Replacing God with Einstein: Atheists Seeking to ‘Pray’ at Pennsylvania House File Lawsuit

Pennsylvania_House_ChamberHARRISBURG, Pa. – A group of atheists, upset that they were not allowed to give invocations in front of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, have filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth.

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives, in keeping with a longstanding tradition, invites a chaplain to offer a prayer at the beginning of each meeting of the House. The person offering the prayer, according to the House’s general operating rules, must be “a member of a regularly established church or religious organization or shall be a member of the House of Representatives.”

However, a group of atheists is now seeking to change those requirements.

In 2014, Carl Silverman with the organization Pennsylvania Nonbelievers contacted the Pennsylvania House, asking if he could serve as House Chaplain and deliver an invocation to the house. His request was denied.

“We do not believe that governmental bodies are required to allow non-adherents or nonbelievers the opportunity to serve as chaplains,” Samuel Smith, the former Speaker of the House, explained to Silverman in a letter denying his request. “…We disagree with your assertion that the House may not disallow atheists from serving as chaplains.”

Then, in 2015, Alex Luchenitser with Americans United for Separation of Church and State asked if certain atheists could deliver nontheistic prayers in front of the House. Like Silverman’s, his request was denied. “We cannot approve your request,” a letter from Parliamentarian Clancy Myer stated.

In response to these rejections, a coalition of atheist groups filed a federal lawsuit on Thursday against the Pennsylvania House.

  • Connect with Christian News

“Just like people who believe in God, atheists and Humanists are capable of delivering inspiring and moving invocations,” Luchenitser said in a statement. “There is no good reason for the House to exclude them.”

The 123-page lawsuit acknowledges that there is a “significant difference” between the atheists who filed the lawsuit and theistic chaplains—namely, “the former believe in God, while the plaintiffs do not.” But disallowing atheists to deliver the invocations is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit argues.

“If allowed to give opening invocations at House daily sessions, the plaintiffs … would invoke authorities or principles such as the U.S. Constitution, the power of the people, democracy, equality, inclusion, reason, cooperation, fairness, justice, and the greater good,” the lawsuit explains.

The lawsuit then gives examples of prototypical atheistic invocations. Instead of mentioning God, the invocations include references to people like Albert Einstein, Thomas Jefferson, and Carl Sagan.

The lawsuit will be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. State officials will likely argue that invocations from atheists are not in line with the House’s tradition that dates back more than 100 years.

“We view the opening prayer as an opportunity for the members of the House to seek divine intervention in their work and in their lives,” Smith wrote in his letter to Silverman. “We honor requests from religious leaders of any regularly established church or congregation to serve as chaplains. […] Our intention is to continue our current practices which are based on the historical traditions of the House of Representatives that date back to the 18th Century.”


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
  • bowie1

    Atheist must realize Einstein was no atheist, albeit not a believer in a personal god as noted in the following description: Albert Einstein’s religious views have been studied extensively. He said he believed in the “pantheistic” God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal god, a belief he criticized.

    • zeddicuskotor

      Einstein specifically rejected the idea of any supernatural being that would need or want to interfere with the lives of humans. That makes him an Atheist by today’s standards.

      • Amos Moses

        “God does not play dice.” ~ Albert Einstein

        brainyquote

        • zeddicuskotor

          “The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can [for me] change this. These subtilized interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.” – Einstein.

          He would be a strong 6 on the Dawkins religious belief scale.

      • Amos Moses

        Makes him Jewish ………….

  • rsdfwd

    “Just like people who believe in God, atheists and Humanists are capable of delivering inspiring and moving invocations.”
    ————
    Just whose name are they invoking for help or guidance that they have faith will be listening? And what spirit will enter them (“inspiring”)

    • zeddicuskotor

      Atheists/Humanists are actually far more spiritual than theists just due to how they’re more in sync with the actual beauty and splendor of the cosmos. Where as Christians cloud their judgements with nonsense and lies and pretend that counts as being insightful.

      • rsdfwd

        Do you know what non sequiturs and false dilemmas are?

        Maybe you can convince yourself that you said something meaningful and supportable if you try harder. Carry a crystal in your pocket.

        Ask your crystal to answer my questions.

    • james blue

      So it’s not possible to be inspiring or moving without calling on the name of a deity?

      • rsdfwd

        Red herring.

        Invocation:
        : the act of mentioning or referring to someone or something in support of your ideas : the act of invoking something
        : the act of asking for help or support especially from a god
        : a prayer for blessing or guidance at the beginning of a service, ceremony, etc.

        Inspire: 1a : to influence, move, or guide by divine or supernatural inspiration

        This relates to the purpose of the invocation. If you are going to replace it, who will be invoked? They wish to substitute an stone for an apple. My questions were avoided, but that’s OK.

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          Invocations don’t necessarily involve gods.

          Read some of what you pasted:
          the act of mentioning or referring to someone or something in support of your ideas

          No gods needed there.

          Read the lawsuit from the link in the story, there’s an example starting on page 47 of a godless invocation.

          • rsdfwd

            Right. Invoke Tom Cruise or Harry Potter.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You could read the complaint and the sample invocation, or remain ignorant. I’ll bet you prefer ignorance.

          • rsdfwd

            Yes, I prefer people like you when I need to be entertained. Have a nice day. Bye.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Yep, I knew you’d go for ignorance. That’s your style.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Atheists worship humans. No exceptions. Men must worship God alone because He alone is worthy of worship. Those who worship humans are futile and evil. (Psalms ch.14, Romans. ch. 1, Jude ch.1) Today’s USA and North Korea have much more in common than average Americans realize. Atheists enslave humans with their falsehood, but God gives mankind truth and freedom. (John ch.8)

    • Jalapeno

      Or they could “worship” no one.

      • Grace Kim Kwon

        Everyone worships someone or something. Man is born religious.

        • Jalapeno

          I don’t worship anyone or anything.

          Remember..the word has extremely religious connotations. Even if you think that everyone is automatically religious, you should at least understand that many people grow out of it.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You worship your filthy self. Atheists must not persecute Christians in USA.

          • Jalapeno

            I don’t worship myself at all. You don’t even have any basis for that claim.. (Or the insult.)

          • Amos Moses

            It is all you worship ……

          • Jalapeno

            I don’t worship.

          • uninvitedguest

            nice xtian reply. we dont worship ourselves and atheists are NOT persecuting xtians. utterly ridiculous

          • Amos Moses

            Joseph Stalin – 10 and 20 million Soviets and German prisoners of war died under his regime, depending on how many famine victims you count, from Gulags, execution, and forced resettlement.

            Mao Zedong – killed unknown tens of millions of Chinese, most of them in public executions and violent clashes.

            Pol Pot – 2 million Cambodians, or as much as 20% of the population, died from execution, disease and starvation.

            Sure ………………

          • james blue

            Not one thing any of those did was done in the name of Atheism.

            Atheism has just one tenet, the disbelief in the existence of any God. Beyond that, any act or belief is unconnected to Atheism. beyond denying the existence of any deity there is nothing to connect one Atheist ot another other than by coincidence.

          • Amos Moses

            They were all atheists ………………. and that disbelief led them to the idea that they would answer to nobody and that life was dispensable and not as worthy as they were ………….

          • james blue

            Actually pol pot was not an atheist, however how does that theory fit with the non Atheists mass murdering dictators? Hitler was not an Atheist.

            Most mass murdering dictators who believe in God also believe they are doing God’s will when they commit atrocities.

          • Amos Moses

            Hitler rejected Christ ….. he was an occultist and followed Blavatsky …………… same result ……

          • james blue

            You seem to be confused about what an atheist is.

            An Atheist is a person who denies that any God exists, not someone who doesn’t follow any God. Hitler may have decided to go against the church, but he believed God exists.

          • Amos Moses

            i did not mention Hitler …. you did …. so no confusion …….. on my part at least …… and he did not follow a god ….. he followed a woman and an occultist ………….. and when you do that …. you do not believe in God ……….. you believe in mysticism and gnosticism …….

          • james blue

            Yes I did raise Hitler, because you are trying to make out that Atheism leads to mass murder. The second response was in reply to your attempt to dismiss him because he “rejected Christ”.

            Throughout history mass murder/genocide has been committed by those who embrace Christ. You can’t ignore that because you wish to make out that lack of belief is what leads to mass murder.

          • Amos Moses

            atheism does lead to mass murder ………… “Throughout history mass murder/genocide has been committed by those who embrace Christ”
            ……. not sure who you are talking about there … you will have to be more clear …………. but mostly ….. no ………….

          • james blue

            Are you American? Who committed the genocide of the native population? Who carried out the inquisitions? Throughout history kings who claimed the authority of God. Don’t play ignorant.

          • rsdfwd

            The natives did a great job of annihilating each other.

          • james blue

            So Christians saved them from tribal conflict by killing them? How very civilized of them.

            I suppose Christians weren’t murdering people they thought were witches, they were saving them from themselves.

          • rsdfwd

            Why are you responding to something that I did not write? Are you on the wrong article?

          • james blue

            You responded to a comment about the genocide of the native population by Christians by saying they were annihilating themselves,

          • rsdfwd

            It is lamentable that the Salem witch trials happened and 19 were hanged. Those people certainly weren’t following Christ.

            Neither were those who killed native Americans except in self defense.

          • Azsteve53

            Indians indeed annihilated themselves especially due to their tribal nature.Sorry that is not politically correct for you. The Indian issue had many mistakes as it relates to Christians and this country, but I defy you to name a country that did not start with someone else who was conquered

          • Azsteve53

            Indeed Indians have a long history of annihilating other tribes and or making them slaves

          • james blue

            So that justifies Christians almost wiping them all out?

          • Azsteve53

            That is YOUR opinion not mine, and like I said find another country in the world that did not start out belonging to someone else

          • james blue

            The argument has been made that Christians bring freedom, not persecution. So how is “but other people did it too” when it’s pointed out they committed a genocide of the native American population give that argument any weight?

            You are not denying Christians committed the genocide, you are simply trying to excuse it.

          • Azsteve53

            Christians do bring freedom, any failure of Christians YOU paint as a total failure rather than an isolated failure. For you Christians have to be perfect or it is all a fail and YOUR logic is a fail There has never been a successful atheist sponsored government that has NOT been murderous of its citizens and a total failure

          • james blue

            Not what I’m saying at all, If you read the whole conversation you will see it starts with a blanket statement that Atheism leads to murder. What I’m pointing out is that Christianity doesn’t exactly have a perfect record and it certainly didn’t bring freedom to the natives

          • Azsteve53

            First state sponsored atheism does lead to murder, it has done so historically and state sponsored atheists are advocates of murder.

            Christianity was not the driving force behind the conquest of Indians. YOU blame Christians yet atheists were also part of that history and you give atheism a pass while blaming Christians no matter if they were responsible or not..

            All you speak is atheist talking point, not history

          • james blue

            Atheism has only one tenet, the denial of the existence of any God. Beyond that there is nothing that is guided as a tenet of Atheism. There is nothing to connect one Atheist to another other than coincidence. An Atheist is not commanded to do anything in regards to Atheism other than not believe in a deity and even then all that would mean is he wouldn’t be an Atheist.

          • Azsteve53

            You can define atheism anyway you want but the fact remains atheism IS a religion and meets every definition of one. As to being commanded, why then are you here proselytizing for converts to your religion of atheism, eh? Why are you here attacking believers blaspheming God, his word, and Christians, eh?

            It is interesting how you atheists attack Christians and yet have a belief system that not a single atheist can defend with science, logic, philosophy or facts, how rich.

          • james blue

            Atheism is a religion like bald is a hairstyle.

            I’m not an Atheist.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            “…the fact remains atheism IS a religion and meets every definition of one”

            It most certainly does not. Just now, I searched online for a definition of religion. The first thing I came up with: “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” Are you going to tell me atheism meets THAT definition?

            I’ll admit, that’s really one of the more narrow definitions, but let’s look at wikipedia for a bit of a broader one, then.

            “a cultural system of behaviors and practices, world views, sacred texts, holy places, ethics, and societal organisation that relate humanity to what an anthropologist has called “an order of existence”

            Hmm, let’s see…..atheism has no sacred texts or holy places….no ethics inherent to it (which is not to say an atheist can’t be ethical, of course!)

            And you’re so convinced atheists are “attacking Christians” you even think it’s happening when you’re talking to someone (james blue) who’s not an atheist.

          • hoss6556

            Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Look it up.

          • Azsteve53

            You say so but history records something very different

          • Amos Moses

            16:1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
            16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
            16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.

          • Azsteve53

            Hitler was indeed an atheist, POl was also an atheist and a sponsor of state atheism, that is well recorded

          • james blue

            Nope, Hitler believed in God. Pol pot believed in a deity.

          • Azsteve53

            Pol Pot and Hitler started out as they were sponsors of state atheism, that is the point, quit deflectiing

          • james blue

            Stating facts is not deflecting. Dictators suppress threats to their authority, they suppressed organized religion (churches) that challenged their power. That is not the same as being an Atheist. If you tried to ban mosques or black churches (not suggesting you would) that wouldn’t make you an Atheist.

            An atheist is someone who denies the existence of any God, not someone who persecutes churches that do not bend to his “authority”

          • rsdfwd

            For James Blue:

            Richard J. Evans wrote that “Hitler emphasised again and again his belief that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on modern science. Science, he declared, would easily destroy the last remaining vestiges of superstition [-] ‘In the long run’, [Hitler] concluded, ‘National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together'”

            Author Konrad Heiden has quoted Hitler as stating, “We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany.”

            Transcripts contained in Hitler’s Table Talk have Hitler expressing faith that science would wear away religion.

          • james blue

            He was against the organized church that didn’t bow to him, He saw organized religion as a a threat to his own power, but he “followed” a perverted interpretation of Protestantism. He believed God existed, whether he worshiped God or not

          • Azsteve53

            Hitler wanted to do away with Christians, he replaced the cross with swastikas as well as the bibles. according to Hitler the highest authority was the state. YOUR revision of history fails

          • james blue

            A great many Nazis were Christian, what are you talking about, he wanted to do away with Jews and others who he felt inferior. Christians weren’t sent to the gas chambers

          • Azsteve53

            Tens of Thousands of Christians were sent to the gas chambers, your statement is a lie and history shows it to be such. Hitler was an occultist, a pagan, a one time Christian, but what Hitler believed in was state sponsored atheism and loyalty to the Fuhrer or the STATE, not GOD. Hitler along with another sponsor of state atheism Stalin murdered many priests, pastors and Christian authors and writers.

            History shows that small group of ideologically driven Marxists slash atheists bullied their way into power in Germany and Russia, bullying the population with the power of the state, the blunt force of government, and the sheep had no choice but to go along or face the wrath of state sponsored atheism, and that for many meant death

          • james blue

            Any Christians killed by the Nazis were for political reasons, not because they were Christians. Jews were killed because they were Jews. Yes he was against the churches that wouldn’t bow to his power, like all dictators it’s about control, but that doesn’t equal atheism. Atheism means denying the existence of any deity, not banning churches. Belief in a God and religion go hand in hand, but they are not the same thing.

          • Amos Moses

            So you worship yourself ….. we worship that which we love ….. narcissism is your god ………… or your belly ………..

          • Jalapeno

            Worship and love are not the same thing.

          • Amos Moses

            they are exactly the samething …………..

          • Jalapeno

            Well I guess you can “prove” anything you want when you don’t pay attention to the distinction between words or the actual meaning. Good job.

          • Amos Moses

            You do not worship that which you do not love …….

          • Jalapeno

            You can love someone without worshiping them.

            I love my cat but I sure don’t worship her, nor do I worship my kid.

          • Amos Moses

            But you must love it to worship it … and we all worship something ….. and you love yourself more than anything ….. or you are just a creature who follows its appetites ….. and then your god is your belly …… but still just yourself …………. narcissism ……….

          • Jalapeno

            You can love something without worshiping it.

          • Amos Moses

            But you worship that which you love ……….

          • Jalapeno

            Not everything.

            Are you saying that every person out there who loves their kids or pets also worships them?

            Everybody who loves a certain TV show actually worships it?

          • Amos Moses

            “Are you saying that every person out there who loves their kids or pets also worships them?
            Everybody who loves a certain TV show actually worships it?”

            Worship is love ……….. and yes ………… many do those things ….. as they reject the Creator, God/Christ ……… and what they do is idolatry ……….

          • Jalapeno

            Hah, that’s a new one. People who love their kids are rejecting their God.

            Good to know, thanks for the lesson.

          • Amos Moses

            Not what i said ………. but if you love your kids and do not love God ….. yup …. idolatry …………

            10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
            10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.

            14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
            14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

          • Jalapeno

            Ah yeah..I misread.

            Everyone who loves their kids worships their kids..and tv shows..and foods..and pets..but if they are also Christian they’re doing something bad.

            I think you need to learn to use a dictionary. Let me know if you need help with that.

          • Amos Moses

            “but if they are also Christian they’re doing something bad.”

            Spreading lies about what i said ….. no surprises there ……..

          • Jalapeno

            Did you need a link to the dictionary definition for the word “worship”?

          • Amos Moses

            Got one ……….. o-bible;com ….. replace the ; with a .

          • Jalapeno

            Yeah. I forgot that the bible was just a list of words with definitions.

            Where in the bible did it say that a person’s love for their child is worship?

          • Amos Moses

            “Where in the bible did it say that a person’s love for their child is worship?”

            i gave them to you already …. but i will happily repeat them for you …….. if you love anything more than Christ ….. it is idolatry ………….. your kids included ………..

            Matthew
            10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

            Luke
            14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

            YEA, AND HIS OWN LIFE ALSO …………..

          • Jalapeno

            That doesn’t really answer the question. That only says that they’re expected to put him above their family and own life. It doesn’t say that they are worshiping their family by loving them.

          • Amos Moses

            That is the answer to the question ………………

          • Jalapeno

            Here I thought you’d be showing that living your children is the same as worshiping them. Oh well.

          • Amos Moses

            Mat 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

            Luke 16:13 No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

          • Jalapeno

            That also doesn’t show that loving a child is the same as worshiping them.

          • Amos Moses

            If you love your children (or anything) more than Christ …. it is idolatry ……..

          • Jalapeno

            Sure..sure.

            That doesn’t mean that ANY love is worship.

          • james blue

            “But you must love it to worship it”

            Some worship out of fear

          • Amos Moses

            No …. but many fear to worship what is right ………….

        • uninvitedguest

          nobody is born religious. that takes indoctrination

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Non-religious Americans are bad. They only promote nudism and immorality and abortion.

          • uninvitedguest

            no theyre not. are you ashamed of your body? abortion is a legal evil. immorality is opinion

          • rsdfwd

            You just expressed an opinion and undercut your own argument. Oops!

          • uninvitedguest

            nopers

          • Azsteve53

            I have to agree with rsdfwd, you lost this one

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Secular West forces Sodomy upon mankind. The West never has given up its appetite for enslaving mankind. The West is bad if it is not Christian, as a man is only evil without his conscience. Christian whites had everything excellent to learn from and mimic after, but today’s Sodomic Westerners are the worst entity for all children and are a shame to all Western forefathers. The Westerners need Christianity for salvation and sanity. Godless secularism only corrupts everyone. No Biblical truth = No freedom.

          • uninvitedguest

            christian whites? racist statement at best

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Until 100 years ago, Earth’s most of Christian population was white. Today, the majority of the global Christian population is colored. You guys do not know the history of your own civilization because of the false liberal education and the stupid political correctness. Telling some facts is not racist.

          • uninvitedguest

            you dont have the slightest clue as to what youre talking about

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You guys have become pathetic by losing the good, life-saving religion of Christianity. Stop having evil boredom.

          • uninvitedguest

            you are the one who seems bored by coming here and perpetuating your nonsense

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            This is a Christian news site. You American atheists should go to atheists’ news sites instead of bullying the Christians in a Christian site. You guys are forever bullies and evil slave drivers as long as you don’t repent of your evil bullying. All of your racist forefathers are one million times better than you regarding morality.

          • uninvitedguest

            you are a joke. so debate is bullying? ive done nothing to any xtians. get a grip!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Face the fact. Godless Americans (Westerners) are being bored and single out the Christians for bullying because you cannot bully the colored for having darker skin anymore. You avoid the Muslims because you are scared of them. You pick on Christians knowing it’s totally safe to oppress them because Christians alone never retaliate, by the doctrines. You American non-believers are cowards and bullies and are a shame to all of your noble Christian forefathers.

          • uninvitedguest

            I served 8yrs in the Army and deployed to the middle east to deal with muslims. You are nothing more than a troll here. The only coward here is you.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you for serving in the US army. But why didn’t you realize that the Muslims needed the copies of the Holy Bible more than anything else for the truth and human rights and freedom and equality and democracy, like all others do? Secular America’s abnormal sexual immorality is disgusting even in the pagan eyes.

          • uninvitedguest

            im an atheist

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You need Jesus for salvation. He is the Saviour of the world. Every man dies once and faces judgment. You have no other salvation. ( John ch.3, Hebrews ch.9, Revelation ch. 20-22)

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            God bless you for sharing the Gospel, and for fighting the good fight, Sister Grace!

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you so much, Brother. The Lord bless you, too! Please remember I love America to the core. I lived thinking I owe my life to American Christians. Thank you so much for being always true to Jesus. Much of the world was rescued and blessed by American Christians. We are one as the Church and will be always together in Him. ( Revelation ch.21,22)

          • uninvitedguest

            this atheist leads a happy, healthy life with my wife and kids. quit fooling yourself

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Everyone is a sinner. You need Jesus for salvation. It’s easy for Americans to say anything because they grew up having everything and being spoiled in the nicest Christendom. You’ve been too well-fed by the Christian Church and are repaying the good with evil like spoiled rotten rich kids who ruin their good homes. Read Psalm ch.14, Romans ch.1-8.

          • uninvitedguest

            wrong as usual. grew up poor in the northern states. never spoon fed. no such thing as sin.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Americans are always better-off comparing to the rest of the planet, except when they were Puritans. Puritans risked life and created USA. Stop whining. The Church fed your parents so they fed you. Criminals deny their evil crimes; sinners deny their sins. Read the Holy Bible so that your eyes will see.

          • uninvitedguest

            not whining. have a great job, wonderful wife and daughters . no complaints and no gods needed

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You need God to get saved and to do what is right. It’s easy to be proud in peace time. As a creature, you must honor the Creator God. Unbelief is a sin that deserves hell. Western atheists kill unborn babies and push Sodomy.

          • uninvitedguest

            nope. just made up baloney. what else have you got?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Christians created USA for Christian happiness and you must not persecute the Christians in USA. Stop shaming your own forefathers. USA will die childless at this rate because it dishonors its parents and God. Read Revelation. It talks about destruction of USA-like nations. You need Jesus for salvation. Cherish your soul. Stop hating life. Jesus is the Life.

          • http://shadow-ax.bandcamp.com/ Rocker83

            Grace, your willingness to stand for the Truth of Jesus Christ in the face of atheistic bigotry is admirable. However, if you desire to be a more effective witness to those who lack respect for the Word of God, I highly recommend that you read the following book.

            I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist
            By Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek

            This book discusses both the scientific evidence supporting the existence of God and the evidence proving the legitimacy of the Gospel accounts. I have found it very helpful in reinforcing my faith.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Yes, I’ve been reading books like that. The problem of the Western(American) atheists is not only ignoring the abundant evidences for the Creator God, but also their complete ignorance on the history of their own Western civilization. Secular Westerners know nothing about the history of Western civilization and US history. Western atheists’ ignorance on history is causing massive problems in today’s West. They are the tribes of Cain. Seth’s descendants must teach them God’s truth again, as usual, because today is the era of salvation.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            Beautifully put, Sister Grace!

            God bless you for caring so much for the unsaved.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you, Brother. If atheists don’t blaspheme, communication is possible. These godless American kids should be made remember the history properly. Rejecting Christ out of ignorance is one thing, but knowingly repaying the Good with evil is another and far more evil. American atheists are committing the latter in a nation created by the Christians for Christian happiness. So sad.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            There is a special place in Heaven for you, Grace Kim Kwon, such a faithful servant of God.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Thank you. I’m sorry for I’m so rogue. Thank you so much for your Christian kindness. The Lord greatly bless you.

          • Azsteve53

            Another logical fail, you served your country against foreign enemies, no matter who they are.

            The poster you are referring to is far form a troll, it is you here attacking Christians due to the fact atheism is indefensible scientifically, philosophically or historically.

          • uninvitedguest

            go away sweetie…..just go away

          • Azsteve53

            Awww, poor thing, cannot defend its atheism not in any form, the best you cando is attack Christians

          • Azsteve53

            You are not debating at all, in fact ALL you atheists ever do is attack Christians because YOU can’t defend atheism at all, it is indefensible

          • uninvitedguest

            atheism is easily defended. it is the non belief in gods. do you know a god that will come and prove me wrong ?

          • Azsteve53

            Atheism can not be defended and it never is, you militant atheists simply lie and attack Christians. The last part of your post indicated about a 7th grade science level of understanding

          • Azsteve53

            No, a moral code has been sent down by God, ever hear of the ten commandments??, those are a moral baseline, are they not? What moral code does atheism have? Government?

          • Azsteve53

            Religion is education and reason, atheism however is pure indoctrination, what you are posting here is projection behavior

    • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

      Stop lying about atheists. If only you belonged to a religion that said lying was wrong.

      • Amos Moses

        Joseph Stalin – 10 and 20 million Soviets and German prisoners of war died under his regime, depending on how many famine victims you count, from Gulags, execution, and forced resettlement.

        Mao Zedong – killed unknown tens of millions of Chinese, most of them in public executions and violent clashes.

        Pol Pot – 2 million Cambodians, or as much as 20% of the population, died from execution, disease and starvation.

        Does not seem to be much of a lie on her part ….. you on the other hand …. not so much ….

        • hoss6556

          You’re whole comment is irrelevant.

          Grace Kim Kwon: “Atheists worship humans. No exceptions. Men must worship God alone because He alone is worthy of worship. Those who worship humans are futile and evil. (Psalms ch.14, Romans. ch. 1, Jude ch.1) Today’s USA and North Korea have much more in common than average Americans realize. Atheists enslave humans with their falsehood, but God gives mankind truth and freedom. (John ch.8)

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            Atheists kill the unborns and believers. Atheists do not value human life.

          • hoss6556

            You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I doubt you are even aware of the fallacies you’re committing. Here is an example for you:
            The KKK are racist bigots and murderers.
            The KKK are Christians.
            Christians are racist bigot murderers.

            Do you understand what you’re doing yet?

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            KKK is a white people’s problem. 1/3 of mankind, mostly colored, claims to be Christian today. The Westerners were average bad when they were mere racists, since every Earthling is a racist. Today’s Sodomy-supporting Westerners are the unprecedented problem among mankind, being destructive on global children. Even KKK would not massacre millions of unborn children or surrender young children into the hands of sexual pervs for the fear of Sodomites. Today’s West is worse than before in EVERY way except for hiding racism better on the surface level.

          • hoss6556

            Okay, so you’re a hopeless ideologue; good to know. I won’t waste any more of my time correcting you logic.

          • Grace Kim Kwon

            You can’t correct anyone’s logic apart from understanding the Word of God. You must remember the fact your civilization was great only because of Christianity. You need to repent of your evil unbelief to be forgiven and get saved. Read John ch.3.

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          Hey, I can come up with murderous Christians (or Jews, or Muslims, or anything else), too.

          Guess what? That still doesn’t justify lying about an entire group of people.

          But since reason is beyond you, all you can do guilt by association — a dishonest scapegoating tactic.

          • Amos Moses

            Abandonment of God is abandonment of reason ………… it is guilt by association ….. and justified ……………..

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Abandonment of God is abandonment of reason

            Nope, gods are myths that should be abandoned.

            it is guilt by association ….. and justified

            It’s dishonest scapegoating — you know, like how Jews were blamed for many ills in 1930s Germany.

          • Amos Moses

            “Nope, gods are myths that should be abandoned.”

            Is that a scientific statement or a theological one ………….

            “It’s dishonest scapegoating ”

            Abandonment of God is abandonment of any reason …….. so no ……….

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Abandonment of God is abandonment of any reason

            It’s still dishonest scapegoating. Do you think anyone who doesn’t believe in your god should be treated like mass murderers?

          • Amos Moses

            Red herring ………..

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, I’m asking why you want to scapegoat millions of people as if they are all mass murderers. Is it because you want them all killed?

          • Amos Moses

            Sorry …… there are not ” millions of people” to “scapegoat” because they are A-theists …… and no ….. i want them saved in Christ Jesus ………. but they reject Him …… and you do too …..

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            there are not ” millions of people” to “scapegoat” because they are A-theists

            Yes, there are. There are millions of atheists in the US alone, and hundreds of millions of atheists in the world.

            You didn’t answer my earlier question — since you equate atheists to mass murderers, do you think we should all be killed?

          • Amos Moses

            “There are millions of atheists in the US alone”

            Not even in the world ………….. fail …………

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Check Pew Research, in 2014 they found over 7.5 million atheist adults in the US.

          • Amos Moses

            asked and answered …………..

            do you have perfect knowledge of every thing ……………

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            asked and answered

            I must have missed your answer, could you repeat it? Yes or no?

          • Amos Moses

            all you have to do is read my responses ………….

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            All you need to do is type “yes” or “no”, instead of many more characters to tell me that you’ve already said so. Which is why I suspect your answer is just a dodge.

          • Amos Moses

            All you have to do is read instead of asking me something i already answered ………….

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So your answer is “yes”.

          • Amos Moses

            So is reading comprehension your problem or following directions ………. yaawwwnnn … sorry …. i am bored …….

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Since you kept dodging instead of directly answering, I’m forced to guess.

          • Amos Moses

            So reading comprehension ………

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Sentence fragment.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you’re not as deep as you think you are. 🙂

          • hoss6556

            Belief in any god is logically unjustifiable.
            Guilt by association, in the context being discussed, is logically unjustifiable.
            It makes no sense to apply the characteristics of a subset to an entire group.

          • Amos Moses

            Except when that group abandons God …………..

          • hoss6556

            That was a bad attempt at logic. Try again.

          • Amos Moses

            To be a mass murderer you have to abandon God …. you then abandon reason and then you abandon those “lesser that me” ………. they become disposable ………. it is a progression …..

          • rsdfwd

            “Belief in any god is logically unjustifiable.”
            ———-
            Show a proof from first premises, please.

          • rsdfwd

            Come up with over the100 million that were killed by atheistic regimes in the 20th century alone.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Come up with over the100 million that were killed by atheistic regimes in the 20th century alone.

            Why? What’s your point?

            Oh, you didn’t have one.

          • rsdfwd

            Right. There is no point debating someone who repeats tired old comebacks that he learned from trolls instead of making an intelligent comment. You win, dude. Pick up the marbles.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You have no interest in debate, you’re only trying (and failing) to defame atheists. What a pitiful loser you are.

          • rsdfwd

            More mindless web bites.

            What fame do atheists have, anyway? They believe in something from nothing – most unscientific.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You keep saying you’re going to go away, but you don’t.

            They believe in something from nothing – most unscientific.

            Check spontaneous particle-antiparticle pair production — oh wait, you prefer ignorance, don’t you?

          • rsdfwd

            Where did I say that? I said that you can claim whatever victory you need. So just do it and go away quietly. That’s what “pick up the marbles” means, but perhaps you never played the game.

            Failing that, tell us how how Mr. Moses lied about the death toll from atheist regimes in the 20th century. Stalin 20-40 million. Mao 60-80 million. Hitler 12-20 million. Pol Pot, Idi Amin,… You get the idea.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Where did I say that? I said that you can claim whatever victory you need. So just do it and go away quietly

            You can stop this shellacking of yourself anytime you like.

            Failing that, tell us how how Mr. Moses lied about the death toll from atheist regimes in the 20th century.

            When did I say he lied about that?

            Oh, and Hitler closed down the German Freethinkers League in 1933, and Wehrmacht soldiers had “gott Mit Uns” on their belt buckles, so your claim Hitler’s regime was atheist is utterly laughable. Do you have any idea how Christian vilification of Jews fomented the holocaust?

            Oh wait, you opt for ignorance every time, don’t you?

          • rsdfwd

            Don’t be silly. The buckle was a ruse and doesn’t prove Christianity, let alone faith in any deity behind the nebulous “Gott.” Hitler said and did anything to gain and hold power.

            “Guess what? That still doesn’t justify lying about an entire group of people.”
            ——–
            Somebody said that.

            Guess what? You opt for non sequiturs and false dilemmas every time.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            The buckle was a ruse and doesn’t prove Christianity

            A RUSE?????

            BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

            And I didn’t claim it “proved” Christianity, only that claiming the Third Reich was atheistic was absurd.

            Somebody said that.

            I did, but I wasn’t accusing him of what you claimed I did. Notice I was referring to lying about “an entire group of people” i.e. all atheists, not just a few mass murderers like Stalin.

          • rsdfwd

            Rees wrote, “The most persuasive explanation of [Hitler’s] statements is that Hitler, as a politician, simply recognised the practical reality of the world he inhabited… Had Hitler distanced himself or his movement too much from Christianity it is all but impossible to see how he could ever have been successful in a free election. Thus his relationship in public to Christianity—indeed his relationship to religion in general—was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church”

            You can search for more on Hitler’s religion yourself – or not.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Guess what? Absolutely none of that means that Hitler was an atheist, and I haven’t been claiming he was Christian.

          • rsdfwd

            It will if you read the whole article, and you certainly claim that his regime wasn’t atheist.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It will if you read the whole article

            I don’t believe the author can read Hitler’s mind.

          • rsdfwd

            You are dishonest. The referent article contains the opinions of many authors. You simply don’t care. Troll.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You are dishonest. The referent article contains the opinions of many authors.

            None of whom could read Hitler’s mind.

            You simply don’t care.

            You simply WANT Hitler to be an atheist instead of a Christian. How do you explain all the Christians in Germany who followed him?

          • rsdfwd

            Same way I explain all of the Hillary supporters and plantation blacks.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I.e. you don’t.

          • rsdfwd

            Except for stupid is, stupid does, correct.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Hey, when you don’t have an arugment, just vomit out insults. Very Christian of you.

          • rsdfwd

            So, are you in the den of vipers, thieves, or just a white-washed tomb? You have no idea what Christianity requires.

            Anybody supporting a pathological liar (the New York Times said that) like Hillary, or her rapist husband, or a a gang of leftists who formed the KKK and are happy to keep the blacks on their plantation (“I’ll have those n–s voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” – LBJ said that) or the party of Robert Byrd (droppings) who said “white n–s” insults himself.

            When you are ready for an education, work harder on something from nothing and the Laws of Thermodynamics uh, after you can rebut the Hitler article.

            I sometimes tolerate trolls, but never gladly.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So, are you in the den of vipers, thieves, or just a white-washed tomb?

            Oh, whine harder.

            after you can rebut the Hitler article.

            It doesn’t need any — none of them could read Hitler’s mind, and his regime ended the largest atheist organization in Germany in 1933. You can’t wave away facts.

          • rsdfwd

            Brain-dead response of deflection and arguing the conclusion.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It’s ridiculous to argue that Hitler was an atheist, particularly with you.

          • rsdfwd

            Thank you for finally giving up your lost cause.

            You were arguing with many authors who provided quotes from Hitler himself or were attributed to him, and all you could do was claim that they weren’t mind readers! How lame and stupid. Do you treat all historians the same way?

            Do your own research and come up with rebuttals to them instead of engaging in argumentum ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, and non sequiturs.

            As I said, brain-dead responses.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Thank you for finally giving up your lost cause.

            Yeah, right.

            You were arguing with many authors who provided quotes from Hitler himself or were attributed to him, and all you could do was claim that they weren’t mind readers!

            Because none of their quotes from Hitler had him state he didn’t believe in a god, nor did he state he was an atheist.

            That’s rather necessary if you’re going to try to claim he was an atheist.

            Do your own research and come up with rebuttals to them

            There’s literally nothing to rebut, since there are no statements by Hitler indicating he was an atheist.

          • Azsteve53

            No one needs to read Hitlers mind, he said so himself he was an atheist

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You can’t seem to read.

          • Azsteve53

            Sure I read, you refuse to understand anything posted or accept history because it makes your precious, indefensible atheism look even worse than it already does

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            you refuse to understand anything posted or accept history

            No, it’s because you post nonsense.

          • Azsteve53

            The quotes I posted sure show what Hitler himself said, or are you going to deny that as well?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Where does he say he doesn’t believe in any gods?

          • Azsteve53

            Where does it say is the better question. Hitler was a sponsor and head of state sponsored atheism and he detested Christians. He turned the cross into a swastika and murdered priests. Hitler was a true atheist, but Hitler did believe in the occult and the crack pot genetic theories of other atheists like Sanger and Darwin

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Hitler was a sponsor and head of state sponsored atheism

            His state outlawed the Deutscher Freidenkerbund in 1933, and had “gott mit uns” on the belt buckles of Wehrmacht soldiers. That’s the opposite of state sponsored atheism.

          • Azsteve53

            And The anecdotal evidence you provided somehow contradicts everything else Hitler did up to and including his state sponsored atheism, how?

            Gott Mit Uns was a carry over from two centuries before, Another total failure on your part, it means nothing when compared against the state sponsored atheism Hitler imposed on Germany, it also does not excuse Hitler’s state sponsored atheism

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            And The anecdotal evidence you provided

            It isn’t anecdotal.

            somehow contradicts everything else Hitler did

            What did he do to show he was an atheist? You have nothing.

            against the state sponsored atheism Hitler imposed on Germany

            What, specifically? There are plenty of pictures of Hitler smiling with priests.

          • Azsteve53

            Hitler was an atheist, he said so himself, you lie:

            The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

            All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

            Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

            National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

            10th October, 1941, midday:

            Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

            14th October, 1941, midday:

            The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

            19th October, 1941, night:

            The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

            21st October, 1941, midday:

            Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

            13th December, 1941, midnight:

            Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

            14th December, 1941, midday:

            Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

            9th April, 1942, dinner:

            There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

            27th February, 1942, midday:

            It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Wow, you obviously don’t even know what “atheist” means. None of what you copy & pasted above indicates that Hitler doesn’t believe in a god, even if it’s all true. Don’t you even realize that “not a Christian” does NOT mean “atheist”??

          • Azsteve53

            Sure what I know what an atheist is. A person who believes nothing created something for no reason without information guidance or data, who calls that science yet cannot defend his atheism with science, philosophy or any other argument of substance.

            Hitler was an atheist, he made it clear, you refuse to accept facts because Hitler makes atheism look like is is, a venomous hate filled religion full of murderers

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Sure what I know what an atheist is.

            Well, no you don’t. You just showed that.

          • Azsteve53

            I do know what an atheist is, you atheists try to redefine atheism to something it is not and never has been. Sorry you lost another one at least you are consistent

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I do know what an atheist is

            Well, no you don’t. An atheist is just someone who isn’t a theist. Your laundry list of what constitutes an atheist has nothing to do with atheism.

          • Azsteve53

            Doubling down on your inconsistencies or lies or failures to use established terms hardly takes away from my definition, it just shows how you redefine everything to mean what you want it to

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Doubling down on your inconsistencies or lies or failures to use established terms hardly takes away from my definition

            Your “definition” is ridiculous.

          • rsdfwd

            “Check spontaneous particle-antiparticle pair production — oh wait, you prefer ignorance, don’t you?”
            ————
            Not your kind of ignorance, for sure. Are you willing to claim that a vacuum is nothing? Define nothing.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Are you willing to claim that a vacuum is nothing?

            You asked for something from nothing. What are the particles from?

          • rsdfwd

            Deflection. Prove your claim.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I did — spontaneous particle-antiparticle pair production. You are free to try and show that it’s wrong and collect your Nobel, but I won’t hold my breath.

          • rsdfwd

            You’re not competent enough to engage in the conversation that you are forcing yourself into. Really.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Sorry, you’re the one who’s pretending to be an expert in physics, and failing at it. There are actual theories that the universe is one big quantum fluctuation, which would be “something from nothing”. Mythical gods are just another form of “something from nothing” since they don’t come from anything either. That’s just adding “magic” and pretending it’s a solution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re making stuff up now. Evolution is the one that claims “magic” happened. It’s a fairy tale.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Millions of actual scientists disagree.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No they don’t. 🙂 But let’s say they do. Does number = truth? If so, you must be Muslim and think the earth is flat. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Of course they disagree — millions of actual scientists say evolution is real. Now you’re just denying reality.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            No they don’t, but you also just admitted that you think the earth is flat. 🙂 Why am I not surprised?

            Are you going to turn out like the truck driver atheist who tried to pretend he was a philosopher and scientist and got caught? Or the nominal biology Muslim student who tried to pretend she was a renowned biologist? Or the guy who plays with computers in his Mommy’s basement and created a bunch of alts to pretend he was a scientist and then a journalist? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Now you’re just babbling.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re not a scientist. You’re just playing one on the internet. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            How does that explain your babbling?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You probably never graduated high school. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So, it doesn’t. Quelle surprise.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Doesn’t even make sense. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Correct, your babbling makes no sense.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Projecting again. Tsk tsk. You should get your GED.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Keep lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here we go with the projection. You draw cartoons. You do not do science. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Hey, more lies.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You are not a scientist. 🙂 You even admitted it earlier. 🙂 So why lie now?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            “You draw cartoons” is a lie, and I can “do science” while not being a scientist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You can’t do science without being a scientist since a scientist is one who does science, and you don’t have the credentials. 🙂 You probably don’t do anime well, but you are hung up on it. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You can’t do science without being a scientist

            I disagree.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t know what the definition of scientist is. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            A scientist does science, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone that does science is a scientist.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You don’t even know what those words mean. 🙂 A scientist by definition is one who does science. Like I said, logic isn’t your strong suit. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            A scientist by definition is one who does science.

            That does not mean that ONLY scientists can do science. You don’t know logic.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh. My. Read what you just wrote. 🙂 I hope you’re an elementary student. At least then you have somewhat of an excuse for your ignorance. 🙂

          • rsdfwd

            A theory is not a fact. All that does is kick the can down the road by assuming that there was always something (energy at a minimum), rather than no thing. I do not claim to be an expert, but eight years of physics in college at least makes me understand the laws of thermodynamics. What are you, a theoretical physicist?

            You have punted by not answering my question about a vacuum.

            Bringing god or gods into it is your way of chaining the topic so you can engage in irrelevant bashing – perhaps the only targets you are comfortable shooting at because you are biased toward a mechanistic explanation of everything.

            The original topic was what kinds of regimes historically engage in the most destruction of human life, and atheistic is clearly the answer on the basis of the last century alone.

            You aren’t so good with history with your rather lame attempt to prove that Hitler was a Christian on the basis of a stupid slogan on a belt buckle.

            I haven’t brought up religion as a topic, so don’t make assumptions. I don’t have one.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            A theory is not a fact.

            True. But religions aren’t even theories.

            but eight years of physics in college at least makes me understand the laws of thermodynamics.

            Too bad you know nothing of quantum mechanics. The total energy of the universe could be zero.

            Bringing god or gods into it is your way of chaining the topic so you can engage in irrelevant bashing

            Oh, if you want to go with “I don’t know”, that’s fine with me; it looked to me like you supported some kind of god-created universe, but if not, OK.

            perhaps the only targets you are comfortable shooting at because you are biased toward a mechanistic explanation of everything.

            Not “mechanistic”, just not dragging unexplained magic into it. Gods explain anything, which means they really explains nothing.

            I haven’t brought up religion as a topic, so don’t make assumptions. I don’t have one.

            Do you think one or more gods exist? You can believe in gods without having a religion.

          • rsdfwd

            “Too bad you know nothing of quantum mechanics.”
            ————
            And you know that how?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            By what you write.

          • rsdfwd

            Well, I suppose that I know more than you do because you were unwilling or unable to continue the discussion by answering my question about a vacuum – just when it was going to get interesting.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Well, I suppose that I know more than you do because you were unwilling or unable to continue the discussion by answering my question about a vacuum

            I just didn’t take your bait.

          • rsdfwd

            Ignorant uneducated troll.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Superstitious fool.

          • rsdfwd

            Funny, really funny, especially now that you exposed your scientific ignorance! What a hoot to watch you bluster in front of a mirror! Didn’t take the bait, indeed! Have you solved Maxwell’s equations for the strength of an EMP yet?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Funny, really funny, especially now that you exposed your scientific ignorance!

            Says the guy who supports “magic man done it” as an explanation.

          • rsdfwd

            You are lying. I never said that nor even implied it. I even told you not to bring religion into it, but you are a lame one-trick pony. Unscientific and ignorant. A king? Bet your “throne” room is the basement of the outhouse.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You are lying. I never said that nor even implied it.

            Hey, If I’m wrong, feel free to explain something like the big bang without bringing magic into it.

            And just keep vomiting out insults, small-minded people think it helps disguise their lack of arguments.

          • rsdfwd

            That’s no apology.

            I was going to lead up to it, but you punted on my question, and then tried to make it my fault. You are being hypocritical again. So, remain ignorant and unapologetic. Troll.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            That’s no apology.

            I have no intention of apologizing.

            I was going to lead up to it, but you punted on my question

            Hey, just make up lame excuses.

          • rsdfwd

            “Not “mechanistic”, just not dragging unexplained magic into it.”
            ————
            Non sequitur. But let’s let that go. You seem to think that anything that can’t be explained by science can’t be explained, or it’s corollary that truth (or knowledge, whatever) is available only through the scientific method. Is that correct? I.e., “magic” to you is anything outside of the reach of science. Correct me if I am wrong.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You seem to think that anything that can’t be explained by science can’t be explained

            Anything can be “explained”, but I don’t give explanations that include ancient gods any credibility.

          • rsdfwd

            That is not really a complete answer. What source(s) do you accept for creditable answers

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            That is not really a complete answer.

            Learn to deal with incomplete data. That’s how real life works.

          • rsdfwd

            Troll.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You also don’t know what “troll” means.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re trying to pretend you’re smart and know more about this topic than others, but you don’t. 🙂 You’re exposing your ignorance daily. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You mean your ignorance of evolution?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Evolution is a fairy tale made up by a racist and failed academic.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I’ll take that as a “yes”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, because your reading comprehension sucks and you think the earth is flat. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Just keep lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Now you’re going for ad hominem attacks because you know you got exposed. You don’t know science.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Now you’re going for ad hominem attacks

            You don’t even know what an ad hominem attack is. I’m calling you a liar, because you lie. That’s not an ad hominem attack.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Like I said, you’re going for ad hominem attacks. 🙂 Don’t be embarrassed. Just tell the truth that you’ve been posing here. You thought you could come on board and teach the dumb little Christians a thing or two, but the thing is, the lowest Christian here is wiser than you are. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Like I said, you’re going for ad hominem attacks.

            No. I’m pointing out that you lied about me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Nobody lied about you except for you. You’re not a scientist. You’re just here to try to disrupt the board and to harass Christians.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Nobody lied about you except for you.

            “you think the earth is flat.”

            Liar.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, I was using your own reasoning. By your own reasoning, you’re a Muslim who thinks the earth is flat.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Dude, I was using your own reasoning.

            No, you were lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So now we know you’re not a logician and can’t even keep track of what you type. Tsk – you’re a very bad liar.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Everyone can see you’ve been lying about me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Naw, everyone is laughing at you. Or feeling sorry for you. Or both simultaneously. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            If only you belonged to a religion that said lying was bad.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Look, you’re not a scientist. You are into anime. You don’t know this stuff and your ignorance is showing.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Look, you’re not a scientist.

            What’s that got to do with your lies about me? Oh, nothing.

            If only you belonged to a religion that said lying about people was bad. Do you know any religion like that?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I haven’t lied about you. I’ve exposed your lies about science. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I haven’t lied about you.

            Yes, you have. “You think the earth is flat.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            By your own logic, you do. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, I don’t. You keep lying about me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here we go again with the whining.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Just pointing out that you keep lying.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why don’t you point out that “lie”? You can’t, because I haven’t told one.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I’ve told you a number of times: “You think the earth is flat”. That’s a lie you told about me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That was in conclusion to your claim that majority = right. If you don’t believe the earth is flat, then you must conclude that majority does not = right. 🙂 Logic, see? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            That was in conclusion to your claim that majority = right.

            That wasn’t my claim. What’s your claim, everyone with a degree is right? Everyone who helped invent MRI is right?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That was your claim. You even admitted it. 🙂 Read your own posts.:)

            My point is that majority doesn’t equal right, that in fact, great things are often known by few. How many scientists actually win prizes and accolades? Very few. How many make life changing discoveries? Very few. How many great men and women of science were Christians? Most of them.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            That was your claim.

            Nope. Evolution has been observed, so your claim that it doesn’t happen is flatly wrong.

            How many scientists actually win prizes and accolades?

            How many Nobel prizes for creationism? Zero.
            In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying “Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.”

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, you haven’t been able to produce ONE case where evolution has been observed. 🙂

            Nobel Prizes for Creationists? Here you go:

            Dr. Brian Josephson

            Dr. Richard Smalley

            Sir John Eccles

            Ernst Boris Chain

            Wolfgang Pauli

            Guglielmo Marconi

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Dude, you haven’t been able to produce ONE case where evolution has been observed.

            Yes, I have. You refuse to accept them.

            Nobel Prizes for Creationists?

            “FOR” Creationism. Zero. You can’t read. And congrats on being able to copy & paste from a creationist website. [golfclap]

            Project Steve has a list of 1,397 scientists who support evolution, all named some variation of “Steve”. Just to make it harder.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You gave an old example that’s long been discredited. I quoted that to you from a science journal. 🙂

            Every scientist I gave you based his science upon Creationism. You seem to be confused about what Creationism is. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You gave an old example that’s long been discredited.

            It hasn’t been discredited. It’s an example of evolution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Dude, an evolutionist discredited it in Nature. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Notice how he didn’t say it wasn’t evolution, he disagreed with the mechanism. Notice how Nature has plenty of articles on evolution?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            They said it didn’t prove evolution. Evolution has never been proven or observed because it’s a fairy tale.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            They said it didn’t prove evolution.

            No, they didn’t.

            Evolution has never been proven or observed because it’s a fairy tale.

            Read Nature. Plenty of articles on evolution.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You clearly have never read Nature because Nature has never had an article that proved evolution. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Not to you, because you’re impervious. But plenty of articles on evolution.

            PS: nothing is “proved” in science.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Everything must be proven in science or else it isn’t science.

            There are articles in Nature presupposing evolution but none that prove it.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Everything must be proven in science or else it isn’t science.

            No, “proofs” are only in formal systems like mathematics.

            EVERYTHING in science is tentative, and based on theories that make predictions.
            Newton’s laws of motion aren’t completely correct.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Ah, you’re here under another name. 🙂 You claimed the same erroneous thing under another handle before. 🙂

            You are incorrect about science. Your definition of science is a fairy tale. It doesn’t belong to reality.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You claimed the same erroneous thing under another handle before.

            It isn’t an error — nothing is “proved” in science.

            Were Newton’s laws of motion “proved”?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It’s an error.

            Google this:

            “A Deductive Proof of Newton’s Third Law

            by Ken Amis

            1. Background

            Every physics student learns Newton’s three laws of motion. It’s tempting
            to consider that these are three separate and independent laws. That’s not
            so. Both the first and third laws may be mathematically derived from the
            second law, as we will show.

            The fact that the first law may be derived from the second has long been known.
            The second law, Fnet = ma,
            tells us that the net (vector sum) of all forces acting on a body is
            equal to the product of the body’s mass and its vector acceleration.
            When the acceleration is zero, the net force must be zero. This is
            exactly the content of the first law.”

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            He’s showing how the third derives from the other two, but that doesn’t prove that the other two are correct. You didn’t even understand what he was doing.

            In any case, you’ve fallen into my trap, because Newton’s laws of motion aren’t correct. They don’t work for large masses or for objects traveling at near the speed of light. They’re wrong. They’re close enough to be useful, but they aren’t 100% correct.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I told you to Google it. There was more to the article than what I posted. 🙂

            You don’t have a trap. 🙂 You just don’t know how to read what I gave you. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I told you to Google it.

            And I told you you didn’t understand what he was doing.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yep, the article proved you wrong so you’re pretending you didn’t see it. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            No, it was deriving Newton’s third law from the second law. That doesn’t “prove” the second law is true.

            And Newton’s laws of motion aren’t correct. How could a “proof” be wrong?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            It went over your head! LOL

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’re too stupid to understand it. Notice he derived the third law from the second? He says that.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t read the article. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Yes, I did. Notice how he does a mathematical proof of the third law from the second. This does not “prove” Newton’s laws are true. And you don’t seem to understand that Newton’s laws are not correct.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t read the article. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Yes, I did. It doesn’t “prove” Newton’s third law is true.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re clearly making stuff up again. You sound as confused as gizmo. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You obviously can’t read for comprehension.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh, the irony! 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            If it’s a “proof”, why does it prove something that’s wrong? Newton’s laws aren’t correct.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Why are you rambling on about Newton w hen you didn’t read the article? 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            If it’s a “proof”, why does it prove something that isn’t correct?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You didn’t read the article. 🙂 It doesn’t say what you think it says. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            “Both the first and third laws may be mathematically derived from the second law, as we will show.”

            Notice the above doesn’t prove that the second law is true.
            Also, you STILL haven’t explained how something that you say is “proved” is wrong. Newton’s laws are not correct.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Here you are again, rambling about something of which you know nothing. Gizmo?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Just keep babbling on about how you think science “proves” things.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re proving your ignorance right now because you don’t know what science is, Gizmo. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Wrong, but you’re too ignorant to even know you’re wrong.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Wrong, but you’re too ignorant to even know you’re wrong. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You still haven’t explained why what you call a “proof” of Newton’s laws proves something that’s false.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You still didn’t read the article. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I keep quoting the part where he clearly states his proof shows that the 1st and 3rd laws can be derived from the 2nd. That does nothing to show the 2nd is correct (because it isn’t).

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Yeah, I’m sure that part went over your head. 🙂 You clearly didn’t read the entire article. 🙂 Probably your Google finger is broken. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You still can’t explain how a “proof” can prove something that isn’t true.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You still can’t read an article (not understand what I did or didn’t claim, or why). 🙂 And you still don’t know what science is. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            So you’re OK with proofs that prove things that are false.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            So you’re OK not knowing anything about science.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’re the one who doesn’t know that science doesn’t deal in “proofs”.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re the one who doesn’t know what evidence is. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You’re the evolution denier, not me.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You’re the science denier, not me. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            How about we agree that:
            1) you think evolution is wrong and creationism is right, and that science deals in proofs
            2) I think evolution is right and creationism is wrong, and that science doesn’t deal in proofs.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            How about we agree that you don’t know anything about science and you’re trying to weasel out of being exposed. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Nope — I’ll let readers decide which of us doesn’t know anything.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Oh the irony! 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            A self-referencing sentence.

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            Quit projecting. 🙂

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            You have a problem with allowing readers to make up their minds which of us is wrong?

          • Guest✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            You have a problem with allowing readers to make up their minds which one of us is wrong? 🙂

  • Amos Moses

    A-theist/Humanists worship their god …… and his name is Darwin ….. or Dawkins …..

    • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

      Wrong, but thanks for playing. What do our runners-up receive, Vanna?

      The home version of “Christian Myths About Atheists”!

      • Amos Moses

        Sure …. funny … keep your day job ………..

    • hoss6556

      Your claim is irrelevant and contradictory. Categorically, atheist do not hold a belief in any god. Also, you’re changing the scope of the word “god”, essentially making a false equivalency between a religious god and strongly held belief. (I’m assuming you’re referring to evolution.)

      Why not just say evolution instead of naming Darwin and Dawkins? There are literally thousands of biologist that have contributed the theory of evolution. I’m guessing you know only two evolutionary biologist and have never heard of Lamarck, Wallace, Dobzhansky, Gould, Eldredge; I could go on for quite a while, not to mention pre-evolution biologist, who set the foundation for evolutionary theory, and scientist from other non-biological fields that contributed to the theory as well. I also doubt that you’ve ever heard of Anaximander, who is the first recorded person to try to explain the evolution of the cosmos and life with natural laws, roughly 2600 years ago.

      Additionally, you’re generalizing atheist and Humanist, claiming they all believe in evolution; however, they don’t all believe in evolution. Non-belief in a god does not cause a person to accept evolution.

      You should stop engaging with these factually wrong and logically incoherent brain farts, and you need to start thinking deeper.

      Removing all the BS interlaced in your claim, essentially what you’re saying is: A high percentage of atheist/Humanist hold a belief, with high confidence, in the theory of evolution. To which I would say: So what?

  • Uzza

    This could get a little sticky if it hinges on there being a “significant difference” between the atheists … and theistic chaplains” because “the former believe in God, while
    the plaintiffs do not.” There’s a “significant difference” between Christians who believe in the divinity of Christ and Jews, who do not. Or Muslims. Or Hindus. Are these religions “non-believers”?
    As far as that goes, isn’t there a ‘significant difference’ between Catholics and Protestants?

    From the other side “any regularly established church or congregation” would include the Church of the Jedi, Pastafarians, Scientologists, and the Satan Temple. This may be an interesting case.

  • Glojean ShortStuff Flannagan

    All of this is because we have allowed so many to come in and change what this country was built on. Our love for God and country is becoming no more! Sad

    • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

      All of this is because we have allowed so many to come in and change what this country was built on.

      It’s called “freedom of religion”. I’m sorry you’re against that.

      • rsdfwd

        No, it’s called rights endowed, not given by government. Sorry that you seem to be one who doesn’t mind the leftist courts and legislators chipping away at them by forcing bakers to celebrate perversion against their freedom of religion.

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          No, it’s called rights endowed, not given by government.

          EQUAL rights means that everyone, not just theists, get to give invocations at government functions.

          Sorry that you seem to be one who doesn’t mind the leftist courts and legislators chipping away at them by forcing bakers to celebrate perversion against their freedom of religion.

          They aren’t “celebrating”, they’re selling cakes. The 1964 civil rights act was challenged on similar grounds, and was upheld.

          • rsdfwd

            POINT 1
            “EQUAL rights means that everyone, not just theists, get to give invocations at government functions.”
            ————-
            I never said that they couldn’t. That is a straw man, and you are a dishonest debater. Here was my original post (it’s stll here):

            rsdfwd • 5 days ago
            “Just like people who believe in God, atheists and Humanists are capable of delivering inspiring and moving invocations.”
            ————
            Just whose name are they invoking for help or guidance that they have faith will be listening? And what spirit will enter them (“inspiring”)

            There haven’t been any good answers. Do you have one?

            POINT 2
            “They aren’t “celebrating”, they’re selling cakes.”
            —————
            False analogy. Cakes aren’t public accommodations. Caterers and bakers usually attend the ceremonies – it’s more than selling goods or services. It is a matter of religious principle. We honor the wishes of conscientious objectors, also. I’d like to see you force a Jewish or Muslim caterer to serve pork at your event.

            How’s that work on the vacuum coming?

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I never said that they couldn’t

            I had responded to Glojean ShortStuff Flannagan’s statement that “All of this is because we have allowed so many to come in and change what this country was built on”

            That is a straw man, and you are a dishonest debater.

            Pot says kettle black.
            I had written “It’s called “freedom of religion”. I’m sorry you’re against that.”
            You replied “No, it’s called rights endowed, not given by government.”
            As if I said rights are given by the government, which I didn’t.

            Just whose name are they invoking for help or guidance that they have faith will be listening? And what spirit will enter them (“inspiring”)

            There haven’t been any good answers. Do you have one?

            Invocations don’t necessarily involve gods. There’s an example of a nonreligious invocation in the lawsuit on page 47-48, and the lawsuit is linked to in the story.

            So read it yourself or remain ignorant. Your choice.

            False analogy. Cakes aren’t public accommodations.

            Bakeries are. Sandwiches aren’t public accommodations, but you can’t refuse to serve black customers at a lunch counter by saying that, either. And yes, people argued that the 1964 civil rights act violated their religious freedom too, and they lost.

            I’d like to see you force a Jewish or Muslim caterer to serve pork at your event.

            If they offer pork, yes, they must. But they probably don’t.

            See, if a bakery doesn’t sell wedding cakes at all, they are not required to make one. Your analogy fails.

            How’s that work on the vacuum coming?

            You mean your ignorance on QM?

          • rsdfwd

            Restaurants and hotels are public accommodations – cookies and cakes are not essentials.

            argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad infinitum.

            Have a nice day (only one) and the last argumentum verbosium before this offer expires. Not valid in all states where void or prohibited by law.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Restaurants and hotels are public accommodations

            And bakeries.
            Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop

            Masterpiece and Phillips admitted that the bakery is a place of public accommodation and that they refused to sell Craig and Mullins a cake because of their intent to engage in a same-sex marriage ceremony.

            Even the bakery owners in that case agreed that their bakery is a public accommodation.

            Here’s part of that Colorado civil rights law:
            24-34-601. Discrimination in places of public accommodation – definition.
            (1) As used in this part 6, “place of public accommodation” means any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public;

          • rsdfwd

            I don’t care what unconstitutional laws some state passes or what fools go along with them. Is that clear enough? The original intent was to not deny black citizens the essentials of life, and cookies, cakes, pastries, cupcakes, and donuts are not essential to anyone’s life. Like everything else, these things that are simple and direct are subject to the leftist (so-called progressive) creep and now you snowflakes need safe spaces and freedom from being offended.

            By your d-mned cake in the grocery store or find a willing baker. What moral right to you have to force another at gunpoint to violate his freedom of religion by catering your even when there are hundreds who will do it for you? Is that your moral standard? It’s arrogant and judgmental.

            I have a business and will provide my services to whomever I wish. I will not write software for you to scan for pornography, run your abortion clinic, or create your homosexual hookup website.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I don’t care what unconstitutional laws some state passes or what fools go along with them.

            Hey, continue to lose lawsuits then.

            The original intent was to not deny black citizens the essentials of life, and cookies, cakes, pastries, cupcakes, and donuts are not essential to anyone’s life.

            Title II of the 1964 civil rights act included as “public accommodations” such nonessentials as soda fountains, motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas, stadiums or other places of exhibition or entertainment.

            Whine harder, loser.

          • rsdfwd

            “Hey, continue to lose lawsuits then.”
            ————–
            Far better than losing my integrity and good name, but you don’t understand that.

            “Title II of the 1964 civil rights act…”
            ————–
            Another flawed bill – so what? More argumentum ad nauseum and ad infinitum.

            “Whine harder, loser.”
            ————-
            I possess what you will never have.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Another flawed bill – so what?

            Nice you admit you don’t like civil rights.

          • rsdfwd

            Non sequitur, straw man, false dilemma, non-responsive, and totally stupid. You win, master debater.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Why not just write “neener neener”? That’s about your speed.

            When I shellacked your arguments about bakeries really being public accommodations, you went off the deep end and started whining that you didn’t like the laws. That’s your problem.

          • rsdfwd

            Because it’s the baby talk of leftists.

            The only thing that you shellacked was your dragonfly collection. I already told you about the Constitution, original intent, and leftist law creep. Whining seems to be your favorite word. You’re gullible enough to think that all laws are valid and must be obeyed. Well, I hope that you don’t need the 2nd Amendment in your lifetime. Obviously, the 1st doesn’t sit well with you.

            Keep yakking – I’m not listening to a dishonest person anymore. Over and out.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I already told you about the Constitution, original intent, and leftist law creep.

            Go ahead and pretend laws and rulings you don’t like don’t exist. Have fun losing.

          • Azsteve53

            Again rights are given by God those temporal rights by man are clearly articulated in the Bill Of Rights, you are free to complain or address violations of those rights but making up non existent rights hardly makes those rights, they make the claim political, nothing more

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Again rights are given by God

            Nope, gods are myths.

            those temporal rights by man are clearly articulated in the Bill Of Rights

            Like the “no establishment” clause, which prohibits the PA House from discriminating against atheists.

          • rsdfwd

            OK, then – publish your personal invocation and move us.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            It isn’t mine, it’s in the lawsuit. There’s a link in the story, read it yourself or choose to remain ignorant. I’ll place my bet on which you’ll pick…

          • rsdfwd

            But we want yours – I read the other one.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            I don’t have one. Learn to deal with it.

          • Azsteve53

            Sorry, government in this country has ALWAYS been secular, to say different as you did in your post is to outright lie. Using the judiciary to manufacture rights is NOT what this country is about but it is a goal of the God hating far left that in which you are a member

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Sorry, government in this country has ALWAYS been secular

            It isn’t being secular in this particular case, which is why there’s a lawsuit to correct it.

            Using the judiciary to manufacture rights is NOT what this country is about

            Are you against the US court system?

      • Azsteve53

        Freedom of religion does not mean the government expressing a political preference for one religion over another as is being done now. YOU hate Christians, you are here to attack Christians and celebrate whatever propaganda you post as if it is a fact.

        • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

          Freedom of religion does not mean the government expressing a political preference for one religion over another as is being done now.

          Which is why the PA House can’t exclude atheists from giving an invocation. It seems you agree with me and the atheist plaintiffs.

          YOU hate Christians, you are here to attack Christians and celebrate whatever propaganda you post as if it is a fact.

          No, I’m here defending the rights of atheists.

          • rsdfwd

            “No, I’m here defending the rights of atheists.”
            ———–
            Well, now that is quite a surprise. I thought that you were here to pretend to be a physicist.

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Your “thinking” leaves much to be desired.

          • rsdfwd

            Gotcha!

          • King Arthropod Pendragonfly

            Got what? Milk?