Is there a difference between an athiest trying to explain to you why they believe there is no God and?

Question

a religious person (be they Christian, Jew, Muslim, Etc) trying to explain to you why they believe there is? Aren't they both proselytizing and trying to get you to understand and share their point of view? I ask because it seems that a lot of athiests say they are tired of religious people shoving their beliefs down their throats, but they do the same thing on a much grander scale. (Removal of prayer from school, removal of Ten Commandments from court houses, removal of "under God" from the pledge, etc.) Your thoughts?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendmant clearly states that the government is not to establish one religion for everyone to follow. It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

And I apologize for the spelling error, wasn't trying to show disrespect to the atheists out there, just typed too quickly and didn't spell check.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--


This is from the Declaration of Independence. The Creator is mentioned along with Nature's God...what was that about God having no place in government? Even our founding fathers believe that the rights they were fighting for were given to them by God!

I would also like to point out that the Ten Commandements and the term God are both Jewish and Christian, with origination in the Jewish faith. Also, the Ten Commandments and the Bible are where most of our laws originated, our societal laws were based on the teachings of the Bible (too many here to mention, but even the fact taht credit reports are purged every seven years comes from the Bible).

Just so that everyone understands where I am coming from...I completely agree that the government should not establish any religion and I know that you will not find God in the Constitution, unlike others, I have actually read it. I do not beleive that allowing a time for prayer or meditation in school is violating the first amendment, nor do I believe that posting an historical document that was used as a basis for the laws of our country in a court house where those laws are to be upheld is a violation of those rights either. Nowhere has our government used the name Jesus (Christianity). Nor do you see the term Yahweh or Allah. I would take issue with the use of any of those terms, they are identified with a specific religion. God is a universal term used to describe a being greater than us, it is not a name belonging to or associated with any specific religion.

Answer 1

exactly - I get so tired of hearing that Christians shouldn't try to legislate their religion , while at the same time, those people are legislating theirs. The double standard is pathetic. We all have beliefs, and we all fight along the lines of those beliefs. Whatever you believe in, you must beleve it is true and respond in kind. And in that, you must allow others to do likewise. In the wise way our country was set up, we are allowed to fight for our beliefs. That right is slowly being eroded away for the Christian side, but that doesn't mean we stop fighting. Majority rules, so fight for your side, make your voice heard, and hope that the system doesn't ignore the voice of the people.

Answer 2

Your parenthetical examples are all covered by the First Amendment. We NEED that wall of separation between church and state. In fact, the churches need it at least as much as the state does. Prayer does not need to be removed from public schools, but it needs to be a moment of silence that each student can use in their own way. The Ten Commandments plaque does not belong on public property, but is quite appropriate outside a synagogue or a church. We have not yet succeeded in removing "Under God" from the pledge of allegiance, nor "In God we trust" from our money. I would like to do both, but it doesn't bother me enough to press on at this time. Far more important issues abound.

Yes, there is a difference between a Christian or whomever attempting to convert me and my explaining why I don't buy the religious stories. I never bring up the subject unless someone asks, and I NEVER call them names or say they are stupid to believe what they do, never threaten them with eternal damnation, never pester them at their front door, don't pay for huge billboards trying to shame them along the highway. If they ask, I tell them. I offer a link, but it's up to them whether they follow it or not, and whether or not they forget it once they have seen it.

But I do believe the world would be a better place with either no religion at all, or religion being a quiet, private thing.

Answer 3

first - no one has removed "under god" from the pledge (a phrase that has only been there half a century anyway), nor remove prayer from school, and the 10 commandments does not belong in a courtroom any more than a mock-up of Stonehenge does.

second - there is a difference between civil debate and Christian attempts to undermine secular government and education.

I am neither Christian nor atheist - but even the most close-minded atheist does not claim the right to tell me what to do. Nor has any atheist ever told me I am going to be punished for not believing as they do (let alone actually believe I could deserve it simply for not joining the club).

Answer 4

I feel you have stronger roots in Agnosticism than other organized religions. I also think you have pent up resentment for a God that 'doesn't answer your prayers.' But to answer your question, yes. There is a diff. Religious people use the sacred text they read from and other articles to support what cannot be proved. Atheists must make up their minds in the absence of such a book. They have a harder time, because it requires logic that must account for events with seemingly uncaused initial conditions. Is it daft to account uncaused events to God? Only when the logic dictates otherwise. Atheists are convinced God is a hoax. If so, is that faith, too?

Answer 5

Well, my thought is the same as it's always been. Even when I was a Christian myself (loooong ago) I knew this.

Our country, the United States, was founded on the seperation of church and state. Our country was founded by people who were trying to escape religious persecution, i.e. forcing people to believe in ONE religion.

Now, it's fine and dandy if you want to tread on what our founding fathers agreed upon and keep religion in public schools, government buildings, etc. However, I have more respect for my country and for it's history.

The 10 commandments and prayer in schools includes only ONE religion...which is Christianity. Forget all the other religions or non-believers. I guess we don't count, right? What if someone came up to you and said, "Ok. We can have prayer back in school, but we need to have a time where Muslims can pray." or "Ok, we can put up the 10 commandments, but we also have to put up a pentacle (a sacred Pagan symbol)" Would you HONESTLY be okay with that? I doubt many would if it actually happened. I know a lot that would freak if the commandments were in the same ROOM as a pentacle!

So, you're argument that "we" (the atheists) are the ones behind this. But really, we aren't. The men who founded this country are the ones that came up with that idea. So, I guess if you have a problem, Canada or Mexico may have some free land available for purchase.

Oh, and btw...the ONLY time that I "proselytize" as you call it, is when someone asks me on here WHY I don't believe.

I didn't realize I'm not supposed to answer a question in the Yahoo! Answers...I'm sorry.

IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUOTING THE AMENDMENT:

**********************************************************************
Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine which states that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent of one another. The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[1]

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state. The phrase was mentioned in an eloquent letter written by President John Tyler on July 10, 1843. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.
***************************************************

Answer 6

Removal of prayer from school, removal of Ten Commandments from court houses, removal of "under God" from the pledge, etc ...these items are not just supported by Athiest. There is suppose to be a separation of Church and State in this country. It is one of beliefs that our government was founded on. It is the belief that people of any religion or no religion at all should feel comfortable in these public, government supported, places.

Answer 7

I think it's funny that you find atheists' removal of the 10 commandments and prayer from school to be a grander scale of shoving something down someone's throat. This is to suggest that in the absence of promoting religion; you promote atheism. That would imply that any course of action, to promote or not promote a religion, promotes something. That is patently false. Promoting atheism would involve promoting teachings against religion. Simply removing religious symbols and customs from public places creates a vacuum that you can fill as you see fit. Their really is no more fair way of doing this. It is obvious that you must be Christian, and so to be fair any promotion of prayer or religious symbols in public places should take into account all religions, not just Christianity. To do otherwise violates the principle that church and state are separate.

Answer 8

*points to the seperation between church and state as directed by the Constitution of the United States of America*
Those examples you've listed up there fall under this. As for the atheists, would it not be natural for them to be advocates of the above, considering their own views? Quite frankly, I'm not surprised this happens at all. Religion has the culture that is not regulated by government which is offset by the power that atheists supposedly "hold" in government.

Our country was estrablished to get away from religious persecution... and our government founded on freedom. Displays of a predominant religion in a federally owned areas would be counterproductive to official ideology.

Answer 9

"they (atheists) do the same thing on a much grander scale. (Removal of prayer from school, removal of Ten Commandments from court houses, removal of "under God" from the pledge, etc.) Your thoughts?"

Yeah, I have a thought or 2 on this....do you support the christian religion being allowed to run amok, unchecked, in defiance of the 1st Amendment???

That's exactly why we have the things you mentioned above. It's the complete disregard for the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution that gave us organized prayer in the public school system, "under God" in our national pledge,"IGWT" on our currency and the 10 Commandments in our US Federal Courthouses.

Religion was meant to stay in the hearts, homes and churches of those who believe. Not in the public school systems, the public courthouses and the natioal pledges of those who don't.

I find it rather amusing that you quote from The Declaration of Independence to try and support your claim. It's true that the DOI uses the words "Creator" and "Natures God"...but neither of those terms are specific to the Christian religion. "Creator", for all we know...could be in reference to FSM. "Natures God" has a real Pagan sound to it. It could be in reference to Mother Nature, for all we know.

Another quick question. How many of our laws are based on the Declaration of Independence????

Also, your claim that our laws are based on biblical principle are completely without merit. If it were true...it'd be illegal to be anything other than a Christian. All of the 10 Commandments would be federal law. This is clearly not the case.

Answer 10

Here's the difference: prayer in school, the 10 commandments, and the words Under God, are all religious, and all violations of the 1st amendment.

Sit the 10 commandments next to the bill of rights some time, and you will see that the two are incompatible. How can you only recognize one God and observe the sabbath and never speak His name while still protecting freedom of religion and speech?

Edit: Don't get me started on Evolution/Bible as a factual book in history. Imagine having to answer questions in school according to the book of Genesis, or FAIL your classes. Freedom of religion indeed.

Answer 11

All of those removals in question are not only done for people that know there is no god, but all those people who do believe, but not in the christian god.

All of your instances involve one particular religion. If there was only two dividers, one that believe, one that doesn't, it would be one thing, but there are many more.

I wouldn't want my child told she has to say the lord's prayer in school. If you are influencing your child to have a belief in any god, go to church.

I'm from Canada, so we don't have the pledge of allegence anyway, but what I find fascinating is that people in America who do believe in god say "god bless america".
This is entirely contrary to your love of democracy. God (if he existed) would not 'love' a democracy.

Let's assume that man-made book (the bible) was actually factual.

First, there was god, ok, his word is a democracy.
Then, he created animals (alright, I don't agree if you created them, you could have made them intelligent, but still, they had no say)
Then, you create man, then woman and give them 'free will'

Now, there are 3 intelligent beings on the planet, god, Adam and eve

Someone bites an apple, ticks off someone else and boom, god makes a decision to banish both of them forever.

see, no democracy. If he put it to a vote, I am pretty sure that paradise would have won 2-1.

If god existed and was compared to a politicial ideaology, it wouldn't be democracy, it would be a dictatorship.

So, really, you should say 'god bless cuba'