOT fact). Do you REALLY believe that your ancestors were apes?! Were your mom and dad apes? Your grandparents? Great grandparents? Were any of your known ancestors giraffes? Fish? Amoebas? Were any of your friends’ great grandparents apes? Your spouse’s ancestors (acting like apes on occasion doesn’t count)?

            Where are all the headlines about the most recent occurrence of 2 apes mating and giving birth to a bouncing little human baby boy? Where are all the headlines about all the fish mating and producing lizards? Octopi that produce a baby whale? Have you ever known of a stagnant pool that was zapped by lightning to suddenly be teeming with all sorts of lifeforms? Me either, but that’s what you’ve put your faith into if you have bought into the “god” of the THEORY of evolution.

            I’m typing on a “fairly” sophisticated computer, but it doesn’t compare to the brilliance of YOU and the computational abilities of your brain. This computer had a designer AND a programmer. LOGIC would dictate that YOU, who are infinitely more complex in what you are capable of, also had an awesome Creator. My head can’t even BEGIN to wrap around how amazing this Creator is! And all He did was SPEAK EVERYTHING into existence–“In the beginning [time began] God created the heaven [space] and the earth [matter].” Genesis 1:1 …”And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.” Genesis 1:3

            How mind-blowingly amazing is that?! And He did ALL THAT because He wants a personal relationship with YOU–He wants to commune with you, to hear how your day is going, to hear about your disappointments, your thrilling accomplishments (even though He already knows ALL of it, He wants to hear about it from you).

            And even after mankind totally messed up what He had created (because He didn’t create robots, he created us with the ability to choose), He provided the Way for us to be reconciled with him for all the wrongs we have done: “For God so LOVED the world that he sent his only begotten Son [Jesus Christ], that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” John 3:16 (KJV)

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “You don’t just NOT believe in God (or a Creator), you DO believe that
            all that amazing “stuff” that is uniquely YOU just “mysteriously” came
            into being!”
            You know, if I believe that I “mysteriously came into being” then that would mean that I believe it was a mystery how I came into being, or in other words, that I don’t know. That goes back to my point, it doesn’t take any faith at all to say “I don’t know,” does it?

            As for the rest of that….if you’re going to criticize the theory of evolution, please try to understand what it actually says, okay? And look up what a scientific theory means while you’re at it.

            “Where are all the headlines about the most recent occurrence of 2 apes
            mating and giving birth to a bouncing little human baby boy? Where are
            all the headlines about all the fish mating and producing lizards?
            Octopi that produce a baby whale?”

            That’s what I’m talking about, if you think evolution says that any of that would happen, you don’t understand evolution.

            “Have you ever known of a stagnant pool that was zapped by lightning to suddenly be teeming with all sorts of lifeforms?”

            That’s abiogenesis, which has nothing to do with evolution.

            “LOGIC would dictate that YOU, who are infinitely more complex in what you are capable of, also had an awesome Creator.”

            Then the creator would have to even more complex, right? So, who designed or created the creator?

          • 4Given

            Why would anyone buy into Darwin’s theory? He wasn’t even a scientist, he was an author; and one who didn’t even believe his own theory.

            If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?

            Why isn’t there a cross species jump anywhere in the fossil record?

            It doesn’t even make logical sense to believe in evolution when one looks at the mathematical probability. For example, take a relatively simple 200 component organism. That organism would require 200 successive and successful mutations. The chances of that happening are 1 in 10 to the 60th power. Borel’s Law states that anything with a probability more than 1 in 10 to the 50th power is mathematically absurd and has a zero chance of ever happening. That’s just a simple organism, nothing like the extremely complex organisms that human are.

            This is what I meant when I said that it takes more faith to not believe in God (thus believing in evolution) than it does to believe in Him.

          • MIAtheistGal

            Not the apes question, lol!

            That’s like asking, if we came from our grandparents, why do we still have grandparents?

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Not believe in God thus believing in evolution”? That’s just a false dichotomy right there. One can believe in both, or neither. Your whole premise, which seems to be ” believe in God (meaning the Christian version) or you claim to know for certain there is no god and therefore believe in both abiogenesis and evolution” is a false dichotomy.

            I don’t know if there is any god or not. I don’t believe we CAN know one way or the other. I do believe evolution is a well-supported theory that is the best explanation of how life came to be what is today.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?”

            the theory of evolution doesn’t say we evolved from apes, so your question is meaningless.

            If we were made from dust, why is there still dust?

            “Why isn’t there a cross species jump anywhere in the fossil record?”

            Because the theory of evolution doesn’t say that can or will happen. Obviously you have no grasp on what the theory of evolution says.

          • sangrita

            “If we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?”

            I hope you know this is a line that is used to ridicule people who do not understand evolution.

          • 4Given

            It would serve you better to study Irreducible Complexity instead of Evolutionary Theory because it basically disproves Evolutionary Theory.

          • sangrita

            This is what a simple search on irreducible complexity turns up on Google:

            Irreducible complexity (IC) is a
            pseudoscientific argument that certain biological systems cannot evolve
            by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems
            through natural selection.

          • 4Given

            That’s interesting because “pseudoscientific” would be a term that more properly fits a theory written by a man such as Darwin, who wasn’t even a scientist.

          • sangrita

            I’m a little bit too stunned to properly respond to a comment like that one, sorry.

          • bfport

            Your last questions are the essence of the questions that everyone should ask. Where did it all come from?

            If we accept the Big Bang THEORY, then WHAT or WHO caused the Big Bang? WHERE did all the matter that makes up the entire universe, this planet, you, me, or even the molecules in the air we breathe, come from? How does the Big Bang explain that? How does evolution explain that–evolution doesn’t occur on NOTHING? You tell me to look up scientific theory and do more research on evolution, but it is a scientific fact that when you start with NOTHING you end with NOTHING. To get SOMETHING (anything, even an amoeba) as a result of millions of years of time, thousands of degrees of heat, an unexplained cosmic bang, primordial ooze (where’d the ooze come from), etc. you had to start with SOMETHING.

            So however you define evolution today (it has continued to “evolve” over the years), it still CANNOT explain how the first cell of the tiniest microorganism could come into existence from nothing. I don’t know what you are referring to as evolution, but I do not consider it the same as adaptation to varying environments. I am talking about the evolution from one distinct species to another. And it’s strange that you tell me: “if you’re going to criticize the theory of evolution, please try to understand what it actually says, okay?” –then the first visual I see when I search for “theory of evolution” is a chimp evolving into an ape which evolves into a man-like creature which eventually evolves into a man.” So please explain to me where I have misinterpreted and misrepresented.

            Some atheists and scientists have theorized that life here was seeded by aliens from outer space. That brings up a similar question to yours of “Where did the aliens come from?” Stephen Hawking has even theorized multiple universes, but how does that explain how this universe came into being, or how those universes came into being (or anything else for that matter).

            That’s why I, many other posters here, and many reputable scientists believe that there was (IS) a Creator. That viewpoint might have even more scientific support if scientists were ALLOWED to even consider it as a hypothesis.

            “Then the creator would have to [be] even more complex, right?”

            I think He’s AMAZINGLY complex! I just spent a large part of my day trying to get an infantile grasp of Hebrew. Each letter has not only an alphabetic meaning, but also a numeric meaning, a meaning contained in the spelling of that letter, and a visual meaning. There is also meaning in each stroke of the letter! There are some who have computerized much of the Old Testament writings in Hebrew and have discovered hidden coded meaning throughout the text. In my opinion, any being who can create and teach such a language to people is amazingly complex. And then there’s the entire universe, which according to the Creator Himself, He just SPOKE into being.

            “So, who designed or created the creator?”

            “In the beginning, God created…” (Gen 1:1a);
            “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1);
            “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done,…” (Isaiah 46:10);
            “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” (Rev 1:8);
            “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even FROM EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING, thou art God.”
            (Psalm 90:2); “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth,…” (Isaiah 40:22)–this was written hundreds of years before anyone knew the earth was round.
            “He [God] stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon NOTHING.” (Job 26: 7)–implies insight about the earth that people would not have known at that time.
            “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20)

            If we don’t accept that there is a Creator who has always existed outside of time as we know it, then we must accept that there was another “cause” for the existence of the universe and all that’s in it. Which leads to the next question, “What caused the cause?” Then, “What caused the cause that caused the cause?” And on and on.

            I have had many questions and doubts throughout my lifetime, but LOGIC always told me there had to be a Creator–a Supreme Being–God (with a BIG G, not a little puny god). Eventually I concluded that either Jesus was who he claimed he was, OR he was an absolute phony and liar. I found there was plenty evidence to support that Jesus was exactly who he claimed he was–the Word that was in the beginning with God (the Word that was God). That made all the rest of it easier–believe what the Word of God says (if Jesus quotes Scripture as the authoritative Word of God, then who am I to doubt its authenticity), and try my best to live by it (and seek forgiveness when I don’t).

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “Your last questions are the essence of the questions that everyone should ask. Where did it all come from?”

            Some of us are just fine with considering those questions unanswerable.

            “it still CANNOT explain how the first cell of the tiniest microorganism could come into existence from nothing.”

            Evolution doesn’t attempt to explain the origin of life. It’s what happens after the origin that evolution is talking about. Abiogenesis doesn’t even say “something came from nothing”……and it’s a very common misconception, but neither does the big bang theory, actually.

            “I don’t know what you are referring to as evolution, but I do not
            consider it the same as adaptation to varying environments. I am talking about the evolution from one distinct species to another.”

            Those are both evolution. Evolution is the “change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.” You have enough of that happening over a long period of time, you can end up with a new species. That doesn’t mean, like you said earlier, fish will mate and produce lizards immediately. That’s what you’ve “misinterpreted and misrepresented.”

            “Eventually I concluded that either Jesus was who he claimed he was, OR he was an absolute phony and liar.”

            C.S. Lewis’s “liar, lord, or lunatic trilemma”, more or less. I’ve heard that one before, it’s got several problems, I think. One of which being that there can be other options.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Russell’s teapot

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Why are you calling it creation? You haven’t proved a creator exists.

            How much faith do you need to not believe in leprechauns?

        • C_Alan_Nault

          I’m an atheist. Prove that a God cannot exist.And don’t give me some bull asking me to prove that he does.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            The lack of evidence alone is enough to not be interested in the question.

            Russell’s teapot.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Just prove that a God cannot exist. I’ll be waiting

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Don’t hold your breath, Alan.

            Prove that a god can exist. I’m not the one claiming something so improbable exists, so the burden of proof is not mine.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            The post you are replying to was not posted by me… someone has apparently copied my name & icon.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            lol…lol….oll..lool…..is that all ya got. Come on little boi. Just prove that God cannot exist. It must be so easy. I’m mean it’s all just a myth. Come on and drop some proof.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Not until you face us with your own name, instead stealing someone else’s identity, you coward.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Come on. Prove it

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Come on. Use your own name.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            There are 2 other NoMoreBadTown’s that I have seen. How do I know you’re the real one?

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            I’ve not seen any others, Not_C_Alan_Nault. Where are they?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I replied to 2 today.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Link? Quote?

            No? Troll, so go back to using your own name, instead of stealing C_Alan_Nault’s name and avatar.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I am the original

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Prove it.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            How?

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Figure it out…

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Prove to us that a God cannot exist. We’ll be waiting…lol

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Prove to us that a god can exist, and use your own name while doing so. I’m not holding my breath though…lol

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Come on big man. Why can’t prove it? I mean it should be so easy since it’s fake and all…LMAO

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Big man? Why do you assume I’m a man?

            “Why can’t prove it?”

            Nice grammar… Because you can’t prove a negative, Not_C_Alan_Nault. For example, prove that I don’t have a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage.

            Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you, that I have a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

            “Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

            “Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

            “Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

            You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

            “Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

            Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

            “Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

            You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

            “Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.” And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

            Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative — merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

            Your god is not proved. Prove it. And use your own name, Not_C_Alan_Nault.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Why can you not prove it?

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Why can you not go back to using your own name, instead of stealing C_Alan_Nault’s name and avatar?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I’m agnostic. Prove to me that there is not a God.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Earlier, you claimed to be atheist, Not_C_Alan_Nault. Now, you’re agnostic, Not_C_Alan_Nault? Which is it, Not_C_Alan_Nault?

            Anyway, I never said there are no gods. I said there’s no evidence for any such beings, so I don’t waste effort in believing in them.

            You can’t prove a negative, Not_C_Alan_Nault. For example, prove that I don’t have a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage.

            Suppose I seriously make such an assertion to you, that I have a fire-breathing dragon living in my garage. Surely you’d want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

            “Show me,” you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle — but no dragon.

            “Where’s the dragon?” you ask.

            “Oh, she’s right here,” I reply, waving vaguely. “I neglected to mention that she’s an invisible dragon.”

            You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon’s footprints.

            “Good idea,” I say, “but this dragon floats in the air.”

            Then you’ll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

            “Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless.”

            You’ll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

            “Good idea, but she’s an incorporeal dragon and the paint won’t stick.” And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won’t work.

            Now, what’s the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there’s no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I’m asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you’ve really learned from my insistence that there’s a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You’d wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I’ve seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don’t outright reject the notion that there’s a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you’re prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it’s unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative — merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of “not proved.”

            Your god is not proved. Prove it. And use your own name, Not_C_Alan_Nault.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Just like all atheists. You cannot prove that a God does not exist or ever existed. At least Richard Dawkins admits that he cannot.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Now you’re getting it, Not_C_Alan_Nault! No atheist claims to have proved gods don’t exist, we simply point out the lack of evidence. You’re finally beginning to understand! Now, if only you’d go back to using your own name, instead of stealing C_Alan_Nault’s name and avatar.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Someone has been using the same name & avatar as me, probably a dishonest self-proclaimed Christian that doesn’t know that their sacred book says it’s a sin to bear false witness against someone.

            I am an atheist.

            I have NEVER said god does not exist.

            I don’t believe a god exists because I have seen no evidence for a god. Anyone that wants to prove my non-belief is wrong merely has to present evidence for a god.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Someone has apparently copied my name & icon.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Because they are cowards and cannot counter our arguments fairly.

      • 4Given

        The proof of God is self evident in the creation around us. Science actually proves God. Everything functions in a system and works together, all the way down to our very cells. Take the giraffe for example, it has a sponge-like structure in it’s skull so that when he leans down to take a drink it’s brain won’t explode from the blood rushing to his head; it also acts as a buffer when he raises his head so that the blood will not rush back down and explode it’s heart. If the giraffe had to evolve this trait, their species would have never lasted. This is just one example in nature. There are more examples to numerous to count for those actually searching for truth. Intelligent design is also proven by the fact that everything in creation abides by natural laws and mathematical principles which would be an impossibilty to have occurred by chance.

        • MIAtheistGal

          Sweetie, and I say this with no snark, please go get yourself educated in the sciences. Please.

          • 4Given

            “Proclaiming themselves to be wise, they became fools”

            Is it wise to trade your eternity for this temporal life of 80-100 years?

            “There is no greater love than for a man to lay down his life for his friends”

            Jesus loved you so much that he died for you. Won’t you give Him a chance?

          • MIAtheistGal

            First, which God do you,represent, there are over 5,000. Secondly, I don’t need anyone to atone for my transgressions, I’ll take responsibility for myself and my actions, thank you.

            By the way, I grew up a Christian, I know the stories. They’re not compelling to me. It’s that whole proving it thing. If you have proof of a deity, please present it. And, no, the bible doesn’t count as proof.

            Have a great day!

          • 4Given

            The whole idea of having faith is believing in something you can’t see.

            As far as what God I’m speaking about, I thought that was obvious in my last response when I mentioned Jesus. He is the only God who created all of us and yet loved us so much that He died so that we could have a way back to Him. We receive salvation as a free gift from Him, it doesn’t matter how many bad things we’ve done. It also doesn’t matter how many good things we’ve done because it can’t be earned. This is precisely what makes Christianity different than all other world religions because they teach that you have to have enough “good works” to earn eternal life. Grace speaks of God’s glory and because it’s the only one that’s different, that is a testament to which path is the right one.

            I’m thankful that you were raised a Christian. I was as well, but after my father passed away when I was 12 years old I became very rebellious and somewhere along the way (around the time of my college years) I stopped believing in God completely. Thankfully about 4 years ago He got a hold of me and turned my life around. I believe that He loves you just as much as He loves me and that He will continue to pursue you with that love just as He did with me.

            Have you ever asked Him to prove Himself to you? Maybe He’s just waiting for you to ask.

          • MIAtheistGal

            We are on two separate pages, my dear. Proof is not voices in my head or a book written by man proclaiming it to be the word of God. You speak of a one true God, but have no proof to your claim. To be safe, why don’t you believe in all the gods, like Zeus, Ra, Mithra, etcetera?

            I used to be extremely religious, especially in my teens, and would’ve have sounded a lot like you do, actually. I just grew up. I see no roof of God existing. If you have proof, provide it, otherwise, I’ll continue to assume it does not exist. After all, you wouldn’t believe I have an invisible purple unicorn living in my backyard, would you? Not without proof, I bet. But I do.

            Just look deep inside yourself and ask him to prove it to you. Maybe he’s waiting for you to ask.

          • bfport

            I went through a long period of doubting also–trying to mesh together what I was taught at church with what I was taught in school and college. Eventually I came full circle back to accepting that Jesus truly is the Son of God and that God truly is the Creator of everything.

            I have degrees in Math and Astronautical engineering, so have had a lot of exposure to the scientific theories of how the universe, including us as humans, came into being. My Geology professor used to say, “I know God did it (created everything), I just want to understand how he did it.” Today’s scientists are ridiculed and often “expelled” (see the movie with that same name for numerous examples) for teaching or continuing in their field if they even indicate a belief in an Intelligent Designer. How can a field of science be considered objective (or even scientific) if it does not allow all possibilities to be considered?

            As I posted in response to TheKingofRhye above, the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution still don’t answer the question of HOW the universe came into being. What caused the Big Bang? Where did matter come from that makes up the universe and everything in it? How did the lowest lifeform come into existence for anything else to evolve from? You ask for proof of God, but you’re willing to risk ETERNITY on absolutely no proof that he doesn’t exist.

            The space shuttle had designers and creators. You are much more complex than the space shuttle, but you don’t accept that you must have also had a Creator?

            You state previously that, “Secondly, I don’t need anyone to atone for my transgressions, I’ll take responsibility for myself and my actions, thank you.” You are half right–you will take responsibility for yourself and your actions, especially the decision of whether to accept God’s gift of the atoning blood of his own son to reconcile you to him. The very same God who created the entire universe loves YOU so much that he sent his one and only son to die for your mistakes and wrong choices. That same God also wants to have a personal relationship with YOU.

          • MIAtheistGal

            I’m sorry your geology teacher did you disservice and taught you theology instead of geology. Maybe this was at a Christian college, I’m not sure, but either way, you should’ve been taught sound science, not that ‘God did it’. I assume you do actual math during your engineering work and don’t depend on God just ‘doing it’.

            If you are a true scientist, who believes in the scientific method, the. You would. It believe in God without proof. If you believe in things without proof, you are no scientist. I admit the possibility, however small, exists that there is a god out there, but without proof, I have to assume there is none. Just like unicorns, fairies, leprechauns, etc.

            Please, stop trying to convert me. I don’t think a decision that consists of “believe in me or die a fiery death in hell” is a fair choice. In the legal world, this would be an invalid contract. It’s a choice I don’t submit to, for multiple reasons previously stated and obviously either not accepted or understood by you. I do not need a God to behave, or be good to others. I don’t want to live forever and I rely on proof to draw conclusions on. Simple.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “As I posted in response to TheKingofRhye above, the Big Bang theory and
            the theory of evolution still don’t answer the question of HOW the
            universe came into being.”

            The the theory of evolution has absolutely NOTHING, not one single THING, to do with how the universe came into being! It doesn’t even seek to explain how LIFE came into being, let alone the universe.

            Believe it or not, the Big Bang theory doesn’t attempt to explain how the universe came into being, either.

            “A common misconception is that the big bang provides a theory of cosmic origins. It doesn’t. The big bang is a theory … that delineates cosmic evolution from a split second after whatever happened to bring the universe into existence, but it says nothing at all about time zero itself. And since, according to the big bang theory, the bang is what is
            supposed to have happened at the beginning, the big bang leaves out the bang. It tells us nothing about what banged, why it banged, how it
            banged, or, frankly, whether it really banged at all.” – Brian Greene, “The Fabric of the Cosmos”

          • 4Given

            I understand what you are saying because it becomes necessary to disregard the Bible in such a way to justify one’s disbelief. We’re talking about 66 books, written by 40 different authors, over a period of 3500 years, with one perfectly harmonized theme to point everyone directly to Jesus. That would be an absolutely impossible feat to achieve through human hands. That “book” that you speak of was written by man’s hand, yes, but it was actually inspired by God.

            “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,”

          • MIAtheistGal

            Funny thing is, I’m now an Athiest because I read the bible cover to cover. Try it sometime and tell me that it makes sense and that the God in that book is compassionate. It’s an ugly book filled with awful things. It was in searching for anew belief system that I realized they were all bunk. So, yes, I disregard the bible, not to justify my beliefs, but because it brought me to the realization that all religion was nonsense.

            You’re an atheist too, I just believe in one less God than you do.

          • MIAtheistGal

            I do want to thank you for not name calling me, however. You are certainly earnest in your unwanted attempts to convert me, but at least your not name calling rude. It’s nice to civilly disagree.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Jesus loved you so much that he died for you”

            Assuming he exists/existed, did he die for us or was he resurrected? You can’t have it both ways.

            Going by the Bible story, the sacrifice of Jesus is that he suffered a few hours of pain and a temporary death before rising to exist in eternal bliss in heaven. Not much of a sacrifice. And if we don’t believe this and accept Jesus we will be sent to hell for eternity.

            On the other hand, the story of Prometheus tells us that Prometheus stole the secret of fire from the gods & gave it to humans to make our lives easier. For this action, he is punished by being alive for all eternity chained to a rock & having his liver eaten out of him… a much greater sacrifice than Jesus’. And we face no punishment if we don’t believe this story.

            While is is true we cannot prove either story happened, we DO have fire.

          • 4Given

            Yes, He did sacrifice Himself and then 3 days later He was resurrected. I’m not sure why the statement was made that it couldn’t be both ways.

            He was already in Heaven where He has existed from everlasting to everlasting. He is not bound by the same time constraints that we are because He exists outside of time. He created time. Yet He chose to leave His heavenly place to come down here to this Earth to suffer being rejected, mocked, beaten, whipped, beard torn out, and then crucified, all because He loves you so much and wants to be with you. The process actually lasted from 8am-3pm which is quite a bit more than “a few hours”, but regardless, this is the most excruciating (which comes from the root word crux or cross by the way) death one could suffer, all so you could have a way back to Him. Hardly a thing to trivialize!

            “He was so disfigured beyond that of any man and His form marred beyond human likeness.”

            As far as whether or not He existed, there is plenty of evidence from secular sources as well as religious sources. Aside from the complete harmony of the New Testament from multiple authors, there are writings from the Jewish historian Josephus, the Roman historian Tacitus, the Roman governor Pliny the younger, Lucian the Greek satirist, Celsus the Platonist philosopher, and the Roman writer Seutonius.

            “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the very power of God.”

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “, He did sacrifice Himself and then 3 days later He was resurrected. I’m not sure why the statement was made that it couldn’t be both ways.”

            What exactly did he sacrifice? Not his life, he was resurrected. Not his existence, the Bible says he is in heaven for eternity & heaven is supposed to be a great place.

            None of your secular sources regarding the existence of Jesus are valid. Some have been debunked as forgeries, some are merely comments about things the writer has heard about.

            And none of the accounts in the Bible are written by actual eyewitnesses or peers of Jesus.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          ” Everything functions in a system and works together, all the way down to our very cells”

          And because of the way our bodies are configured, we can choke to death while eating. If we did have a designer, the designer was an idiot.

      • Dan Jones

        Draw a circle…

        Inside that circle is all the knowledge that man has ever known and will ever know…

        Now shade inside the circle as much knowledge as you feel that you know…

        Whats left inside the circle is all the knowledge you know not of…

        And if you are honest, you will realize that in the scope of all known and unknown knowledge there is a lot you do not know anything about like the the rest of and yet you still can said with so much surety and bravado there is no God? Once again, You have better be a lot more sure about there being no God in that unshaded part because your eternal soul will pay for your decision if you are wrong…

        • MIAtheistGal

          I do not believe in things without proof, like unicorns, fairies and God. Provide proof, and I’ll believe in the God you e provided proof of. Just like you probably don’t believe in my magical, invisible purple unicorn I have in my backyard without proof.

          You don’t have to feel the same, but I have to ask you, why are you so certain that that the one God you have chosen is the ‘real’ one? To be safe, shouldn’t you believe in all 5,000 gods? You’ll pay with your soul if you’ve chosen the wrong one.

          I also find it interesting that all people think they’ve chosen the ‘right’ God by chance if where they happened to grow up.

          • Dan Jones

            I wish you best on Judgment day…

          • MIAtheistGal

            Thanks, but I don’t need your best wishes. I just need proof in order to believe something. Not a hard concept.

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      I think you have it backwards, Dan.

      With no belief in life after death, atheists have nothing to kill/die for. So we enjoy the life we have now, living in the moment, instead of only looking to what will come later.

      With your belief that this life is suffering, but your reward comes after in heave, you have no reason to live. The sooner you die, the sooner you’re in heaven, right?

      • Dan Jones

        Draw a circle…

        Inside that circle is all the knowledge that man has ever known and will ever know…

        Now shade inside the circle as much knowledge as you feel that you know…

        Whats left inside the circle is all the knowledge you know not of…

        If you are honest, you will realize that in the scope of all known and unknown knowledge there is a lot you do not know anything about like the the rest of and yet you still can said with so much surety and bravado there is no God? Once again, You have better be a lot more sure about there being no God in that unshaded part because your eternal soul will pay for your decision if you are wrong…

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          The old “god of the gaps” argument … and tacking on Pascal’s Wager to boot? Really?! Is that all you got? LOL

          That is such a terrible illustration and represents a very modernistic mindset for the requirements of belief. Why? I’m glad you asked. Allow me to turn the tables on you, the one who believes in a god. Why couldn’t an atheist use the same illustration for you? You say you believe in a god, how certain are you, Dan? Absolutely certain? Oh, okay. Well let me draw this circle that represents all knowledge. Now you draw a circle within this circle representing your knowledge. Oh, that small, huh? Could it be that the evidence for your god’s non-existence is found outside of your circle of knowledge? Yes? Well then, I have just converted you from a theistic worldview to an agnostic worldview.

          Share & Enjoy! 🙂

          • Dan Jones

            I wish you the best on Judgment day…

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            A day that will never come… 😉

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Which one? Ragnarok? Duat? King Minos, Aeacus, and Radamanthus? Yama? The Bible’s?

            I assume you mean the Bible’s judgement day… a “gift” from Christ in the new testament… no such judgement or hell existed in the old testament.

            The Christian fable’s judgement day is the equivalent of god throwing us out of the boat then saying he’ll throw us a life jacket if we worship him.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          I haven’t heard any atheist say there is no god. We say we don’t believe there is a god, because we have seen no evidence for a god. This is ( I assume) the same reason you don’t believe in leprechauns or Thor or Zeus.

          You could prove us wrong by presenting evidence for god. Go ahead.

      • 4Given

        In essence, you have traded something eternal for something temporary. That’s not very wise.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Perhaps, but there’s no proof that this “something eternal” is even something real. So, start with that, prove that.

          • 4Given

            It’s up to each person to allow God to prove Himself to them through the different ways that He will work with us, but it starts with a choice. He has proven Himself to me and He continues to reinforce my faith as I grow spiritually.

            I know in my spirit, heart, and mind, that I am not wrong, but in an attempt to view things from the perspective you mentioned….if I am wrong I would have nothing to lose, but if you are wrong then you would have everything to lose.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Pascal’s Wager… what a joke…

            If this god being were actually real and omniscient, it would know if someone were disingenuously believing just for the sake of reward. I’ll take my chances with honest doubt, not dishonest faith/belief.

          • 4Given

            I’ve never heard of Pascal’s wager so I had to look it up. Of course a person’s faith would have to be genuine. The point was to hopefully get you to think about your choices.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            You’re too late on that front, sweetie. I’m perfectly comfortable with my choices.

    • JOE

      ATHEIST GOT NO REASON TO LIVE! LIBERALISM Is It Mental Illness or Demonic Oppression?

      • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

        On the contrary, I have many reasons to live.

        What does liberalism have to do with anything here? Do you honestly believe that there are no conservative atheists? If you do, you’d be quite surprised after a quick Google session.

        • JOE

          GOOGLE,GOOGLE IS OWED AND RUN BY A BUNCH OF LIBERAL ATHEIST SCUM!

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            So now the idea of the conservative atheist is a liberal conspiracy? Is that what you’re shouting?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        Is that you, afchief?

    • JOE

      BORROWED FROM YOU!

      • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

        Because you can’t think for yourself? No wonder you’re religious…

  • goodoldeboy

    Do These Atheist Groups Just “Troll” The Internet To Just Have Something To “B…H” About??–Let’s Hear It For All The Good The Atheist Groups Have Done For American Social Justice, Or For That Matter,In Any Society Where They Live…!!

    • MIAtheistGal

      Nope, the FFRF writes letters after someone complains. Oddly, they also get complaints from non-atheists who are being discriminated against by majority religions or denominations.

      • C_Alan_Nault

        There are 2 FFRF leaders in trouble for sexual assault of children. I hope they are not using the foundation’s money for their legal help.

        • MIAtheistGal

          You appear to have your facts mistaken. You should not tell lies, or bear false witness, against people.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Citation, please? I’ve looked into this, and found nothing. It appears that you’re just trolling and spreading vicious lies.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            It’s still in the FBI’s vector case. Not sure if and when it will be released.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Then how do you know about it? Oh, that’s right, because you’re just trolling and spreading vicious lies.

    • JOE

      YES,Have you ever wondered why it’s OK to make jokes about Catholics, Jews, Christians, the Pope, the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Hungarians, the Chinese, the French (including French Canadians), the elderly, bad golfers, men/women, blacks/whites, etc, but its insensitive to make jokes about the Muslims?

      Well, it’s time to level the playing field and be politically correct, by including our friends, the Muslims, on this grandiose list…

      1. If you grow and refine heroin for a living, but morally object to the use of liquor, You may be a Muslim.2. If you own a $3,000 Machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but can’t afford shoes, You may be a Muslim.

      3. If you have more wives than teeth, You may be a Muslim.

      4. If you wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon to be unclean, you may be a Muslim.

      5. If you think vests come in two styles, Bullet-proof and suicide, you may be a Muslim.6. If you can’t think of Anyone that you haven’t declared jihad against, you may be a Muslim.

      7. If you consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing, you may be a Muslim.

      8. If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses, other than setting off roadside bombs, you may be a Muslim.

      9. If you have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four, then you, too, may be a Muslim.
      10.If you say you love your daughter, sister, mother, aunt, or any other female relative and then you’d kill her if she’s raped; you’re most definitely a Muslim.
      11. If you enjoy throwing homosexuals off roof tops, you are a Muslim.12.if your a moron you just might be a muslim.
      If you find this offensive and do not forward it, you are part of the problem here in America … but if you delete this, you are most likely a Muslim! LIBERALISM Is It Mental Illness or Demonic Oppression?

      • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

        When did this become about Muslims? The article is about Christians violating the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with Islam or liberalism. I think you’re just trying to get banned from this site, pasting the same nonsense over and over again.

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Is that supposed to be a headline or something? Why are you capitalizing the first letter of every word in your comment?

      Anyway, to answer your question, no, they are not trolling the internet for something to complain about. They’re responding to their members’ reports on governmental / public official violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

  • JOE

    I WOULD SAY FU*C*K AN ATHEIST BUT THEY WOULD PROBABLY LIKE DAT!

    • MIAtheistGal

      Well, you seem nice. You must be a credit to your religion. I’m sure you convert lots of people.

      • Mike

        What’s it to you?? Mind your business!

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Love thy neighbor, Mike. Turn the other cheek.

        • MIAtheistGal

          I try to be kind to all people, regardless of their religion. Does your religion teach you to be rude and arrogant with people who believe differently?

      • JOE

        f YOU!!!

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          What ever happened to Christian love and forgiveness, Joe?

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Contrary to your obvious belief, caps lock is not cruise-control for cool. Please stop shouting, it’s very rude.

      • JOE

        f YOU!

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          No. I don’t want to catch anything from you.

      • JOE

        there capital letters mf’er not SHOUTING,you can only SHOUT at some1 when your actually talking toTHEM,dumb@$$!

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Using caps lock is the text equivalent of shouting, it’s meant to convey yelling in context like this.

          Also, *they’re, *someone, *you’re… and is your space-bar sticking? You might need to clean your keyboard. Or are you just that seethingly angry that you can’t slow down enough to proofread your comments?

  • JOE

    LIBERALISM Is It Mental Illness or Demonic Oppression?—Have you ever wondered why it’s OK to make jokes about Catholics, Jews, Christians, the Pope, the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, the Hungarians, the Chinese, the French (including French Canadians), the elderly, bad golfers, men/women, blacks/whites, etc, but its insensitive to make jokes about the Muslims?

    Well, it’s time to level the playing field and be politically correct, by including our friends, the Muslims, on this grandiose list…

    1. If you grow and refine heroin for a living, but morally object to the use of liquor, You may be a Muslim.2. If you own a $3,000 Machine gun and a $5,000 rocket launcher, but can’t afford shoes, You may be a Muslim.

    3. If you have more wives than teeth, You may be a Muslim.

    4. If you wipe your butt with your bare hand, but consider bacon to be unclean, you may be a Muslim.

    5. If you think vests come in two styles, Bullet-proof and suicide, you may be a Muslim.6. If you can’t think of Anyone that you haven’t declared jihad against, you may be a Muslim.

    7. If you consider television dangerous, but routinely carry explosives in your clothing, you may be a Muslim.

    8. If you were amazed to discover that cell phones have uses, other than setting off roadside bombs, you may be a Muslim.

    9. If you have nothing against women and think every man should own at least four, then you, too, may be a Muslim.
    10.If you say you love your daughter, sister, mother, aunt, or any other female relative and then you’d kill her if she’s raped; you’re most definitely a Muslim.
    11. If you enjoy throwing homosexuals off roof tops, you are a Muslim.12.if your a moron you just might be a muslim.
    If you find this offensive and do not forward it, you are part of the problem here in America … but if you delete this, you are most likely a Muslim!

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      I find your total disregard for basic grammar far more offensive than your sophomoric attempt at humor.

      • JOE

        Atheist’s are sad… live and a life that means nothing because there is
        nothing to look forward too after they die… I love Jesus, for I will
        have eternal life with HIM!!!

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          I think you have it backwards, Joey. With no belief in life after death, atheists have nothing to kill/die for. So we enjoy the life we have now, living in the moment, instead of only looking to what will come later. With your belief that this life is suffering, but your reward comes after in heave, you have no reason to live. The sooner you die, the sooner you’re in heaven, right?

  • JOE

    ATHEIST GOT NO REASON TO “LIVE”!

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      On the contrary, I have many reasons to live.

      • JOE

        YEAH,TO MAKE EVERYBODY ELSE’S LIFE MISERABLE LIKE FLEAS ON A DOG!

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          No, I take joy in uplifting activities that makes people’s lives better.

  • Mike

    They were offended.. So what!! Get over it. They need to mind their own business. It’s called freedom of religion. They want freedom from religion. Ain’t going to happen. Atheism is a religion and they are forcing it on society. Maybe we should send them letters of protest!

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Atheism is not a religion, it’s the absence of religion.

      They’re not forcing atheism on society, they’re enforcing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

      So it isn’t about being offended, it’s about law enforcement.

      • JOE

        demoRAT party=abortion=kkk=slavery=muslim terrorists=high taxes=poverty=fixed elections,illegitimate kids=welfare,LIBERALISM Is It Mental Illness or Demonic Oppression?.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          That’s some pretty dubious math there, Joey. Perhaps you should brush up on your history lessons. Also, there’s a “c” in “democrat”. Either way, we’re way off topic, this story has nothing to do with liberals, conservatives, democrats or republicans.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

        @ NoMoreBadTown

        NoMoreBadTown said: “Atheism is not a religion, it’s the absence of religion.”

        Not necessarily. For instance, “atheistic Satanists” like the Temple of Satan, who consider their “non-superstitious”, “non-supernatural” beliefs genuine religious beliefs, do exist (ref. the F.A.Q webpage on the Temple of Satan website {thesatanictemple [dot] com [forward slash] faq [forward slash]}).

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          Wrong. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. It’s simply a statement of what one doesn’t believe. An atheist can also be a humanist, or a satanist, or a Buddhist, which go into what the individual does believe, as opposed to what the individual doesn’t believe.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ NoMoreBadTown

            EscapetheDarkness said:

            NoMoreBadTown said: “Atheism is not a religion, it’s the absence of religion.”

            “Not necessarily.”

            NoMoreBadTown said: “Wrong. An atheist is a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. It’s simply a statement of what one doesn’t believe. An atheist can also be a humanist, or a satanist, or a Buddhist, which go into what the individual does believe, as opposed to what the individual doesn’t believe.”

            So, let me get this straight. On one hand, one, as a person, can combine Atheism with other things like Satanism, Buddhism, etc. in their personal belief system and still be an Atheist. Yet, on the other hand, you insist that Atheism, by definition, is never anything more than a simple lack of belief in the existence of any deities. And, as such, it is, by definition, the absence of religion.

            It sounds to me like you are talking out of both sides of your mouth here, in order to defend what you previously said.

            As long as a set of beliefs includes a lack of belief in the existence of any deities, then it is, by definition, a type of Atheism. In this sense, raw Atheism, Satanic Atheism, Buddhist Atheism, and so on are all different forms and expressions of Atheism.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Darkness, I don’t have the time or the crayons necessary to break this down for you. Suffice it to say, not everything has to be binary, despite your lack of ability to process beyond black and white. Shades of grey exist in all things, and when it comes to religion and philosophy, all colors of the rainbow come into play.

    • MIAtheistGal

      There is no true freedom without the freedom to dissent.

    • TheKingOfRhye

      If there is no freedom FROM religion, then you can’t truly have freedom OF religion.

  • Vernon Devine

    You might try more of Americn history. Slavery is part of our history. Slaughtering Indians is part of our history. Burning “so called” witches is part of our history. We have plenty to be ashamed of..

    • C_Alan_Nault

      Slavery is also condoned by the old and new testament, and the new testament says Christians can own other Christians as slaves.

      • 4Given

        It’s actually talking about indentured servitude for a given timeframe and set free after 7 years or during the Jubilee year, not slavery in the modern sense of the word.

        • C_Alan_Nault

          Assuming you have actually read the Bible, read it again. The indentured servitude for a given time period applied only to MALE Hebrew slaves owned by other Hebrews.

          Female Hebrew slaves owned by Hebrews remained slaves for life ( When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. Exodus 21:7).

          And non-Hebrew males & females remained slaves for life:

          However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 )

          Slaves can be beaten to death if they don’t die too fast:

          When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

          The new testament has this passage regarding slavery:

          Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )

          The new testament has this to say about Christians owning slaves:

          Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )

          • 4Given

            First of all, we should recognize that nowhere in scripture does it say that God supports slavery. As I previously mentioned, slavery that took place in ancient Israel was completely different than the modern day perspective of slavery that we have where people were captured primarily based upon race and then sold as slaves. In fact the scriptures forbid this practice.

            “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)

            We would do well to realize that the ancient people didn’t have the welfare programs that we have available to us today, so it became necessary to sell one’s self or the family members in their care into slavery just so they could have food and housing.

            Although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable – up to death of the offending party. Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man’s slave, or return an escaped slave. A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            First of all, we should recognize that nowhere in scripture does it say that God supports slavery.”

            First of all, you should realize that nowhere did I say the scripture supports slavery… I said it condones slavery. A god who ( according to the Bible) gave very detailed instructions on what could be eaten and what wasn’t to be eaten, how hair was to be trimmed, how bears were to be trimmed, what clothes we can & cannot wear ( wearing clothes made of more than one type of material is wrong… that’d mean all those jackets out there with patches of leather on them are wrong), says NOTHING about slavery being wrong, or even something to be avoided if possible.

            Instead he hands down laws on buying, selling, and treatment of slaves… this means he CONDONES slavery.

            Condone:

            1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like): The government condoned the computer hacking among rival corporations.

            2. to give tacit approval to: By his silence, he seemed to condone their behavior.

            According to the Bible, god condones owning humans as property.

            Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            ” As I previously mentioned, slavery that took place in ancient Israel was completely different than the modern day perspective of slavery that we have where people were captured primarily based upon race and then sold as slaves.”

            Does it really make a difference WHYthe person was made a slave?

            Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            “In fact the scriptures forbid this practice.

            “He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.” (Exodus 21:16)”

            In fact, that is one of the commandments for the Hebrews and ( like the rest of the commandments) applied only to Hebrews when dealing with other Hebrews. If a Hebrew wanted to kidnap & enslave a non-Hebrew, it was not forbidden.

            “We would do well to realize that the ancient people didn’t have the welfare programs that we have available to us today, so it became necessary to sell one’s self or the family members in their care into slavery just so they could have food and housing.”

            Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            Although there are rules about slavery in the Bible, those rules exist to protect the slave. Injuring or killing slaves was punishable – up to death of the offending party.”

            Unless the slave didn’t die too fast.

            When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

            Hebrews were commanded not to make their slave work on the Sabbath, slander a slave, have sex with another man’s slave, or return an escaped slave.”

            Are you saying it is OK to own slaves as long as you let them rest on the Sabbath, don’t slander them, don’t have sex with another slave owner’s slave and don’t return an escaped slave?

            Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            A Hebrew was not to enslave his fellow countryman, even if he owed him money, but was to have him work as a hired worker, and he was to be released in 7 years or in the year of jubilee (which occurred every 50 years), whichever came first.”

            And a Hebrew can own foreigners as slaves for life, and pass them on as permanent inheritance.

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

            Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?
            It’s a simple question. Yes or no?

          • 4Given

            In today’s society I would say no, but it would be extremely arrogant to think that I could say what was right or wrong for a society that existed 3500 years ago. As I mentioned before, it’s understood that these people chose to live in subjection as a matter of survival.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “In today’s society I would say no, but it would be extremely arrogant to think that I could say what was right or wrong for a society that existed 3500 years ago.”

            I didn’t ask you how you thought societies should live 3500 years ago.

            I asked you a simple yes or no question: Do you think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            Apparently, you don’t think owning another human being as property is wrong.

          • 4Given

            I recognize your efforts to paint me into a corner, but you seem like an intelligent person so I think you understand that is not what I said.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            It is a simple question: do you, personally, think it is moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

            You should be able to answer the question, either you think it isn’t moral to own another human being as property or you think it is moral to own another human being as property.

          • IzTheBiz

            I am curious. You seem to have very high moral standards, in fact much higher than the creators. Because you have judged that slavery in the old testament is wrong. How so? How did you arrive at them!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “. You seem to have very high moral standards, in fact much higher than the creators.”

            In fact, unless you can prove there are creators, everyone ( no matter what their morals are) has higher moral standards than the creators.

            “Because you have judged that slavery in the old testament is wrong.”

            Actually, what I have done is judged that owning another person as your property is wrong. The fact that the old & new testaments of the Bible both condone slavery tells us that the old & new testaments are bad sources for moral guidance.

            ” How so? How did you arrive at them!”

            The way a person arrives at good moral choices is simple: ask yourself how you would like it if those rules were applied/used on you.

            If you don’t like the idea of someone making you ( or your loved ones) their slave ( or raping you or your loved ones, murdering you or your loved ones, stealing from you or your loved ones, etc) then you should ( unless you are a hypocrite) decide that slavery, rape, murder & theft are wrong.

            No one should need a book claimed to be the word of some supernatural entity to determine what’s right & what’s wrong. This is why many believers choose to ignore so many bad laws in the Bible… because they KNOW those laws are bad.

            he Bible does have some good moral laws, but they are good moral laws not because they are in the Bible, but because they are good moral laws.

            Along with some good moral laws, the Bible also has many immoral laws.

          • IzTheBiz

            ‘immoral’, ‘wrong’, ‘higher standards’ ‘bad’ -this is the language of absolute moral values. On what basis do you make a claim to absolute moral standards, (whether or not there is a creator)? Many people in the Roman empire sold themselves into slavery because it was the only form of security they had access to. Who are you to say they were wrong? You have two choices: you believe in absolute values (which you claim to), in which case you need a law giving creator, or , all moral values are relative, in which case you are being very inconsistent (or acting as God)

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “On what basis do you make a claim to absolute moral standards, (whether or not there is a creator)?”

            You must be replying to someone else’s comments, I made no such claim.

            What I DID say was “The way a person arrives at good moral choices is simple: ask yourself how you would like it if those rules were applied/used on you.

            If you don’t like the idea of someone making you ( or your loved ones) their slave ( or raping you or your loved ones, murdering you or your loved ones, stealing from you or your loved ones, etc) then you should ( unless you are a hypocrite) decide that slavery, rape, murder & theft are wrong.”.

            As you can see, what I am saying is a person’s moral standards are subjective, not objective & definitely not absolute.

            “Many people in the Roman empire sold themselves into slavery because it was the only form of security they had access to. ”

            And many people were forced into slavery, and the Bible tells us you can sell your daughter into slavery.

            The Bible also tells us that slaves ( unless they are male Hebrew slaves owned by other Hebrews) remain slaves for life, as do any children they have when they are slaves, and that the slaves can be passed down as permanent inheritance.

            It tells us that you can beat your slave & if they don’t die from the beating for a day or two there are no consequences.

            It tells us that slaves should fear their masters & that Christians can own slaves & can even own other Christians as slaves.

            “Who are you to say they were wrong?”

            The question is a simple one: do you think it is moral to own another human being as your property?

            Yes or no?

            ” You have two choices: you believe in absolute values (which you claim to), in which case you need a law giving creator, ”

            Since I have never claimed there are absolute values, you are either lying or don’t understand what I wrote.

            “or , all moral values are relative, in which case you are being very inconsistent (or acting as God)”

            As I stated, I never said there are moral absolutes, I specifically said “”The way a person arrives at good moral choices is simple: ask yourself how you would like it if those rules were applied/used on you?”.

            Apparently you can’t distinguish between what someone said & what you think they said.

          • IzTheBiz

            Clearly, you have moral standards that in your view everyone else should adhere to! You are just doing the atheist shuffle-denying there are such things as absolute moral standards, while at the same time insisting that certain things are right or wrong. that is evident from you language and questioning. Lets look at the phrase ‘good’ moral choices, for a start! What exactly is a good moral choice? do unto others? (biblical, by the way)And what if ‘do unto others’ was interpreted in a way you don’t agree with, such as pedophilia. Some pedophiles think its a beautiful thing to have sex with a child. Who are you to judge, and on what basis?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Clearly, you have moral standards that in your view everyone else should adhere to!”

            I’ve never said that.

            I WILL say that my moral standards are better than the so-called moral laws of the Bible.

            “denying there are such things as absolute moral standards”

            I don’t need to deny that. You are claiming they exist, all I have to do is say prove it.

            Go ahead, prove absolute moral standards exist.

          • IzTheBiz

            You’ve just proven it-‘my moral standards are BETTER than the so-called moral standards of the bible’

          • IzTheBiz

            And as I said previously, ‘do unto others….’ is an absolute moral standard. AND its biblical. Translate: have compassion on other as you would want to. It’s the type of idea our system of law is based on, otherwise it would be ‘an eye for an eye…’ which is the opposite of compassion.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “as I said previously, ‘do unto others….’ is an absolute moral standard. AND its biblical. ”

            1) you have yet to prove it is an absolute moral standard

            2) “do unto others” existed in writings older than any writings of the Bible, so obviously the source of the adage isn’t Biblical

            3) “do unto others” is a good idea because it’s a good idea… NOT because it happens to be in the Bible. The Bible does have many good lessons — along with many bad ones — but they are good lessons because they are good lessons, not because they happen to be in the Bible.

            “t’s the type of idea our system of law is based on, ”

            No, it isn’t. Our system of law regularly involves sending people to prison. I’m sure that isn’t something you would want done to you.

            “otherwise it would be ‘an eye for an eye…’ which is the opposite of compassion.”

            And which is also a Biblical rule:

            Exodus 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,

          • IzTheBiz

            You are obviously having difficulty with following through the logic conclusion of your own statements. It’s difficult to argue with someone who is so blinded with his own prejudice that it makes him irrational and can’t sort our historical realities, such as the fact that the saying ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is a quote from Jesus. It’s common currency because western civilisation has inherited it from the gospel-whether or not other civilisations had a similar idea, as is the system of law, as is the western welfare, and on and on it goes. You are looking quite foolish!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            ” can’t sort our historical realities, such as the fact that the saying ‘do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ is a quote from Jesus.”

            The historical reality is there is no historical evidence that Jesus even actually existed. That being the case, there is no way to know or prove that he said anything.

            The historical reality is that this “golden rule” is part of many religions and cultures, it isn’t original to the Bible. It appeared in ancient Egypt, ancient China, & ancient India long before the time of the Bible story.

            You forgot to say what context makes owning another person as your property a moral act.

            You either think it is moral to own another human as property or it is immoral. Which view do you take?

            You forgot to say what context makes it moral to kill people who:

            – follow other religions
            – have committed adultery
            – who work the Sabbath
            – who weren’t virgins on their wedding night ( this Biblical law of god applies only to females)
            – who are homosexuals

            You either think these laws are good laws or bad laws. Which is it?

          • IzTheBiz

            I am not interested in doing exegesis with someone who has very little interest in truth or historical realities. I gave you references for the slavery issue. Stop wasting peoples time!. Fact is you still can’t justify how you are able to arrive at the conclusion that slavery is wrong. You are presupposing moral absolutes. No two ways about it. Please tell me where these other religions say do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or even better ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (ten commandments) I would be really interested to know. Or is that just another hatch job from sam Harris?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “I am not interested in doing exegesis with someone who has very little interest in truth or historical realities. ”

            The truth & the historical reality is that none of the miracles mentioned in the Bible can be proved to have happened.

            The truth & the historical reality is that most of the main characters in the Bible cannot be proven to have actually existed. This list includes Adam, Eve, Noah, Lot, Moses, and Jesus.

            “I gave you references for the slavery issue.”

            The slavery issue can be narrowed down to one question: is it moral to own another person as property? Yes or no?

            What’s your answer?

          • IzTheBiz

            Again, you are avoiding the real issue-that you have NO basis for your moral outrage-period! so this conversation is pointless and you are not as smart as you think you are!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            The historical reality is that you won’t answer a simple question: is it moral to own another human being as property? Yes or no?

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “you are avoiding the real issue-that you have NO basis for your moral outrage-”

            I don’t have any moral outrage. I am simply pointing out how immoral so many of the Bible’s commandments are, and pointing out that the old & new testament both condone slavery ( owniong other human beings as your property).

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Please tell me where these other religions say do unto others as you would have them do unto you”

            Ancient Egypt
            Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess, Ma’at, who appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – c. 1650 BC): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do.” This proverb embodies the do ut des principle. A Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: “That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.”

            Ancient China
            The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:

            “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” — Confucius(c. 500 BC)
            “If people regarded other people’s families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.” — Mozi (c. 400 BC)
            “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” — Laozi[15] (c. 500 BC)

            Ancient India
            Sanskrit tradition
            In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, “Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control — are the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.”

            ” or even better ‘love your neighbour as yourself’ (ten commandments) I would be really interested to know.”

            Have you even read the Bible?

            There are 613 commandments in the old testament.

            There are ten of the 613 that the Bible calls “the ten commandments”.

            Love your neighbour as yourself is not one of the Bible’s ten commandments.

          • IzTheBiz

            For a start, your dates are wildely vague in regards to Ancient Egypt so they mean nothing! Secondly, the ten commandments is dated around 1400 to 1200 BC, and it is possible that they did influence thought in the rest of the Ancient world. And even if they did have something similar-there is NO civilisation that surpasses the Judeo/Christian tradition in terms of high standards in moral law-NONE! Secondly, as far as your 613 commandments go, laws are regulations are plentiful, but the 10 commandments are a specific reflection of the MORAL law of God. They don’t change and Christians today are not obliged to keep the ceremonial and other laws. That is pretty basic!. And as far as the other Ancient civilisations, they were not exactly beacons of light. Ancient Israel, on the other hand had many compassionate provisions, such as ending slave tenure every seven years etc. While judgement was harsh, the Ancient Israelites were judged just as harshly as other tribes (especially for child sacrifice) as any of the others . You judgement is blurred by your prejudice. In fact they were judged harsher. Your comment about the 10 commandments is just a reflection of your ignorance! Jesus interpreted the 10 commandments. He went beyond do unto others, LOVE your neighbour as YOURSELF!!!

            “And when the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they themselves gathered together.
            One of them, an expert in the Law, tested Him with a question: “Teacher, which commandment is the greatest in the Law?”
            Jesus declared, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.
            This is the first and greatest commandment.
            And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.
            All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”

            That is SUPERIOR!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Your comment about the 10 commandments is just a reflection of your ignorance! ”

            Everything I posted about the ten commandments is exactly what the Bible itself says. If you want to say the Bible teaches ignorance, go right ahead I won’t disagree.

            “Jesus interpreted the 10 commandments.”

            Not according to what the Bible’s ten commandments are.

            “And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.
            All the Law and the Prophets depend on these two commandments.”

            That is SUPERIOR!”

            That isn’t much of a stretch, almost every moral law & man-made law is superior to the majority of the Bible’s 613 commandments.

            Saying all people are equal regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation is a far more superior commandment than “you shall have no other god before me”.

          • IzTheBiz

            Please, don’t do theology. You are embarrassingly ignorant!

            ‘Saying all people are equal regardless of race, gender, or sexual
            orientation is a far more superior commandment than “you shall have no
            other god before me”. To claim a superior moral standard, you need an external reference point for that. You are making a moral judgement over one set of laws, claiming you know something more superior. Doesn’t make sense! You are shooting down your own argument! Futile if you can’t see that.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “Please, don’t do theology. You are embarrassingly ignorant!”

            Don’t just make a claim, point out where my posts about what the Bible actually says are ignorant. Until then, you merely demonstrate that your claim is baseless.

            “To claim a superior moral standard, you need an external reference point for that.”

            Another claim? Go ahead & prove why a person needs an external reference point to arrive at moral decisions.

            “You are making a moral judgement over one set of laws, claiming you know something more superior.”

            That’s right, because the set of moral laws I say I am superior to say to kill people who are homosexuals, children who curse or strike their parents, adulterers, people who work the Sabbath, women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, people who worship no god, & people who worship a different god… to name a few.

            These laws also condone slavery & in some instances, rape.

            “Doesn’t make sense! ”

            It does make sense… unless you think it is moral to kill people who are homosexuals, children who curse or strike their parents, adulterers, people who work the Sabbath, women who aren’t virgins on their wedding night, people who worship no god, & people who worship a different god… to name a few., and to condone slavery & in some instances, rape.

            According to the Bible, those are god’s laws. Do you think they are moral?

            Yes or no?

          • IzTheBiz

            ‘Go ahead & prove why a person needs an external reference point to arrive at moral decisions.’

            you don’t need an external reference point when arriving at moral decisions, but you can IN NO WAY have a right to make absolute moral claims to truth UNLESS you are referring to an absolute moral standard. If you are referring to an absolute moral standard, then I am sorry, but you need a lawmaker, otherwise its all relative.You are claiming all truth is relative, therefore your truth is as good as mine. In which case you have no right to say that slavery or pedophilia is bad

            ‘Don’t just make a claim, point out where my posts about what the Bible
            actually says are ignorant. Until then, you merely demonstrate that
            your claim is baseless.’

            Hold on! you are claiming to interpret the old testament without reference to the new testament?? Well, actually, unless you are a Jew (in which case I have no idea what you are on about!) then what the heck are you on about?? Let me explain simply-Jesus is God and He therefore set down the law (the ten commandments) and if so, He has a right to interpret the 10 commandments. and if He said that love the Lord your God and love your neighbour are the essence of the law, then that settles it!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “you can IN NO WAY have a right to make absolute moral claims to truth UNLESS you are referring to an absolute moral standard. ”

            Which is why I haven’t made any “absolute moral claims”, whatever that means. I have stated what I find moral or immoral.

            Can you define your term “absolute moral claims”?

            “you are claiming to interpret the old testament without reference to the new testament??”

            I’m not interpreting either testament. I am quoting them directly.

            “Let me explain simply-Jesus is God”

            So you claim, now present your proof.

            ” and He therefore set down the law (the ten commandments) ”

            You must not have read the Bible, there are actually 613 commandments in the old testament.

            Only 10 of the 613 are called the ten commandments. Can you even list them?

            “and if so, He has a right to interpret the 10 commandments. ”

            If so… but you haven’t proved he exists.

            And why do they need to be interpreted? Is this god too stupid to be clear & concise?

            You once again forgot to answer my question: do you think it is moral to own another person as property? Yes or no?

            Until you answer my question, my responses will only be asking you again.

          • IzTheBiz

            re: ‘what is absolute moral truth’ Do your own research. I don’t waste time with clueless people, and regarding theology-I will decline explaining anything to an ignorant person who thinks he knows it all! It’s called being a fool, and the bible also has alot to say about that. I’ll let you do your research on that one as well!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            If you are going to use a term ( absolute moral truth) and are unable to clearly state what you mean by the term, you probably shouldn’t use it.

            Regarding theology- I will dismiss any and all theological claims & premises until such time as the person espousing them presents proof that whatever deity they happen to believe in actually exists.

            “It’s called being a fool, and the bible also has alot to say about that. I’ll let you do your research on that one as well!”

            No need to do that research, I am already familiar with what the Bible says about becoming a fool. It encourages it.

            1 Corinthians 3:18 Become a fool (for Christ) in order to become wise.

            The Bible also tells you how to deal with fools:

            Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

            …. the next sentence in the Bible is

            Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

            Like much of the Bible, these passages contradict each other… but the Bible usually doesn’t contradict itself with the very next sentence.

          • IzTheBiz

            there’s a fly….bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……..swat!!!!…….annoying fly!
            The trouble with flies is, they spend so much time sitting on crap, thats why they are attracted to clean things! and spend so much time buzzing around them. bzzzzzzzzzzz! swat!! got it that time!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Your post is an obvious display that you cannot refute any of my points.

            As for your flies on crap comment, maybe they were inspired by those Bible passages that talk about eating feces & drinking urine.

            Perhaps you haven’t read the Bible, I can post the relevant chapter & verse numbers if you aren’t familiar with them.

          • IzTheBiz

            It also says don not throw your pearls to swine! You fit that description!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            Your reply once again demonstrates that you have no argument or rebuttal for the points I raised.

          • IzTheBiz

            It’s hard when you lose an argument because you have no idea about basic apologetics. You have to try and detract from the argument. Go and do some research before you demonstrate your ignorance again!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            ” You have to try and detract from the argument”

            Is that what you were trying to do when you couldn’t refute or rebut my points? Ignore what was posted because you have no counter arguments & just start tossing out insults?

            You should stop doing that, it makes you look like you’re about 10 or 11 years old.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “while at the same time insisting that certain things are right or wrong. ”

            Apparently you have some reading comprehension issues.

            What I have stated is :

            The way a person arrives at good moral choices is simple: ask yourself how you would like it if those rules were applied/used on you.

            If you don’t like the idea of someone making you ( or your loved ones) their slave ( or raping you or your loved ones, murdering you or your loved ones, stealing from you or your loved ones, etc) then you should ( unless you are a hypocrite) decide that slavery, rape, murder & theft are wrong.”.

            As you can see, what I am saying is a person’s moral standards are subjective, not objective & definitely not absolute.

            ” What exactly is a good moral choice? do unto others? (biblical, by the way)”

            Also Biblical, by the way, are:

            Kill People Who Don’t Listen to Priests
            Kill Homosexuals
            Death for Hitting Parent
            Death for Cursing Parents
            Death for Adultery
            Death to Followers of Other Religions
            Kill Nonbelievers
            Kill the Entire Town if One Person Worships Another God
            Kill Women Who Are Not Virgins On Their Wedding Night
            Kill People for Working on the Sabbath

            Owning slaves is OK.
            Beating your slave to death is OK if your slave doesn’t die for a day or two.
            Selling your daughter into slavery is OK.
            It is OK for a Christian to own slaves.
            It is OK for a Christian to own other Christians as slaves.

          • IzTheBiz

            don’t waste your time, the bible says, don’t throw your pearls to swine!

      • IzTheBiz

        Rubbish!

        • C_Alan_Nault

          I agree with you that the Bible is rubbish, but that’s what it says in the Bible.

          These passages show that both testaments of the Bible condones slavery:

          However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 )

          When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21)

          Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 )

          This passage shows that the Bible condones a Christian owning another Christian as a slave:

          Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 )

      • IzTheBiz

        FACT: The judeo-Christian belief system has had a huge influence on developing the western ideals of liberty and justice, including welfare, law, education, civil liberties etc. No other belief system, including secualr humanism has had the equivalent positive influence on society.
        Now compare this to the fact that In the 20th century, the atheistic regimes were responsible for the greatest bloodshed in all of the previous 20 centuries combined,

        • C_Alan_Nault

          None of what you are saying has anything to do with the issue of slavery in the Bible. Both testaments of the Bible condone slavery.

          Do you think it is moral to own people as property? Yes or no?

          “FACT: The judeo-Christian belief system has had a huge influence on developing the western ideals of liberty and justice, including welfare, law, education, civil liberties etc.”

          FACT: There is no such thing as a Judeo-Christian belief system. There is the Jewish religion and the christian religion.

          Fact: The Bible contains 613 commandments. These 613 commandments were not used when developing western ideals of liberty and justice, including welfare, law, education, civil liberties etc.

          This is because these 613 commandments included many racist, homophobic, homicidal, genocidal, and misogynistic laws. And these 613 commandments condoned slavery, going as far as saying how to purchase slaves, sell slaves ( including your own daughter), and treatment of slaves ( you faced punishment if you beat your slave to death, but only if the slave died from the injuries too fast).

          “In the 20th century, the atheistic regimes were responsible for the greatest bloodshed in all of the previous 20 centuries combined. I”

          You are referring to dogmatic totalitarian political systems. Atheism isn’t dogmatic, totalitarian, or political. And Hitler wasn’t an atheist.

          And why are you ignoring all the killings, torture, imprisonment, seizing of property, etc by religions?

          “In fact, pagans like you would be still swinging in trees and throwing the odd baby in the fire as a sacrifice (not that people like you don’t do that in the form of abortion)”

          FACT: I am not a pagan, I am an atheist

          FACT: the Bible has human sacrifice in it

          FACT: I have never had an abortion

          FACT: there is no Bible passage that condemns abortion. There are some passages that condone/demand abortion:

          Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

          2 Kings 15:16 Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.

          Numbers 5:11-21 The description of a ritual to be performed on a wife SUSPECTED of adultery. This is considered to be an induced abortion to rid a woman of another man’s child.

          And let’s not forget this gem from the Bible ( this passage is never read in Sunday school):

          Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

          • IzTheBiz

            It has everything to do with the topic of slavery AND every other insititution that we value in the west. And no, the bible does not condone slavery, it was tolerated, not condoned-BIG difference! When Paul urges the master to treat the slave as a brother-THAT is and was revolutionary. There are more slaves today that there ever has been. What are YOU doing about it? There are many Christians out there helping those in the sexual slave trade be free from it. I don’t here of many atheists going and doing the same thing, although, I am sure you can make up some lame anecdote. Atheists weren’t responsible for the abolition of slavery, it was Christians such as Wilberforce et al, and that was based on biblical principles. The bible has human sacrifice?? exactly where?? You show how ignorant you are by claiming there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian belief system. It’s the same bible and the same God.!! Try reading it some time instead of doing the typical atheist hatchet job quoting something totally out of context (no doubt quotes from Dawkins et al) And yes it is indisputable that the Judeo-Christian belief system has had a profound effect for good on the west. That is not debatable. If in doubt reading ‘Inventing the Individual, the origins of western liberalism’ by Larry Siedentop, who by the way is a pagan such as yourself. I warn you, its a hard read. You have to use the grey matter!
            ‘Psalms 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones’ Yes its there and undeniably brutal. And God does judge sin. God allows the enemy to judge those nations, including His own people, to be judged by the enemy. But have you read the WHOLE psalm?? I guess not, because if you did you would realise that its an Israelite crying out for justice. God is not doing the dashing. A text without a context is a pre-text!It’s an expression of a human sentiment, a bit like angry atheists like you raging against God by spending countless hours trying to catch Him out because you know there is a day of judgement coming and you want an excuse to hate him. But God has sent His son to die in your place for YOUR sins. THERE IS NO EXCUSE!!!

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “And no, the bible does not condone slavery, it was tolerated, not condoned-BIG difference!”

            Apparently you don’t know what the word CONDONE means.

            Condone:

            1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like)
            2. to give tacit approval to

            The fact the Bible gives instructions( laws) about buying and selling slaves, treatment of slaves ( according to the Bible, god’s law is that you can beat your slave to death without any consequences ( IF the slave doesn’t die from their injuries for a day ) since the slave is your property.

            The fact the Bible allegedly contains god’s laws & this god went into painstaking detail about what can & can’t be eaten, what sort of clothing you can wear & cannot wear, how hair & beards are to be trimmed BUT god doesn’t bother saying slavery is wrong or even slavery should be avoided when possible shows anyone reading the Bible that the Bible ( both testaments) condones slavery.

            “When Paul urges the master to treat the slave as a brother-THAT is and was revolutionary. ”

            Th fact that you don’t see the point that slavery is immoral & think the important thing isn’t to say slavery is wrong but instead say slaves should be treated well is disgusting.

            “There are more slaves today that there ever has been.”

            Do you have any facts to prove this claim?

            And so what? Even if it’s true it doesn’t change the fact that both testaments of the Bible condone slavery & the fact that the Bible doesn’t say slavery is wrong but takes the time to tell us how our hair & beards are to be trimmed.

            ” What are YOU doing about it?”

            What are YOU doing about it?

            ” There are many Christians out there helping those in the sexual slave trade be free from it.”

            So you claim. Define “many Christians”.

            And had some of these Christians at my door a number of years ago asking for a cash donation to be used against slavery. I asked how the money was going to be used & was told they pool it & use it to buy as many slaves as they can at slave auctions, then they return the slaves they purchased to their villages.

            This is an asinine way to fight slavery, all it does is drive up the price for slaves at the auctions and makes slave trading more lucrative.

            I told them to get back to me when they were prepared to use the money they raise to hire mercenaries to kill the slavers.

            “I don’t here of many atheists going and doing the same thing”

            Have you looked into it? Don’t forget, there are numerous secular charities and relief organizations, but they don’t get in front of pulpits to congratulate themselves about the good work they are doing. And they don’t do it as a deposit towards their afterlife.

            ” although, I am sure you can make up some lame anecdote.”

            Which is what you just did with your claim about “many Christians out there helping those in the sexual slave trade be free from it”.

            “Atheists weren’t responsible for the abolition of slavery, it was Christians such as Wilberforce et al, and that was based on biblical principles. ”

            Hilarious. Other Christian leaders were using the Bible’s passages as their argument that slavery was not immoral.

            “The bible has human sacrifice?? exactly where??”

            Leviticus 27:28-29
            Numbers 31:25-40
            Judges 11:29-40
            2 Samuel 21:1, 8-14
            1 Kings 13:1-2
            2 Kings 23:20
            2 Chronicles 34:1-5

            And the story of Christ is about Christ sacrificing himself to god to atone for the sins of others.

            “You show how ignorant you are by claiming there is no such thing as Judeo-Christian belief system.”

            There are the Jewish beliefs and the Christian beliefs.

            If you are going to claim a Judeo-Christian belief system exists, point out a church where the members are Jewish-Christians.

            “Try reading it some time instead of doing the typical atheist hatchet job quoting something totally out of context ”

            Explain the context where this is moral:

            However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. Leviticus 25:44-45

            All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. Leviticus 20:9

            If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10

            A priest’s daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. Leviticus 21:9

            “no doubt quotes from Dawkins et al)”

            Actually, I am quoting from the Bible.

            “And God does judge sin”

            A meaningless claim.

            Sin is defined as a transgression of a divine law. For the word sin to have any meaning, you first have to prove a deity exists, then you have to prove what that deity’s laws are.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “God has sent His son to die in your place for YOUR sins. ”

            1) so you claim, can you prove it?

            2) how does someone dying for your sins make things right? you have still sinned, and other people may have suffered because of your sin. if you robbed a bank, how would someone else going to prison for the robbery make things right?

            3) doesn’t the Bible say Jesus was resurrected? if that happened, he only pretended to sacrifice his life.

          • IzTheBiz

            You’re actually a slave and you don’t know it. You are deluded in thinking you’re free, but you are a slave of Satan! sin is bondage and the consequences of sin is death! That is the issue that you are avoiding. All your endless chatter won’t do you any good when you have to face your creator on the day of judgement.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            I am not talking about some metaphorical form of slavery.

            I am talking about the Bible’s version of slavery—- buying, selling, and owning people as property.

            Both testaments of the Bible condone slavery.

            “All your endless chatter won’t do you any good when you have to face your creator on the day of judgement.”

            ROFLMAO. And here we have the standard theistic argument when the immorality of their sacred book is pointed out to them: threaten the person with a divine judgement the person doesn’t believe in anyway.

            Here’s a tip: presenting that threat/warning to an atheist is just as effective as telling an adult they won’t get any gifts from Santa if they are bad.

          • IzTheBiz

            ‘Both testaments of the Bible condone slavery.’
            I have given you some sources and I don’t waste my time responding to wilful ignorance.Read the book I mentioned and get educated, but you probably won’t. It’s
            much more fun ranting away in your ignorance! cut and paste is NOT an
            argument. It’s a sorry excuse for honest inquiry, but I am not surprised
            given the standard someone like Dawkins sets.

          • C_Alan_Nault

            “It’s a sorry excuse for honest inquiry”

            I am inquiring of you.

            Do you think this is moral?

            “you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.”

            Do you think this is moral?

            “When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property”

            Do you think this is moral?

            “Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.”

  • mousekiller

    These complaints are from the PUSSY crowd and the I don’t like it you can’t have it bunch of do nothing hands out demanding freebies kind of people. Some call them liberals some call them nut jobs.

    • Frank Dorka

      Others call them patriots and constitutionalists working for your rights as well as theirs.

    • MIAtheistGal

      I’ve worked every day since I was 16. Not sure how that makes me someone looking for freebies. I just want the government to protect everyone’s rights, no matter their religion. Politics doesn’t, or shouldn’t, have anything to do with it.

      Slurring liberals doesn’t help your case at all.

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Stand up to atheists

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Except they won’t be standing up to atheists, they’ll be standing against the US Constitution, which makes them criminals and traitors.

      • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

        He did say he was an atheist earlier in this thread — he’s just another liar for his god. If only pathetic liars like C_Alan_Nault belonged to a religion that said lying was bad…

  • Shelba Herring

    Nobody ran out on the street and grabbed this atheists group and twisted their arms to make them attend the ceremony therefore I can’t see where they have any say as to where it is held if the idiots don’t want to go in a church they are welcome to stay away, I wonder how many of these people will call on God when it comes their time to die

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      The FFRF responds to violations of separation of state and church on behalf of their membership and the public, successfully correcting many violations through persuasion and education. Their members are the ones that report these issues to the FFRF in order to get legal assistance. That said, the complaint likely came from within the Oviedo Police Department.

      To answer your secondary pondering as to how many of these people will call on a god when it comes their time to die, probably none. We enjoy the life we have now.

  • Gena B

    “It is not known whether Chudnow plans to do so or ignore FFRF”… Until there is a complaint from his department he will more than likely ignore them.

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      The FFRF responds to violations of separation of state and church on behalf of their membership and the public, successfully correcting many violations through persuasion and education. Their members are the ones that report these issues to the FFRF in order to get legal assistance. That said, the complaint likely came from within the Oviedo Police Department.

      • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

        @ NoMoreBadTown

        NoMoreBadTown said: “The FFRF responds to violations of separation of state and church on behalf of their membership and the public […]”

        I find it interesting that, when atheist groups like the FFRF talk about the Separation of Church and State, they always end up advocating the idea that Secularism is the official position of the U.S. government.

        Problem is, if the U.S. government is supposed to be officially neutral, in thought, belief, and deed, on the matter of religion, then, technically, it cannot officially endorse or promote any religious beliefs, nor can it officially endorse or promote any non-religious beliefs, which stand in contrast to (i.e. opposition to) religious beliefs. It has to be purely neutral (i.e. “agnostic”) on this matter. And there are many ways to express such neutrality, beyond simply purging itself of all religious and non-religious associations (if that is even possible, which I doubt).

        In application to this case: If the FFRF interprets the fact that the Oviedo Police Department held its Awards Ceremony and Career Track Recognition at the Reformed Theological Seminary as the local government endorsing Christianity, then, as a matter of logical consistency, I can interpret their demand that the said police department hold their said event at a secular venue as a demand for the local government to endorse Secularism. After all, if a governmental group holding an event at a certain venue constitutes an official, governmental endorsement of the said venue’s official beliefs and policies, then them holding an event in a purely secular environment constitutes an official, governmental endorsement of Secularism.

        Therefore, if we take the FFRF’s logic here to its ultimate conclusion, then the Oviedo Police Department must hold its events at its own departmental facilities, in a field in the woods somewhere, or some other such “neutral” environment in order to officially carry out U.S. government’s neutrality on religious matters, in a clear, unequivocal way.

        Or, alternatively, if one does not want to destroy the morale of Oviedo Police Department with the most dreary office policies possible, the Oviedo Police Department can also do things like hold internal, departmental votes on where their official, departmental ceremonies should be held, as a collective of individuals with their own Constitutional rights to free expression. After all, if the U.S. government itself must remain neutral on such matters, in an official capacity, then, by default, it must delegate such decisions to the individuals in question, on an individual level.

        – – – – – – – – – –

        NoMoreBadTown said: “That said, the complaint likely came from within the Oviedo Police Department.”

        Prove it. If you are going to go on record and contradict Jeffrey Chudnow’s claim that there were no such complaints about this matter, then you need to prove that what you are saying is true.

        • http://biblewordstudy.org Adam in Christ

          Very good response.

          I’d love to see people take the FFRF’s stance to its complete implication by protesting events being held at secular institutions as — by their logic — that would be a religious endorsement of Secularism; and not a stance of neutrality.

          • MIAtheistGal

            You make the same mistake as others in believing that secular or neutrality is an endorsement of atheism. It isn’t. I’d be just as offended if the event were held at Freetjought Hall, home of the FFRF, as that would be government endorsing atheism. A neutral space, is just that: neutral.

            Get it now?

        • MIAtheistGal

          You confuse neutral with pro-atheist. For example, I would be just as offended if the police graduation were held at Freethought Hall, home of the FFRF, because that would not be government being neutral.

          How about the police hold their graduation at a neutral location, like, say the police academy or police station, or a multi purpose room in a hotel or rental hall? Or a public school. The neutral options have a wide range.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ MIAtheistGal

            MIAtheistGal said: “You confuse neutral with pro-atheist.”

            This is an interesting way of phrasing your reply to me here. I indicated that Secularism, in particular, is not a neutral position. And, in reply, you accuse me of confusing neutrality with being pro-atheist. Clearly, you equate Secularism with neutrality and presuppose this assumption.

            Secularism is not a neutral position. It is, by definition, the separation of religion from the state, on the positive basis of making what is secular or what is non-religious the official, positive position of the state, in some way, in some context. Otherwise, the state would have no positive basis by which to distinguish itself, separate itself, and distance itself from the substance of religion.

            However, if the state is to be truly neutral on the matter of religion, then it, as a collective, should have no official, universal position on how it should handle the issue of religion and it should not handle it at all, period. Conversely, it should always treat the issue of religion as a matter which should be delegated to individuals, as individuals, who are free to handle it within the context of their own, individual situations, regardless of who these individuals are, what their individual situations are, and so on.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            MIAtheistGal said: “For example, I would be just as offended if the police graduation were held at Freethought Hall, home of the FFRF, because that would not be government being neutral.”

            Thank you for saying this. I appreciate it.

            Having said that, the FFRF considers itself a non-religious or secular organization. So, when you say this, you are contradicting your own assumption that embracing Secularism is equal to upholding neutrality, in this matter, by objecting to the idea of the Oviedo Police Department holding its said event at the FFRF’s Freethought Hall.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            MIAtheistGal said: “How about the police hold their graduation at a neutral location, like, say the police academy or police station, or a multi purpose room in a hotel or rental hall? Or a public school. The neutral options have a wide range.”

            How about we let the U.S. and local government delegate the decision on where to hold the said event of the Oviedo Police Department to its employees, as individuals, and leave it at that.

        • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

          “Secularism is the official position of the U.S. government.”

          It is. As opposed to being sectarian, the neutral position is, by definition, secular, but that’s not the same thing as being atheistic or agnostic. Words means things, and secular means “denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.” The definition of being agnostic is “believing that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.” So you’ve got your terms backwards.

          “Prove it.”
          No.

          “If you are going to go on record and contradict Jeffrey Chudnow’s claim”
          I never said that. What I specifically said, as you quoted, was “That said, the complaint likely came from within the Oviedo Police Department.” The keyword there is LIKELY, as opposed to definitively. I don’t know where the complaint originated, so I based my statement on what I know about how the FFRF typically gets its information on 1A violations.

          “After all, the FFRF could be in the business of making up such claims in order to “get its foot in the door”, so to speak, in such matters.”
          No, they have to have a local in order to have standing in such cases. They won’t even pursue cases without a local involved in order to establish standing. Law 101.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ NoMoreBadTown

            NoMoreBadTown said: “As opposed to being sectarian, the neutral position is, by definition, secular, but that’s not the same thing as being atheistic or agnostic. Words means things, and secular means ‘denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.’ “

            Secularism is, by definition, not a neutral position. The only alternative to the substance of religion is the substance of non-religion, just as the only logical alternative to the belief in the existence of YHVH (or God) is a lack of belief in the existence of YHVH. There is no other alternative, if you insist that the U.S. government should have an official position on religious matters, which supports the Separation of Church and State as you understand it, in the first place.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            NoMoreBadTown said: “The definition of being agnostic is ‘believing that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena.’ “

            Nope. Here is the definition of ” ‘agnostic’ ” which I used above. According to Merriam-Webster:

            “1agnostic

            Simple Definition of agnostic

            : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not”

            Source: merriam-webster (dot) com (forward slash) dictionary (forward slash) agnostic

            – – – – – – – – – –

            NoMoreBadTown said:

            ” ‘If you are going to go on record and contradict Jeffrey Chudnow’s claim’
            I never said that. What I specifically said, as you quoted, was ‘That
            said, the complaint likely came from within the Oviedo Police
            Department.’ The keyword there is LIKELY, as opposed to definitively. I don’t know where the complaint originated, so I based my statement on what I know about how the FFRF typically gets its information on 1A violations.”

            If you do not know where the said complaint came from, then you have no business making the claim that the said complaint came from within the OPD, in any context.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            NoMoreBadTown said:

            ” ‘After all, the FFRF could be in the business of making up such claims in order to [‘]get its foot in the door[‘], so to speak, in such matters.’
            No, they have to have a local in order to have standing in such cases. They won’t even pursue cases without a local involved in order to establish standing. Law 101.”

            Then let them name and provide the said local in this case.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            Now you’re just redefining words to fit your own narrative, so our conversation has come to an end. If we can’t agree on a common language to facilitate our discussion, there is no point in continuing.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            “If you do not know where the said complaint came from, then you have no business making the claim that the said complaint came from within the OPD, in the first place, in any context.”
            I never made a claim, I merely suggested a possibility. But here again, you’re redefining/manipulating terms to fit your own narrative.

            – – – – – – – – – –

            “Then let them name and provide the said local in this case.”
            That’s not required. The local in question has the option to remain anonymous, except to the courts in closed documents. This protects them from people who may wish them harm, such as your fellow fundies that see incorrectly neutrality as an attack/oppression.

            Fare thee well.

          • https://disqus.com/home/channel/escapefromegypt/ EscapetheDarkness

            @ NoMoreBadTown

            NoMoreBadTown said: “Now you’re just redefining words to fit your own narrative, so our conversation has come to an end. If we can’t agree on a common language to facilitate our discussion, there is no point in continuing.”

            Oh, boo hoo. I refused to grant you the ability to make the rules in this conversation, by default–as militant atheists usually demand–so you have chosen to “take your ball and go home”, so to speak.

            Good day.

          • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

            That’s right, I’m not going to allow for you to change the meanings of words just to fit your own deranged narrative. I’m not the one making the rules, just adhering to the English language. Black is not white, up is not down. Until you can agree to stick to the basic rules of language, there’s no point in further discussion.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            There are multiple senses of the word “agnostic.” NoMoreBadTown gave you ONE definition that is used, and you gave another. The word is from the Greek “gnosis” meaning knowledge. So an agnostic is someone without knowledge of something, a god or gods in this case.

            Actually, come to think about it, I would consider both of those definitions to apply to me. I definitely believe “that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena”

            ….therefore, I have no “definite belief about whether God exists or not.”

  • Michael Falsia

    These are very disturbed individuals? They obviously have nothing significant to do with their time?

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Defending the First Amendment of our Constitution is not significant?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    Atheists are weak and underfunded. Just sue the heck out of them and they fumble

    • http://www.nomorebadtown.com NoMoreBadTown

      Good thing we have the law on our side. 🙂

    • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

      Are you advocating the crime of barratry?

  • C_Alan_Nault

    FFRF members are in trouble for sexual misconduct with underage kids.