Okay, here is the quote, by Brad Stein, that brings up a question that needs to be asked here:
“What is more irrational? A man who believes in a GOD he cannot see, or a man who is offended by a GOD he doesn’t believe in?”
I think it is a question that really needs to be asked. Why is it that a person who is an atheist, who doesn’t believe in the existence of God, is so offended at the notion that others believe in this GOD and worships HIM? I can’t understand, if they are so sure that a GOD doesn’t exist, why they are offended by the notion of Him? My guess is, is that they really do believe there is a God, but they don’t want to start showing to the public that they do believe there is a higher power so they say they are offended, and try to shut down everyone’s right to believe and worship in that “nonexistent GOD” of theirs.
The best thing that an atheist can do to help promote their cause is to totally ignore God when He comes around. AND HE WILL COME AROUND! Not only will it keep God apprised of who doesn’t believe in Him, but it saves the rest of us the tax money spent to make sure that things are the way the atheist wants them. And onto the other point……:
If the atheist has the right to petition and show that they are offended, why can’t Christians have the same right to be offended by the atheist? I know I am when their beliefs or NONBELIEFS are forced on me. If they would just keep their mouths shut, like I usually do when an atheist says their crap, the world would be a better place, and then maybe we could get along better. Because if we Christians do not stand up……the pledge of Allegiance will soon be changed to something like this:
I pledge the allegiance to the non believers, of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it will not stand…..One nation, under the skies, in the devils likeness, with non liberty, and no justice for all….except the atheists….
Code Pinkers, and others who hate America….beware. The Silent Majority is waking up, and the targets will be everyone who hates this great and God fearing nation…..so we can continue to say:I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United States of America. And to the republic, for which it stands. One nation, under GOD, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
AMEN!
God Bless America
God Bless our Troops….always
God Bless my readers, listeners on BTR, and my viewers on my video updates
-Robert-
-Seane Anna-
Robert P. Garding
Interesting post, Robert. I, too, have wondered why atheists get so offended at a God they supposedly don’t believe exists.
I’m not an atheist so I don’t know for sure but I do think you are missing a point here. I think that atheists are offended when they are forced to pray or pledge alligence to a God they do not believe in, just as you wouldn’t like being forced to practice a religion other than your own. That is why they are against school prayer and that is why they don’t like “under God” as part of the Pledge of Alligence. The issue is a matter of freedom of religion, which is something I personally am very grateful for.
As Liberal tendencies alluded to, it’s more a dislike of having the allusion that belief is required that we dislike. This nation hasn’t always been one “under God”, Robert, and I myself am partial to the 1923 version of the pledge.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, One Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
If you’d like, a quick trip to Wikipedia will affirm that “under God” was an addition proposed by Christians in order to affirm that our nation was not one similar to the communist nations for whom we had great hostility. We didn’t want to be “godless” like their atheist leaders, and as such we have portrayed a horrible connotation that atheists are bad people.
We’re not. We want people to prosper, we want children to live long and happy lives, and we want people to make rational choices based on evidence and reason. We oppose the teaching of intelligent design in Science classes, because Intelligent Design is not science.
And because you’re certainly going to be opposed to that statement allow me to explain what things need to happen for something to be a science: “It is based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]“(Wikipedia Scientific Method)
But as every examination of cell division goes, there are no statistically significant changes being made, and no true design is being shown. We certainly cannot test the theory, because there’s no means of controlling such an idea. “We’ll let this cell divide normally… and then we’ll pretend we’re designers by forcefully manipulating the DNA on this one.” It cannot happen that way. It’s not science.
Furthermore we see cases where religious difference is used as a means of further separation. As was the case in Illinois where an Atheist opposed to giving of tax dollars to an already tax exempt church for expansion of its programs, a State Senator stood up and accused him of having a “dangerous philosophy”, that he “had no right to sit there.”
With leaders like that persecuting a LACK of a religion, and claiming that we’re dangerous for not believing in a God, that’s offensive to us. It causes a divide.
So no, Robert, it’s not the “nonexistent God” that we’re offended by. We’re offended by those who practice religion, and would sooner have our rights taken away, than to concede that we have our points and they have theirs.
And so to leave you let me leave one more quote from a rather prominent politician that also shows this kind of persecution.
“No, I don’t know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.” ~ Former President George H. W. Bush
There probably are atheists like the ones described in the post, but none of the dozens I’ve met are like that. And when are they trying to force atheism?
Jinno, you’re back! Good to see you. I don’t know about Robert but I knew that the phrase “under God” was added to the Pledge in the fifties to distinguish America from the officially atheist Soviet Union. It’s interesting that you brought this point up, Jinno, because it touches on something I wish atheists like you would concede but almost never do. I hear ad nauseum the complaint from atheists that they don’t won’t religion forced on them but they never acknowledge the fact that atheism can be forced on people, too. That’s the point I was talking about above.
Several months ago I debated this issue with a couple of atheists I met on a forum. One of them flat out denied that atheism can be forced on people by the government. I then asked him what was happening when the Soviet Union closed or bulldozed hundreds of churches, imprisoned thousands of priests, outlawed the teaching of religion to children, and discriminated against Christians in employment and higher education. He claimed that persecution was done in the name of communism, not atheism. I then pointed out that atheism is an integral part of communism. He just kept repeating his view and our debate went no where.
What’s your opinion, Jinno? Are you willing to admit that, when and where they’ve had total power, atheists have used it to try to destroy religious belief, and created murderous tyrannies in the process? Or are you going to be like the guy on the forum and insist that the attempt to eliminate religion had nothing to do with atheism? I really want to know what you think, and I promise I won’t be a smartass in my response.
I’ll admit that a few bad atheists in the past have been murderous and horrible to people who have been religious in the past. But so have religious people. People with bad intentions will be people with bad intentions regardless of what they practice or how they view the world. I will also say that you can deny people the freedom to practice religion in public, and deny them their churches and their bibles, but even upon doing so a true believer of those scriptures will still insist that their belief is right and will be willing to die saying so. As such no amount of force can force someone to deny a higher power, unless you were to eradicate all those who do believe, and then raise up children with no mention of a higher power. This would be disastrous to a population, and would more than likely cause dissent and a little bit of game theory. It’s not sound, and certainly is not indicative of an actual rational person.
Atheism, however is not a doctrine. There’s no guiding line saying “if you’re an atheist you must be hostile to religion, and if given power murder all those who disagree.” Rather we just don’t believe in a God. We don’t sense logic in the idea, and upon every means of looking for such an answer, nature produces none.
We’re just humans, looking for a means to survive and reproduce.
Wow, what a quick response, Jinno! I’m getting ready to run an important errand now, however, so I’ll offer my response to your response later. And I reiterate my promise not to be jerk about it.
Jinno, I never said that I didn’t think that athiests wanted not to prosper and have children, I don’t care what they do, just so long as they do not infringe on my rights to worship my God. And most athiests that I have met do just that. I want to go to my church or my church wants to have a fund raiser and the athiests come out in force to say that we are infringing on their rights because we are doing it out in public. My thinking on this is, if they do not like to do things with people who are doing things for God, then they do not have to join in. Simple as that…but they usually just complain that the function itself is infringing on their rights. It is not. It is only infringing on their rights to do something in that same place. That is only making sure that they infringe on my rights to worship and do fundraising for God.
I have known a lot of athiests in my life and the ones that I have become friends with do not care if I worship God and I do not care if they do not. If we would just stop trying to figure that the other is infringing on each others rights the world would be a much better place and happier too.
My only complaint about most athiests that I have known, that I haven’t gotten close to, is that they do not want me in their area, and if they happen to come into my area when I am worshiping or doing something for God, I am to stop because they are there. And that is where my main complaint comes in.
So, be amazed, but I do not disagree with what you said Jinno……I just disagree with the athiests who decide that when I am worshipping or doing a function for the church, that I am infringing on them….but they could never infringe on me. That is where the bull carp is…….
-Robert-
Hey Robert! I was going to answer Jinno but you pretty much said most of what I was going to say. I also have the most problems with those atheists, and Jinno you seem to be one, who think that infringing on people’s rights goes only one way; that religious people infringe on atheists’ rights but atheists never infringe on religious people’s rights. That’s a bunch of BS. That idea is what I was debunking by bringing up atheists’ persecution of believers in the Soviet Union.
I think a big part of the problem is that too many atheists confuse separation of the church from the state with separation of religion from society. They think that “religious freedom” means having a public square that’s 100% religion free and that the Establishment Clause was written to keep religious people in their place. Therefore, if they’re exposed to religion in public, even if it’s something as innocent as someone wearing a crucifix, these atheists feel that religion is being imposed on them.
I think this controversy over religion could be pretty much settled if atheists stopped being so sensitive and stopped denying their own capacity and willingness to be intolerant, bigoted, and oppressive. Atheists of goodwill and believers of goodwill have nothing to fear from each other. Together we can ensure that all our rights are respected. We just have to put down our defensives and talk to each other.
are you implying to be an athiest they must also be a god-hater? that kind of conclusion is what results in more of them hating god which is what results in believers hating them more… endless moronic fight.
I hate all people like that, to be perfectly honest. I respect the fact that churches and religious groups have the right to display their beliefs and what not on the public sector. Fundraisers and things of that like on privately owned or privately rented property.
I think my major problem comes when such things happen on the public sector. Tax dollars to any group not actively doing a service to the government in return for the money. Displaying of the 10 Commandments at a courthouse. Swearing in on the Bible. Things like that, which allude to a religious proclivity of our government.
I find political correctness absurd. If you want a Christmas Sale, by God (and that’s just rhetorical thing for me), have a Christmas Sale. You can wear a shirt that says “God/Allah/FlyingSpaghettiMonster/Xenu is the Reason of Life~!” so long as I’m allowed to wear a shirt that says “We Evolved~!” Free thought requires that there be dissenting opinions, it’s the argument and refinement of ideas that solidifies what is correct and what is not.
And with that, I go because I have a paper that I haven’t written that’s due tomorrow and I have to knock out 5 pages and 5 sources and I have 0 of both. Peace be with you, and thank goodness for Senioritis and Senior Skip Day knocking me off track to a good grade.
in answer to two comments….I am not IMPLYING that an athiest is a God Hater….he/she doesn’t believe in God so how can they hate something they don’t believe in….
and Jinno…when you object to the church functions happening on Public property…..then you are interferring with their rights, if they have permission to use the said property…and you protest them being there. If you don’t like it…then turn the other cheek and look the other way till it is over. No need to be offended by that, when you can just ignore it.
I never said I object or that I was offended by such things happening on public property. Quite the contrary, I said if it was privately owned or publicly rented, then it was okay. It’s when the public sector itself (IE Government) endorses the religions for no reason. My tax dollars shouldn’t fund the building of a new church that will bring no revenue to the public. I as a possible witness should not have to swear in on the bible. My courthouse should remain as fair and balanced as possible, and thus a displaying of the 10 commandments would be against that. I should not have to endorse the idea of God in the official pledge to my country. My money should not imply that I, as a citizen, trust God instead of my fellow man.
I’m not the kind of person who would’ve objected to your fundraiser. You using and renting public property would be far better that the public simply giving your church money in return for essentially nothing. I support programs that churches are known for hosting. Habitats for Humanities, Dollars for Scholars, things that in the end help human beings, I’m in favor of. But such things are private works, and should be done and paid for by the private group that endorses it.
As far as turning the other cheek, this brings me back to an issue we’ve covered before, for which I have a strong inclination to bring back up. That would be Marriage for Homosexual couples. It’s not something you should be in anyway offended over, Robert, just ignore it. This nation will not fall to an overbearing state of decadence if we allow two (Limit there. It’s a limit.) human beings the ability to be legally binded, and to receive the same legal benefits across the board as married heterosexual couples. It would not necessarily lead to a world with polygamy nor a world with beastialitic marriage. That’s a slippery slope, and you’ve used it before, and it’s a fallacy. If it so pleases you, we’ll just call every legal union of two of age human beings a Civil Union, so that you can protect the religious aspect of your marriage by doing it in front of God in a church, or whatever you feel requires to make it a Marriage. There’s no offense being done, and there are no doors opened for craziness. It’s just giving people the same basic rights as everyone else.
And while you did not say that we are God Haters, you rather explicitly gave us an evil connotation, which is overall unwarranted. “I pledge allegiance to the non-believers, of the United States of America… in the devil’s likeness…” You claim we hate America, which we don’t. We, for the most-part, disagree with the paths that we have, and would be taking in Iraq and Afghanistan. You equate this nation with God, quite often, and because this nation is “God-fearing” and we apparently hate it, that’s a strong implication that we hate God. Whether that’s what you intended to imply or not, it is what you said.
I didn’t say you were implying that, i was saying how it would be picked up by some incorrectly and would start the ball rolling into bigger, stupid things.
thought provoking piece my friend and God bless you as well!:)
Hi. I’m an atheist. But I have absolutely no problem with those that believe in God. My husband believes in God and we get along just fine. I don’t think people should judge ANYBODY for what they believe in or what they don’t believe in.
Unfortunately, I’ve recently ran across people that are VERY offended by Christianity, yet support Islamofascism. They are the real moonbats. We must fight them!
Just to be devil’s advocate here: if you look at it from their perspective all mention of God in public discourse would be kind of annoying. For example, if our motto was “in Santa Claus we trust” I would petition like crazy to have that removed – not so much because it “offends” me but because it would drive me up the wall to see so many references on a national level to something so childish and fictional.
There’s an aire of intellectual superiority among many atheists, which is terribly ironic.