Notice how many gods you reject.

[Branden Albert's Huge Balls]

Proof #28 - Notice how many gods you reject

There are literally thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers:

Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.3 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Baha'i: 7 million
Jainism: 4.2 million
Shinto: 4 million
Cao Dai: 4 million
Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million
Tenrikyo: 2 million
Neo-Paganism: 1 million
Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand
Rastafarianism: 600 thousand
Scientology: 500 thousand

[Source: Encyclopedia Britannica]

If you believe in God, you have chosen to reject Allah, Vishnu, Budda, Waheguru and all of the thousands of other gods that other people worship today. It is quite likely that you rejected these other gods without ever looking into their religions or reading their books. You simply absorbed the dominant faith in your home or in the society you grew up in.

In the same way, the followers of all these other religions have chosen to reject God. You think their gods are imaginary, and they think your God is imaginary.

In other words, each religious person on earth today arbitrarily rejects thousands of gods as imaginary, many of which he/she has never even heard of, and arbitrarily chooses to "believe" in one of them.

The following quote from Stephen F. Roberts sums up the situation very nicely:

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

A rational person rejects all human gods equally, because all of them are equally imaginary.

How do we know that they are imaginary? Simply imagine that one of them is real.

If one of these thousands of gods were actually real, then his followers would be experiencing real, undeniable benefits. These benefits would be obvious to everyone. The followers of a true god would pray, and their prayers would be answered. The followers of a true god would therefore live longer, have fewer diseases, have lots more money, etc.

There would be thousands of statistical markers surrounding the followers of a true god.

Everyone would notice all of these benefits, and they would gravitate toward this true god. And thus, over the course of several centuries, everyone would be aligned on the one true god. All the other false gods would have fallen by the wayside long ago, and there would be only one religion under the one true god.

When we look at our world today, we see nothing like that. There are two billion Christians AND there are more than one billion Muslims, and their religions are mutually exclusive. There are thousands of other religions. When you analyze any of them, they all show a remarkable similarity -- there is zero evidence that any of these gods exist.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning

Defense of religious belief, for one.

Religion appeals to different centers of the brain. It satisfies a need in some people, much like lust or hunger. It's almost primal.

"The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing" - Blaise Pascal

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

What is it about separation or church and state that confuses you?

Where are the words "separation or church and state " in the Constitution anyways? The simple truth is, it's not there.

Reword your beliefs, explain them all you wish. It does not change the fact this country was founded giving you the right to believe how you wish. However the government was not designed to endorse, condone or reject any belief. As in neutral~

The govt is NOT forcing you to believe in God either. The Constitution does NOT guarantee freedom from religion either. It's supposed to restrain the federal govt—not local values. Many state's still had official state churches at the time of ratification and well into the 19th century. Some of those issues got mixed in because of the abuse of the 14th amendment using incorporation.

And the Pledge is a declaration of allegiance to the state. No wonder a socialist wrote the original version. That's their higher authority who grants rights.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

see Jefferson and Madison and get back with me~

Already have....you missed a LOT of earlier debates. All I need are the final written words of the document that matters though.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by donkhater

Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. This is a subtle difference that escapes most atheists. Large intellect, indeed.

I agree. They want to push it in a closet where it's never heard from. They want to impose their atheism. Like I said their arguments prove my original point. Atheists use the state and it doesn't just end with removing any words referring to a higher power. The curriculums in schools push atheistic humanism on other people's children, replacing it with statism. They're guilty of what they accuse religious folks of doing.

[blaise]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

I agree. They want to push it in a closet where it's never heard from.

Well, I think you have some people who legitimately want a clear separation of church and state and then you have a group of people who are borderline bigoted against Christians and just use any opportunity to try and ridicule, or demean anything about religion or churches. For some people the agenda isn't to protect the constitution, but some personal crusade against religion. I think a lot of that is motivated by simple bigotry.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by blaise

Well, I think you have some people who legitimately want a clear separation of church and state and then you have a group of people who are borderline bigoted against Christians and just use any opportunity to try and ridicule, or demean anything about religion or churches. For some people the agenda isn't to protect the constitution, but some personal crusade against religion. I think a lot of that is motivated by simple bigotry.

I agree there are some people with legitimate concerns about the federal govt establishing a state religion. I also agree with the rest of what you posted.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by donkhater

As it pertains to a specific religion, then, yes, a separation of church and state is appropriate. I don't believe I've denied that. I'm just merely suggesting that the laws of our society did not just evolve with us. Feelings of empathy and justice are not the result of random chance.

The absolute wall between the state and religion (in general, not a specific religion) is hard to achieve and I dare say impossible.

Of course they have. Barely 200 years ago, I could have owned an African American. Modern Christianity had existed for nearly 2000 years, yet I could legally own another person. If social laws don't evolve, then why am I unable to own another person today? Why have we let women vote? How do you explain changes like that to our laws?

We can point to things in the Bible itself, that were perfectly acceptable in the time it was written, but yet would be condemned and punishable by imprisonment or even death under today's laws. For that to exist, either the omnipotent all knowing God changed his mind, or our laws have changed independently of religion.

Feelings of empathy and justice are absolutely visible in nature. Countless non human species have visible hierarchies of order, and can observably tell "Right from wrong".

Read this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wil...rom-wrong.html

How would you explain observations such as the above?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Of course they have. Barely 200 years ago, I could have owned an African American. Modern Christianity had existed for nearly 2000 years, yet I could legally own another person. If social laws don't evolve, then why am I unable to own another person today? Why have we let women vote? How do you explain changes like that to our laws?

It's the people's attitude and mentalities that have to change before law changes. Laws that stem from the values of the people are easier to enforce. Slavery was very, very common for thousands of years until questioned during the Enlightenment. It wasn't just Christians...it was just accepted by most. It died out in most places with the stroke of a pen. It would have died out eventually among the southern plantation owners too. That was the direction things were moving in.

Until then, there would have been no possibility of even having the new national govt—a Constitutional republic, because some of the minds at the original convention were not ready to let go of it. There was a compromise to get the new govt. So, this argument is sorta bogus, because essentially it's tantamount to saying we should have remained under the Articles of Confederation. In a way, I do think we would have been better off in the sense we'd be a freer people because the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct. However, the slavery point, is overplayed as a point as it was dying out anyway. Though, today, it's returning by making us all slaves to the state.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It's the people's attitude and mentalities that have to change before law changes. Laws that stem from the values of the people are easier to enforce. Slavery was very, very common for thousands of years until questioned during the Enlightenment. It wasn't just Christians...it was just accepted by most. It died out in most places with the stroke of a pen. It would have died out eventually among the southern plantation owners too. That was the direction things were moving in.

Until then, there would have been no possibility of even having the new national govt—a Constitutional republic, because some of the minds at the original convention were not ready to let go of it. There was a compromise to get the new govt. So, this argument is sorta bogus, because essentially it's tantamount to saying we should have remained under the Articles of Confederation. In a way, I do think we would have been better off in the sense we'd be a freer people because the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct. However, the slavery point, is overplayed as a point as it was dying out anyway. Though, today, it's returning by making us all slaves to the state.

How is this relevant to this discussion and KC Fish's underlying point? His argument is not "sorta bogus." It's a good point.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

It's the people's attitude and mentalities that have to change before law changes. Laws that stem from the values of the people are easier to enforce. Slavery was very, very common for thousands of years until questioned during the Enlightenment. It wasn't just Christians...it was just accepted by most. It died out in most places with the stroke of a pen. It would have died out eventually among the southern plantation owners too. That was the direction things were moving in.

Until then, there would have been no possibility of even having the new national govt—a Constitutional republic, because some of the minds at the original convention were not ready to let go of it. There was a compromise to get the new govt. So, this argument is sorta bogus, because essentially it's tantamount to saying we should have remained under the Articles of Confederation. In a way, I do think we would have been better off in the sense we'd be a freer people because the anti-Federalists turned out to be correct. However, the slavery point, is overplayed as a point as it was dying out anyway. Though, today, it's returning by making us all slaves to the state.

That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.

huh? link?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by KC Fish

That still supports my point. It shows that our laws and our moral stances changed over time without divine influence. Man changed its own laws because man realized its previous beliefs were wrong. Despite the fact that the Bible supported or even encouraged the practices.

It is a waste of time trying to debate with this poster. She is not sharp enough to understand how little she knows~

[RNR]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

huh? link?

Just read the bible~

[KILLER_CLOWN]

Originally Posted by RedNeckRaider

Just read the bible~

ok and link?

[RNR]

Originally Posted by KILLER_CLOWN

ok and link?

If you do not own one, or cannot find one, it will gain you nothing to read it. It is very easy material to get your hands on. If that simple task evades you, save yourself further effort~