Ban on atheism

[Meridiani Planum]

Forget banning atheism.

It's time to put a ban in place on banning atheism.
And possibly some sort of licensing system on atheism.

As long as it comes with secret decoder rings.

[Elwher]

Atheism is just as much a faith based viewpoint as is theism; both are postulating a position which cannot be proved. A lack of evidence of the existence of God or Gods is not evidence of a lack of the existence of God or Gods. If you want a logically justifiable position, only the agnostic qualifies (although that is much less emotionally satisfying than either of the two extreme positions and much less fun to argue as well).

[Dragonia Re Xzua]

Ah, yes. Yet another thread in which atheists attack religion just because it exists. When atheists argue that religion isn't real or relevant, they are merely starting a morbid pissing contest because they can't fully explain things that religion can explain. I hear people saying that religion is bullshit on this thread, yet the only, ahem, "reliable" response they give is just "I don't see him, therefore nonexistent." Okay, well then individual atoms don't exist because I don't see them. Just because you can't see something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist. To oversimplify it for some of the imbecile intellectually challenged atheists on this thread:

Unable to be directly observed =/= nonexistent

[Meridiani Planum]

No, seriously, why do we keep having these stupid threads?

Because there is no God. In a theistic universe, these threads wouldn't exist.

[Eastern Equestria]

Even if we were to ignore that source there is still a chance of God existing or other things to exist (Multi-Universe theory etc.)
Just to throw out free will doesn't exist without any reasonable argument is rather lame, may you back it up?

Well, from what I've learned over the past couple of years as a student of social sciences, I have come to believe that no human being has ever truly had individual free will, because free will cannot exist in our Universe. Our thoughts, emotions and actions are conditioned by our context, our experiences, our biology, our subconscious, and the society we live in. When we are faced with a choice between two options, we are already preconditioned towards choosing one of them, because everything in our lives thus far has led towards it.

If I choose to, for example, murder an innocent person, it is a decision I made because of my brain chemistry, the morals I learned throughout my life, and the potential consequences I can envision from where I'm standing. I may ultimately commit the murder because of an underlying neurological disorder, coupled with moral values that I interpretate in a way that excuse it, and believing that there won't be any consequences, based on who the victim is and where I'm committing the crime.

What is your definition of free will?

[Archeuland and Baughistan]

The First Amendment - in this nation - restricts the federal government alone. There can be no federal ban on atheism, but states are free to do as they please, Incorporation Clause having no real effect other than a recognition on the states' part that the federal government cannot establish a national religion. States are free to be as theocratic or secularist as they and their people please.

For our NSers in the Peoples Republic of China I will ask this.

Since when was there a first amendment that outlined such things?

The First Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights applies to the federal government alone. The 10th Amendment specifically delineates states' rights. Since the Bill of Rights is only on a federal level, states are free to determine as they please in regard to religious matters.

Thomas Jefferson, our so-called 'secularist' founding father, was really a believer in Jesus Christ, and he believed that states had the right to have official religions. I have the sources to prove it if it interests any of you.

[Aelex]

That's the point. You don't care about the context. You miss-use things to make as if you're correct. BUT, taking what some great guy say, and use it some way out of where it was, to make as if what YOU say is in the same spirit/enlightenement is bullshit. JUST bullshit. Not rethoric. Not "Art du Verbe". Just bullshit, nothing else. And, yes, that dilute the argument because the same way you can't use what some people sayed in "Les Lumières" to support communism, you can't use what Epicure sayed to support Atheism.

But you can. He might not have lived during christianity, but that argument still completely disproves the idea of a all-perfect god

Not really. This argument was made as an argument against PAGANS gods. So, firstly, it was willingly mistranslated from Greek by the guy who made this pics because, at this time, there was no ONE only god, but only THE godS. So, this argument is deficient from the very start.
Ensuite, if you want to take something who is adapted for one time and it's context, you can't just transpose it to another like that, and use it. Because if you do that, you're screwing the very own meaning of what you quote.
You can't use what someone say as an argument against something who doesn't even exist at his time!

[Mavorpen]

Ah, yes. Yet another thread in which atheists attack religion just because it exists. When atheists argue that religion isn't real or relevant, they are merely starting a morbid pissing contest because they can't fully explain things that religion can explain. I hear people saying that religion is bullshit on this thread, yet the only, ahem, "reliable" response they give is just "I don't see him, therefore nonexistent." Okay, well then individual atoms don't exist because I don't see them. Just because you can't see something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist. To oversimplify it for some of the imbecile intellectually challenged atheists on this thread:

Unable to be directly observed =/= nonexistent

Thank you for attacking imaginary arguments.

[Ykrovjnge Krjvwic]

Obvious troll is obvious!

Exactly

[Scomagia]

Ah, yes. Yet another thread in which atheists attack religion just because it exists. When atheists argue that religion isn't real or relevant, they are merely starting a morbid pissing contest because they can't fully explain things that religion can explain. I hear people saying that religion is bullshit on this thread, yet the only, ahem, "reliable" response they give is just "I don't see him, therefore nonexistent." Okay, well then individual atoms don't exist because I don't see them. Just because you can't see something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist. To oversimplify it for some of the imbecile intellectually challenged atheists on this thread:

Unable to be directly observed =/= nonexistent

We actually can see atoms.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Atheism is just as much a faith based viewpoint as is theism; both are postulating a position which cannot be proved. A lack of evidence of the existence of God or Gods is not evidence of a lack of the existence of God or Gods. If you want a logically justifiable position, only the agnostic qualifies (although that is much less emotionally satisfying than either of the two extreme positions and much less fun to argue as well).

Do you believe in Vishnu?

If not why not? There is no evidence disproving him.

EDIT: Also there is no such religious position as agnostic, you can be an Agnostic Atheist, like me, or a Agnostic Deist / Theist, but you cannot just be an Agnostic.

[In Gentem Et De Libris Scientiam]

Ah, yes. Yet another thread in which atheists attack religion just because it exists. When atheists argue that religion isn't real or relevant, they are merely starting a morbid pissing contest because they can't fully explain things that religion can explain. I hear people saying that religion is bullshit on this thread, yet the only, ahem, "reliable" response they give is just "I don't see him, therefore nonexistent." Okay, well then individual atoms don't exist because I don't see them. Just because you can't see something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist. To oversimplify it for some of the imbecile intellectually challenged atheists on this thread:

Unable to be directly observed =/= nonexistent

you CAN see atoms. It requires a very very expensive microscope but you can see them.

[Scomagia]

For our NSers in the Peoples Republic of China I will ask this.

Since when was there a first amendment that outlined such things?

The First Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights applies to the federal government alone. The 10th Amendment specifically delineates states' rights. Since the Bill of Rights is only on a federal level, states are free to determine as they please in regard to religious matters.

Thomas Jefferson, our so-called 'secularist' founding father, was really a believer in Jesus Christ, and he believed that states had the right to have official religions. I have the sources to prove it if it interests any of you.

Were you there?

[Skinia]

The First Amendment - in this nation - restricts the federal government alone. There can be no federal ban on atheism, but states are free to do as they please, Incorporation Clause having no real effect other than a recognition on the states' part that the federal government cannot establish a national religion. States are free to be as theocratic or secularist as they and their people please.

Then the constitution is in the wrong. No one should have the right to breach the freedom of religion of anyone.

[Mavorpen]

For our NSers in the Peoples Republic of China I will ask this.

Since when was there a first amendment that outlined such things?

The First Amendment and the entire Bill of Rights applies to the federal government alone. The 10th Amendment specifically delineates states' rights. Since the Bill of Rights is only on a federal level, states are free to determine as they please in regard to religious matters.

Thomas Jefferson, our so-called 'secularist' founding father, was really a believer in Jesus Christ, and he believed that states had the right to have official religions. I have the sources to prove it if it interests any of you.

No one gives a shit what Thomas Jefferson thinks. The 14th Amendment proves you're wrong. Actually read the Constitution.

[Bobpire]

Ah, yes. Yet another thread in which atheists attack religion just because it exists. When atheists argue that religion isn't real or relevant, they are merely starting a morbid pissing contest because they can't fully explain things that religion can explain. I hear people saying that religion is bullshit on this thread, yet the only, ahem, "reliable" response they give is just "I don't see him, therefore nonexistent." Okay, well then individual atoms don't exist because I don't see them. Just because you can't see something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist. To oversimplify it for some of the imbecile intellectually challenged atheists on this thread:

Unable to be directly observed =/= nonexistent

There is logic disproving god, or at least proving that he is not the all powerful being we interpret he is.
Ex: Can god make a boulder so heavy he can't lift it.
and things in the bible that are proven wrong
Ex: Earth is the center of the universe
Which proves that god is (if existent) likely a messed up partially potent being, and the bible was written by humans that either misunderstood gods words or made shit up.

[Atomic Utopia]

Ah, yes. Yet another thread in which atheists attack religion just because it exists. When atheists argue that religion isn't real or relevant, they are merely starting a morbid pissing contest because they can't fully explain things that religion can explain. I hear people saying that religion is bullshit on this thread, yet the only, ahem, "reliable" response they give is just "I don't see him, therefore nonexistent." Okay, well then individual atoms don't exist because I don't see them. Just because you can't see something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist. To oversimplify it for some of the imbecile intellectually challenged atheists on this thread:

Unable to be directly observed =/= nonexistent

Please, provide proof that your viewpoint that god exists is correct. I am now going to begin waiting for a peer reviewed article in Nature or some other peer reviewed scientific journal.

[Pandeeria]

I feel bad for you, OP.

[Shallia]

radical Christians at work

[Elwher]

The First Amendment - in this nation - restricts the federal government alone. There can be no federal ban on atheism, but states are free to do as they please, Incorporation Clause having no real effect other than a recognition on the states' part that the federal government cannot establish a national religion. States are free to be as theocratic or secularist as they and their people please.

Starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment incorporates the provisions of the Federal Constitution dealing with personal rights also apply to the individual States. If you can find precedent to the contrary, I would be greatly interested in seeing it.

[Mavorpen]

The First Amendment - in this nation - restricts the federal government alone. There can be no federal ban on atheism, but states are free to do as they please, Incorporation Clause having no real effect other than a recognition on the states' part that the federal government cannot establish a national religion. States are free to be as theocratic or secularist as they and their people please.

Then the constitution is in the wrong. No one should have the right to breach the freedom of religion of anyone.

It isn't in the wrong. Archeuland apparently has never read the Constitution, because the 14th Amendment makes most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states.

[Eastern Equestria]

Ah, yes. Yet another thread in which atheists attack religion just because it exists. When atheists argue that religion isn't real or relevant, they are merely starting a morbid pissing contest because they can't fully explain things that religion can explain. I hear people saying that religion is bullshit on this thread, yet the only, ahem, "reliable" response they give is just "I don't see him, therefore nonexistent." Okay, well then individual atoms don't exist because I don't see them. Just because you can't see something doesn't automatically mean it doesn't exist. To oversimplify it for some of the imbecile intellectually challenged atheists on this thread:

Unable to be directly observed =/= nonexistent

Atoms can be directly observed. Here's a photograph of one.

[Burleson]

Atheism should be banned. We're all better off without it.

List of famous atheists
Hitler
Kim-Jong Un
Mao
Fidel Castro
Stalin
Che Guevara
Obama
Pol Pot

[Crysuko]

This entire thread is

So i'll say this and this only:

A ban on atheism is essentially denying human rights, freedom of speech and of expression. and while I respect religious moderates and passives there comes a point where you draw the line at stuff like this and say "hang on, are we being baited?"

So yeah, post with care.

[Lunalia]

Why do people seem to think that an absolute disbelief in any deity means someone has no moral compass?

You don't need a deity threatening to kill you if you do wrong, to not do wrong. It's called, "being a decent human being."

If anything, I would say that a religious person has less reason to be a good person than an atheist. A religious person has to be good, act in a certain way, to go to their religion's choice of pleasant afterlife. You can't tell the difference between someone who's being good because they're a good person, and someone who is being good because they're selfish, not good, and don't want to suffer when they die. An atheist has no incentive to be good... and yet, wonder of wonders, most atheists are good people!