Clever questions atheists can't answer - answered!

[Village Atheist]

I don't get it? If you really did get my meaning then why are you changing it? I was kinda hoping that you wouldn't be one to use strawman arguments.

I wasn't trying to use a strawman argument, sorry. I was trying to say "I understand what you mean, but I disagree. This is how it looks to me."

Unfortunately, the fact that you used an analogy and I tried to reply by extending the same analogy confused matters.

Well perspective does always enter into what we perceive or know, but in this regard it is impossible to know what a real Christian is unless one knows the word of God and has the holy spirit in them. I can show you what the word of God says about being a real Christian but if you don't accept the word of God as being factual, then there's no use in me deploying that tact. In my world one has to support one's opinion from scripture and many people cannot do that.

That's the point I was trying to make. You're telling me how a "real" Christian is defined according to your worldview ( i.e. "In my world").

I was saying that I understand how your worldview works, but I also hear from other people - with different worldviews - who also call themselves Christians and they disagree about what a "real" Christian is. Some would include you but be more inclusive. Some would even have a definition that excludes you.

So from my point of view as an outsider (who doesn't believe in God and therefore doesn't believe that the Bible is inspired scripture) there's no reason to privilege one claim of "real" Christianity over another. Hence in my worldview it's easier to say that anyone who genuinely thinks of themselves as a Christian and "walks the walk" - following Christ's teachings as they understand that - is a "real" Christian.

And if some of you disagree with each other and use stricter definitions that exclude each other, well that's people for you.

I have to break this down a bit because you're just going on and on.

I do have a habit of that, yes.

Are you aware that the golden rule is from the Bible? Matt 7:12

I'm aware that it's a lot older than the Bible, and it was included in there (that's not the same thing as being "from" the Bible).

Interestingly, most religions - and most non-religious moral philosophies - have a version of it. It seems to be part of the core of human empathy from which we develop and expand our various morality systems.

Seems most of your morality here is from the biblical perspective and it has been around for some time so the question is how did you come about acquiring this morality if you don't believe in God? Were you taught as a child in Sunday School? Where your parents Christian or at least believers?

Like most people, I acquired the basics of my moral viewpoint growing up in society at large. But when it comes to the more in-depth stuff it's from a combination of learning, discussions with others, and introspection.

I could write a whole essay on where I think morals come from and how morality works (and I have in the past - and done formal debates on the subject) but to boil it down to a couple of bullet points for the sake of brevity...

• There is no single objective morality. Moral systems are all subjective.
• We get the core of our morality from the sense of empathy we evolved as we became social creatures. That's why most moral systems are similar at their core - we all share the same fundamental feelings of right and wrong.
• When it comes to translating our feelings into actual language and formalising them into statements about morality, this is where individual and societal differences come in.
• We each have a complex feedback with society. Our morality is influenced by it, and it is in turn influenced by us.

As for my upbringing, no I didn't go to Sunday School. To be honest, I don't know whether my parents are believers or not. I don't think they are; but I sometimes suspect my father is. Religion isn't something we talk about.

Of course it happens but if there wasn't ultimate arbitrator, which by the way there is but we're not discussing him as such now, then the arbitrator would be able to emphatically state what is and isn't acceptable.

That's one of the places where I disagree with most Christians about morality - the fact that they believe there is a single objective morality handed down from on high.

I think that the whole concept of an ultimate arbitrator is incoherent.

If there were an objective morality out there, then we wouldn't need such an arbitrator. We could just judge by that morality itself. On the other hand, if there weren't an objective morality out there then morality is just whatever the arbitrator says it is. "Right" and "Wrong" simply become "Doing what I say" and "Disobeying me". Worse, with no objective morality out there there's no way in which we can judge that doing what the arbitrator says is right and going against the arbitrator is wrong other than the arbitrator's say-so. We've basically reduced all morality down to doing what someone bigger than us tells us because they say so.

So to my mind an ultimate arbitrator is either unnecessary or - if you excuse the pun - arbitrary. Either way, we don't need one and we're better off coming up with our own moral precepts instead.

 

[mjrhealth]

Hi mr atheist, cool. funny thing about atheism is its just another religion like science. Mind you I can full well understand why you dont believe in God. Christianity has a hard time promoting Him mainly because of religion, and it is hard to show God to teh world when one doesnt believe Him. Certainly looking at the world as it is doesnt leave a good impression of God, considering all the evil there is in teh world today. I have quiet often asked my firend, How would you tell a mother with her starving dying child in teh middle of a warzone that God loves her. I know I couldnt. But you see we have thorown God out of our churches. out of our schools, out of our covernmenst. out of our courts, out of our lives and this is our doing. You see God is love, when we kicked Him out we are left with the other bit. Evil. I cant explain God to you, He is hard enough to explain to christians who are supposed to know Him, See i dont just believe in God, I know God, and I know He is real without a shadow of a doubt. As for christians. I dont fit into there idea of what a christian is and i really dont care, im not here to fit teh man made idea of christianity, im here to promote Jesus. Oh and by teh way, theer is a wedding coming soon, Yes Jesus and His church, you are invited if you choose to come, sems the many that He invited have better things to do. No strings attached.

 

[Village Atheist]

Hi mr atheist, cool. funny thing about atheism is its just another religion like science.

I would disagree that atheism is a religion. Here's what I said last time someone brought this up:

"Religion" is a tricky word to define, because people use it to mean all sorts of different things. It seems to me that for something to be a religion it must be more than just a belief or even a set of related beliefs. There's also social and behavioural aspects to it. So I'd probably define "Religion" as "A set of social and behavioural structures derived from a group of shared metaphysical beliefs within a community, that lends self-identity to that community." Obviously you might disagree with that definition, but it seems to fit the word "Religion" as most people generally use it. Whether it's Christians praying or Hindus lighting candles around a shrine to Ganesh or Buddhists meditating or Muslims fasting during Ramadan, it involves people actually doing something - usually something communal, although these things are all done in private as well - because of their shared beliefs, rather than simply having those beliefs; and it's about those shared somethings building or strengthening a communal identity ("We are Christians", "We are Baptists", "We are Catholics", etc.)

So with that in mind, I wouldn't classify atheism as a religion. There's no social or behavioural structures associated with it. It's not usually related to a community identity. It's simply a single metaphysical position: "I've heard various claims that one or more gods exist. I don't believe those claims." It's debatable whether that even counts as a belief in itself or whether it's just a statement indicating a lack of particular beliefs.

Science, of course, is also not a religion. It's a methodology by which we can learn about the world and make predictions. It's very good at that; hence the existence of things like the computers that we're using to have this discussion - which are invented and manufactured reliably due to the success of science as a methodology..

I have quiet often asked my firend, How would you tell a mother with her starving dying child in teh middle of a warzone that God loves her. I know I couldnt.

I think you've got this the wrong way around. Throughout the world, it is the people who are the most precarious and the least comfortable who turn to religion as a comfort. To horribly simplify things, for a lot of people the fears and problems of this world are made more tolerable by their hope and belief that they will go on to an afterlife free of such problems and fears.

To use your grieving mother as an example, which will she find more comforting - that her and her son will be reunited in an afterlife paradise, free from hunger and the terrors of war; or that her son is simply gone forever?

 

[mjrhealth]

Throughout the world, it is the people who are the most precarious and the least comfortable who turn to religion as a comfort

and teh first thing you will find is God is not religious. religion came about because man being the carnal being he is cant comprhend anythinhg out of teh physical, ie, If I cant see it, it is not real, i cant see air but i breathe it to live, I cant see gravity but it keeps me bound to this earth, mind you it is teh very reason why christians run to church and prefer teh bible to God, it is something they can hold onto, and see and touch. Actually science is a religion for many as it is something they believe in to give them a reason for being here, some eventually discover that it gives them a good reason to believe in a creator, some just come up with theories which are contually proved wrong but will chase them untill they die, even when all the evidence says they are wrong, no differnt to religion, and aethism is all about believing in man and his abilites, which sadly is what many christians do too, So you see the only difference between teh religions of teh world and aethism is teh side of the road you stand, both pointing fingers at one another calling eachother fools, whe nwe are all fools. Jus tlook at what mankind has done and doing. Supposed to be the most intelligent "species" but we spend all our time destroying ourselves. Says a lot for mans abilities, doesnt it....

 

[Village Atheist]

and teh first thing you will find is God is not religious. religion came about because man being the carnal being he is cant comprhend anythinhg out of teh physical, ie, If I cant see it, it is not real, i cant see air but i breathe it to live, I cant see gravity but it keeps me bound to this earth, mind you it is teh very reason why christians run to church and prefer teh bible to God, it is something they can hold onto, and see and touch. Actually science is a religion for many as it is something they believe in to give them a reason for being here, some eventually discover that it gives them a good reason to believe in a creator, some just come up with theories which are contually proved wrong but will chase them untill they die, even when all the evidence says they are wrong, no differnt to religion, and aethism is all about believing in man and his abilites, which sadly is what many christians do too, So you see the only difference between teh religions of teh world and aethism is teh side of the road you stand, both pointing fingers at one another calling eachother fools, whe nwe are all fools. Jus tlook at what mankind has done and doing. Supposed to be the most intelligent "species" but we spend all our time destroying ourselves. Says a lot for mans abilities, doesnt it....

Well, it's clear that we both have very different definitions of the word "Religion". I know what the word means when I use it - as I explained above, my definition is:

A set of social and behavioural structures derived from a group of shared metaphysical beliefs within a community, that lends self-identity to that community

Can you try to give me a succinct definition like that for what you mean when you use the word "Religion"? I'm afraid it's not clear from your posts what you mean when you use the word.

 

[mjrhealth]

A set of social and behavioural structures derived from a group of shared metaphysical beliefs within a community, that lends self-identity to that community

Well doesnt mine, it identifes atheists as a group who share the same belief, they dont believe in God, that is their belief,..... So they are born they live and they die just like us all. Why people are so troubled by death is beyond me, you spend your whole life dying. And by the way, just read some of the posts on this forum. there are many who dont believe God you are not alone.

 

[Village Atheist]

Well doesnt mine, it identifes atheists as a group who share the same belief, they dont believe in God, that is their belief,..... So they are born they live and they die just like us all. Why people are so troubled by death is beyond me, you spend your whole life dying. And by the way, just read some of the posts on this forum. there are many who dont believe God you are not alone.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not getting what your post has to do with what you quoted. In fact I'm having some trouble parsing what you've written at all.

 

[mjrhealth]

You set your definiton of what you believe religion is, did you not, so in doing so you set a core set of beliefs for atheists, in so doing you declared atheism to be a religion, Was it that hard. Soory dont know what succint is. Im not that smart.

 

[lforrest]

I think he was asking for the definition you use for religion Mjrhealth, not about atheism.

 

[Village Atheist]

You set your definiton of what you believe religion is, did you not,

Well, we're talking about the definition of words here, not beliefs; but yes. I gave the definition of what I mean (and understand others to mean) when we use the word "religion".

However, when you use the word, you don't seem to mean the same thing as I described - that's why I'm asking for your definition. When you use the word "religion", what do you mean?

so in doing so you set a core set of beliefs for atheists,

No I didn't. My definition of the word "religion" doesn't mention atheism in any context.

However, in the earlier post where I give that definition, I also say that atheism doesn't include a set of beliefs. Atheism, by definition, is a description for a lack of one particular belief (the belief that one or more gods exist). Referring to someone as an atheist doesn't say anything about any other belief they might or might not have.

in so doing you declared atheism to be a religion,

No I didn't. I specifically declared that - by the definitions of "religion" and "atheism" as I understand them - atheism is not a religion.

Since you're stating that atheism is a religion, obviously we disagree on the definition of one or the other of those words; and that's why I'm asking for your definitions.

How do you define the word "religion"?

How do you define the word "atheism"?

Soory dont know what succint is.

Succinct = Short and to the point.

 

[mjrhealth]

Dictionary

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.


3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.


4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.


5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.


7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.


8.
Archaic. strict faithfulness; devotion:
a religion to one's vow.

To me it is anything that is not of God, Ie all these denomintions, science even atheism, thesy say some people do things religiusly ,ie continually.

 

[Village Atheist]

Okay, so now we're getting somewhere (I think). I'm going to ignore the dictionary definition you posted because I'm asking what you mean when you use the word and that doesn't seem to have anything to do with the dictionary definition.

I'm not trying to build a strawman here, just to work out what you mean - so I apologise if my understanding of your views is inaccurate. It's not deliberate.

To me it is anything that is not of God,

So are you saying that any metaphysical belief other than a belief in God is a religion? If so, why do you exclude that particular belief?

Ie all these denomintions,

Now here's where you lose me. In this same sentence (before I broke it up), you've just said that "[religion] is anything that is not of God". But now your saying that "denomintions" (by which I assume you mean "different denominations of Christianity") are religions.

So are you saying that the various types of Christianity are religions?

I mean I'd agree with that. But it doesn't match with your previous "of God" statement.

The only way I can reconcile "[religion] is anything that is not of God" and "the various denominations of Christianity are religions" is to conclude that you are trying to say that Christianity is not "of God".

But Christianity by definition includes belief in God.

Are you saying you believe in a different God to the one that Christians believe in? Maybe you're a Hindu or something?

science even atheism, thesy say some people do things religiusly ,ie continually.

Okay. Here we seem to be on firmer ground. You seem to be saying that science and atheism should be counted as religions because they involve ritualistic behaviour.

Assuming you're right, I disagree with you. Can you tell me what types of ritualistic behaviour you're talking about? What is it that atheists do "continually" that makes their lack of belief in God a religion?

What is it that people who use the scientific method "continually" do that makes you classify them as a religion (regardless of whether they believe in God or not)?

 

[mjrhealth]

Assuming you're right, I disagree with you. Can you tell me what types of ritualistic behaviour you're talking about? What is it that atheists do "continually" that makes their lack of belief in God a religion?

What is it that people who use the scientific method "continually" do that makes you classify them as a religion (regardless of whether they believe in God or not)?

Science is an odd one. Was wathcing a show last night, where a archeologist had found some evidience so prove soething wrong, to bring it into question, Anothe rman had written to her telling Her she was wrong, She asked Him what evidence would He need to prove the case, he said none, He wouldnt execpt any. What was it about, They found a Dinosaur that still had flexible tendons and bone marrow that could not possibly be 60 million years old. As i have said before some will deny all even with teh evidence put in front of them, these scientist worship mankind, He is God and they wont accept God because to do so would mean they will be held accountable, Aethism is no different. Yet there are christian scientist all over the world pushing teh boundaries.

Its a bit li ethe grand canyon for years we where told it was made obver millins of years, but all the evidence said otherwise, till they proved it may have only being made in a few thousand, as was another valley in teh US, a man found teh evidence to say it was probaly made only in a day, took another man ten years to prove Him right, but he was rejected by the scientist of His day becuase it didnt fit there theory.

I would love to prove God to you, but the bible says it is better to be hot or cold, than lukewarm. So be a good atheist, in teh end you like all mankind will still see Christ , it matters not wheter you belive or not.

 

[Village Atheist]

Science is an odd one. Was wathcing a show last night, where a archeologist had found some evidience so prove soething wrong, to bring it into question, Anothe rman had written to her telling Her she was wrong, She asked Him what evidence would He need to prove the case, he said none, He wouldnt execpt any. What was it about, They found a Dinosaur that still had flexible tendons and bone marrow that could not possibly be 60 million years old. As i have said before some will deny all even with teh evidence put in front of them, these scientist worship mankind, He is God and they wont accept God because to do so would mean they will be held accountable, Aethism is no different. Yet there are christian scientist all over the world pushing teh boundaries.

I can't vouch for the content of the exact program you've seen, obviously. I don't know who was being interviewed or what they said.

But the issue of soft tissue remnants being found in dinosaur bones is the exact opposite of what you're trying to portray it as. Far from it being a case of science being dogmatic and unable to change to fit contradictory evidence, it's actually the very opposite of that.

When the discoveries were first brought to light, most scientists - naturally, and sensibly - thought that the odds of this being correct were far smaller than the odds of the person who thought they had discovered it being mistaken. Therefore few of their fellow scientists believed it.

So the scientists did what scientists do - look for further evidence. Was there any evidence that the original discoverers were mistaken? Was there any evidence that they were correct?

It turned out that someone did come up with an explanation of how they could have been mistaken, but this explanation didn't fit all the data so it wasn't considered very convincing.

On the other hand, now that people know where to look and what to look for, more evidence of the remnants of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils has been found. As a result of the examination of this evidence, the scientific consensus is now changing. Previously the consensus was that because soft tissue doesn't normally survive for long we wouldn't find any from millions of years ago. Now the consensus is that in some rare conditions it can survive that long.

So this is science doing the very thing that you say it doesn't do. When new evidence was put in front of them, scientists were rightly sceptical of it and didn't immediately jump to conclusions; but equally when it became apparent that the evidence was correct they changed their views.

As I say, I don't know what program you watched. There may have been someone on there who did in fact say that there was no amount of evidence that would change their minds on the subject. But they're not representative of the scientific consensus - which has now changed in light of new evidence.

Its a bit li ethe grand canyon for years we where told it was made obver millins of years, but all the evidence said otherwise, till they proved it may have only being made in a few thousand, as was another valley in teh US, a man found teh evidence to say it was probaly made only in a day, took another man ten years to prove Him right, but he was rejected by the scientist of His day becuase it didnt fit there theory.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. "All the evidence" actually points to the millions of years age, and that's why scientists still hold to that age. The feeble "proofs" for it to be merely thousands of years old and/or made in a day are nothing of the sort. They're just special pleading and wishful thinking by Creationists.

This too isn't a case of scientists rejecting the evidence when presented with it. It's a case of scientists rejecting Creationist propaganda when they're presented with it because the actual evidence doesn't fit that propaganda.

 

[mjrhealth]

I'm afraid you're wrong there. "All the evidence" actually points to the millions of years age,

yes it is so strange they say , this fish died out millions of years ago, than they find it, still the same, hasnt changed, so they must find a new answer, as i said before, we are supposed to be the most intelligen being on earth, yet all we do is destroy ourselves, we poison our water, we destroy our life giving forests, we poison teh very food we eat, pollute the seas we swim in, teh air we breath, kill millions for the sake of money. no we are not intelligent we are the most foolish, But God did create us that way, weak .

You should look up the cealatn tihnk thats how you speel it was supposed to be the lnk between fish and land animals, Hasnt changes in 65 miilion years, There favourite number.

 

[Village Atheist]

yes it is so strange they say , this fish died out millions of years ago, than they find it, still the same, hasnt changed, so they must find a new answer, as i said before, we are supposed to be the most intelligen being on earth, yet all we do is destroy ourselves, we poison our water, we destroy our life giving forests, we poison teh very food we eat, pollute the seas we swim in, teh air we breath, kill millions for the sake of money. no we are not intelligent we are the most foolish, But God did create us that way, weak .

You should look up the cealatn tihnk thats how you speel it was supposed to be the lnk between fish and land animals, Hasnt changes in 65 miilion years, There favourite number.

I assume you're talking about the Coelacanth, yes?

The Coelacanth is quite an interesting order (it's not a single species, but an entire order of families of species - for example "primate" and "rodent" are both orders). They're very rare (in fact the only two living species in the order are both critically endangered), and they live in the deep sea.

Because of this obscurity, we didn't know they still existed. Up until the 1930s, we'd found fossils of fish from that order ranging from around 360 million years old to 80 million years old, but not seen live ones. Because of this, it was guessed that they'd probably died off during the mass extinction of 65 million years ago that killed off most of the dinosaurs.

Of course, now we're aware that there are two species of the order still around we've revised that guess in the light of new evidence - you know, the thing that science does that you deny.

You're incorrect when you say that they "haven't changed in 65 million years". The species that are around now are not the same species that existed millions of years ago. They've changed through evolution just as everything else has. They're recognisably from the same order, but they're different species within that order.

Before we had found the modern species, scientists did think that the order may be intermediate between fish and land animals. However, now we've found living specimens that's been revised - again, science revising its theories based on new evidence rather than trying to denying the evidence. Genetic analysis has shown that while Coelacanths are more closely related to land animals than most fish are (with the exception of lungfish), our ancesters were never from their order.

Basically (and I'm simplifying horribly here), there is a class of animals called "lobe-finned fish". That class is split into three groups: Coelacanths, Lungfish and Tetrapods. Land vertabrates (reptiles, mammals, birds, etc.) are all part of the Tetrapod group; and the Coelacanth and Lungfish groups are our "distant cousins". They're more closely related to us than other fish, but we're not directly descended from them.

Based on the genetics, it seems that evolution took the three groups in their respective directions around 390 million years ago; which is compatible with the fossil evidence.

Nothing about the Coelacanth contradicts the theory of evolution or the masses of evidence for it; in fact it's a prime example of the genetic evidence and fossil evidence matching each other nicely and the changing views on the Coelacanth as new evidence emerges is a perfect example of science working as it should. Once again, a criticism of science for being dogma based and not adapting to fit new evidence turns out to be the exact opposite when examined more closely.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hi Village Atheist,
looks like you're having some fun. I have a question for you, though I'm not sure whether you'd have an answer for this one.
A few years ago, I heard Jay Sekulow talking about a legal brief on his show which involved a case where an organized "atheist" group was opposing the inclusion of 2 steel beams in the World Trade center museum because they formed a rough steel image of a cross. These beams were found in an un-collapsed section of one of the buildings next to the towers, standing upright in the rubble, and workers on the pile would go sit and look at them for a while and rest. One of the litigants said that the sight of the beams in the form of a cross made him sick to his stomach. I actually thought that perhaps this fellow wasn't an atheist at all, but a vampire (you never know about these things.)
My question is simply this: Do you know why the image of a cross would make this fellow sick? I realize that some individuals are characterized as atheists for rejecting Christ e.g. Michael Weinstein for one, and to some of them the Cross represents a long history of abuses in the name of God. Is this a reason for someone to get sick seeing two intersecting steel beams? Oh, I guess that's two questions. How about 3? Do you get sick from looking at crosses (although I kind of doubt it and I guess this is really 4)?

 

[Village Atheist]

Hi Village Atheist,
looks like you're having some fun. I have a question for you, though I'm not sure whether you'd have an answer for this one.
A few years ago, I heard Jay Sekulow talking about a legal brief on his show which involved a case where an organized "atheist" group was opposing the inclusion of 2 steel beams in the World Trade center museum because they formed a rough steel image of a cross. These beams were found in an un-collapsed section of one of the buildings next to the towers, standing upright in the rubble, and workers on the pile would go sit and look at them for a while and rest. One of the litigants said that the sight of the beams in the form of a cross made him sick to his stomach. I actually thought that perhaps this fellow wasn't an atheist at all, but a vampire (you never know about these things.)
My question is simply this: Do you know why the image of a cross would make this fellow sick? I realize that some individuals are characterized as atheists for rejecting Christ e.g. Michael Weinstein for one, and to some of them the Cross represents a long history of abuses in the name of God. Is this a reason for someone to get sick seeing two intersecting steel beams?

I've done some digging (including reading the legal suit that was brought) to try to find some context for this.

The story has clearly mutated and been misquoted as these things often do (you know how sloppy journalism can be), but the statement about making the person feel sick isn't about the mere sight of a cross making them sick.

The person's concern is that the two intersecting beams were taken out of the rubble, trimed to make them look more like a traditional "Christian" cross, given pride of place in the museum, and then blessed in a specifically Catholic ceremony, all of which was paid for by the Government.

The complaint isn't that the mere sight of a cross makes them sick. The complaint is that having the government pay for this trimming and display, along with a Catholic ceremony to "bless" the cross in the museum as the centrepiece of the memorial, is an instance of the Government de facto establishing that the memorial is a Christian one. Their arguments were that firstly this is against the Establishment Clause - the museum should either have religious symbols from the faiths of all the people who died in the attack or none of them, it shouldn't just have a single religious symbol that only represents some of the victims while ignoring the faiths of others; and that secondly by having this symbol of a single religion as the centrepiece of the official memorial it made them feel (to use their own words) "officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured" by the attack.

It is this feeling of "official exclusion" by their Government that they claim makes them feel marginalised and causes them stress - the symptoms of which they say includes feeling nausea amongst other things, not the mere presence of a cross.

It's easy to see how - through reporting and word of mouth - the story of someone claiming to be stressed to the point of feeling nauseous by what they see as exclusion by their government (in the form of a single government established religious symbol of a religion they don't share) can mutate into the story of someone being made sick by the sight of a cross. Of course, it suits some people's agenda to deliberately misrepresent the story too. "Atheists say the sight of a cross makes them sick" is going to get the ACLJ far more support from much of Evangelical Christianity than "Atheists feel stress when they're excluded from things", since the former demonises atheists and plays into common prejudices, and the latter humanises them and dispels such prejudices.

Oh, I guess that's two questions. How about 3? Do you get sick from looking at crosses (although I kind of doubt it and I guess this is really 4)?

Not in the slightest. I'm not bothered by the symbols of any religion.

Although I am reminded of a Bill Hicks monologue in which he ponders why Christians are so obsessed with crosses, joking about how if Jesus ever came back the last thing he'd want to see would be crosses everywhere reminding him of how he died!

To be honest, I very much doubt that the plaintiffs in the case actually felt sick, either. It's just typical lawyer hyperbole to try to make the point that someone has suffered measureable damage (as opposed to just "feelings of exclusion" and "stress" that aren't measurable).

 

[michaelvpardo]

To be honest, I very much doubt that the plaintiffs in the case actually felt sick, either. It's just typical lawyer hyperbole to try to make the point that someone has suffered measureable damage (as opposed to just "feelings of exclusion" and "stress" that aren't measurable).

Thank you for taking the time to do the research and giving an honest answer. When I heard the story it was from Jay Sekulow, who isn't a journalist, but a lawyer working for the ACLJ who has his own radio show and works cases in the defense of religious liberty. I believe that the man is Christian and perhaps his dialog regarding the case issues was intentionally exaggerated to make the complaint appear silly or frivolous. I don't have any great insight into the minds of lawyers beyond their uncanny ability to derive meaning out of words that weren't necessarily the original intent, such as our supreme court justices and their modern view of the constitution.

 

[Jeri]

Atheist, like Christians, can answer any question, but when push comes to shove, no one knows nothing for sure. Its all about what a person chooses to believe. For instance;

"32. Where did everything come from if there is no God?
I don't know." That's a question Atheist can't answer, but Christians can. It doesn't mean we're right, but we have an answer that's right for us.

"9. Do you know that Jesus loves you?
Since he's been dead for a couple of thousand years I severely doubt that."
Christians believe he's alive, and no Atheist can prove otherwise since his tomb is empty.

Like Christians, your stating your opinion, which is based on what you've chosen to believe. Many of the questions you've posed are answered with another question, which is no answer. And none of the answers are factual or based on definitive evidence.

I'm curious...
That's a question Atheist can't answer, but Christians can. It doesn't mean we're right, but we have an answer that's right for us.
.... Does that make the answer true - or is "right for us" always good enough for you? That answer suggests the belief is mere palliation.

Christians believe he's alive, and no Atheist can prove otherwise since his tomb is empty.
.... Seems to me you yourself don't have much respect for your religion or you would not mock it so?

And none of the answers are factual or based on definitive evidence.
...Perhaps you should read them again and engage your brain this time?

Flippancy and strawmen prove nothing.