User Profile: SkepticsAmongUs

SkepticsAmongUs

Member Since: March 26, 2013

CommentsDisplaying comments newest to oldest.

123 To page: Go
  • April 2, 2014 at 10:06am

    @fortherecord
    Honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. Let me first make this clear. The idea of being an atheist is a singular position on a singular topic posited by the believer. Beyond this one position on this one topic, Atheists will likely differ on any other topic.

    For instance, I am generally against the death penalty. So, I wouldn’t call for the death of anyone. I agree that animals should be respected, but I understand that humans are omnivores, and therefore have an innate desire to eat meat.

    So sure, in no uncertain terms, I am against the “slow torturing to death” of people that abuse or have been accused of abusing animals. Happy?

  • April 2, 2014 at 9:46am

    Oh Stuntbrain. I was a fan of yours back when you used to come on O&A. I know you are a very smart guy, so maybe you should pass this message on to your editors then.

    It is in poor taste to assert that a positive result after a tragedy a miracle. This is a small, inconsequential story, but oftentimes christian symbolism after a tragedy has been considered a miracle. People considered the 911 cross to be a miracle. More recently, people considered the bible found in the Harlem fire to be a miracle. Innocent people died in these situation; mothers with unborn children. If your God is omnipotent/omnibenevolent/and omniscient, he either allowed these atrocities to occur and did nothing, or had an active hand in their occurrence. To turn around and consider a metal cross or finding a bible a miracle is insensitive as best.

    I would believe in miracles if there were verifiable and demonstrable proof for one. To you, a miracle is just a feeling. You feel like an unlikely occurrence has some deeper meaning and is tied to some sort of higher power. For the believer, the verifiable evidence is not a prerequisite for belief, belief is a prerequisite for belief. To me, the claim of a miracle is just as unlikely as a claim for a yeti or the lochness monster. The evidence must be demonstrable, verifiable, and repeatable. I would hope as a generally smart person, that you would hold the assertion a miracle to the same standards as you would other claims.

  • April 2, 2014 at 9:18am

    Belief in anything without proper evidence, and telling others to do the same, reeks of pride. I am proud to be an atheist, and it is freeing. I do charitable things and act morally in this world because it helps people in need and helps the community. I act morally on my own volition, not based on some fear from some cosmic entity.

    “There is nothing to be gained and everything is lost when one brags about not believing in GOD.”
    This is patently false. Please inform yourself on Pascals Wager.

    Responses (21) +
  • April 2, 2014 at 8:58am

    Miracle: an unusual or wonderful event that is believed to be caused by the power of God.

    Im glad this guy is ok, but Mike Opelka is a dope for using this headline. Was it a miracle when the chainsaw sliced through his neck, or only when it was removed? Try to give a little more credit to the wonderful medical staff, rather than the all-powerful entity that would have allowed the injury to happen in the first place.

    Responses (5) +
  • March 28, 2014 at 1:55pm

    My Sacred Honor
    Oh no! Lets not start this up again. Judicial precedence has held that the 14th Amendment applies to cases about the Establishment Clause (see Everson v. Board of Education). This basically extends the requirements of the Establishment Clause to the State level, which trickles down to the Municipal level.

  • March 28, 2014 at 1:48pm

    @My Sacred Honor
    “That they haven’t been enforced since the early 19th century. And if you believe in this day that you actually WOULD be disqualified for being an atheist, you must be insane. NO state would get away with that with the way media is today.”
    The fact that they are there at all is the problem. If anyone tried to use one of these laws to disqualify a candidate, it would likely we challenged and lose in court. But this is a moot point. An Atheist would never win an election in these states. According to religious people, atheists are trusted as much as they trust a rapist (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2011/12/02/study-religious-people-trust-atheists-about-as-much-as-they-do-rapists/).

    Ha. We can drink on that, but ill try to make you prove that anyone has a soul to save in the first place.

  • March 28, 2014 at 12:50pm

    My Sacred Honor
    “Also correct on South Carolina. This has been quite an education. I thank you.”

    Well, I thank you for enlightening me to Arkansas. Mississippi is hard to verify as well. Ill make sure to remove these two from my talking points ;)

  • March 28, 2014 at 12:48pm

    I will admit that the Arkansas one seems to be more untenable, and would require further research. It was certainly in its original Constitution of 1874, but I am finding it difficult to see if this section has been updated.

    Meanwhile, I am glad you are admitting you were incorrect, seeing as you originally denied that any states would have religious test requirements.

  • March 28, 2014 at 12:31pm

    @My Sacred Honor
    Find the actual article and section.
    Actual Mississippi Constitution: Article 14, Section 265
    SECTION 265. Denial of Supreme Being disqualification to hold office.

    Im still right.

  • March 28, 2014 at 12:27pm

    My Sacred Honor
    I would really like to see you continue your quest to see if I am wrong. Sadly, you will be disappointed.

    Texas Constitution link here: Good luck proving me wrong. Look at Section 4.
    http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/CN/htm/CN.1.htm

    Tenn. link here: Good luck proving me wrong. Look at page 550. Article IX, Section II.
    http://www.state.tn.us/sos/bluebook/05-06/46-tnconst.pdf

    South Carolina: From the SC state website. Scroll down, to Section 4: Supreme Being. Good luck proving that I am wrong.
    http://www.scstatehouse.gov/scconstitution/a17.php

    North Carolina: From NC legislation website. Scroll down to Section 8:Disqualifications for Office. Good luck proving me wrong.
    http://www.ncleg.net/Legislation/constitution/article6.html

    Mississippi: Secondary source. Scroll to Article 14, Section 265. Good luck proving me wrong,
    http://law.justia.com/constitution/mississippi

    I am getting bored with this.

  • March 28, 2014 at 12:13pm

    @VRW ConspiratoR
    I think we are finding some common ground here. I never said that states did not have the ability to do so, I simply said that the states have defiled the Constitution by requiring a religious test. Personally, I believe that the power of the 14th Amendment should be flexed when states require a religious test, much like when it was utilized in the Everson v. Board of Education, requiring states to adhere to the establishment clause. This has been done successfully in Maryland (see Torcaso v. Watkins (1961), and Tennessee (see McDaniel v. Paty (1978)), but should be challenged in any state with religious test requirements.

    When a state requires a religious test to become a legislature, they are trampling on the personal rights of an individual, and are in direct conflict with the free exercise of religion (or non-religion in this case).

    If the state challenged their ability to run under these religious test requirements, the state would eventually lose a legal battle. The whole argument is somewhat a non-issue for now. If an open atheist ran in these religious states, they would never win.

  • March 28, 2014 at 11:47am

    @VRW Conspirator
    You just provided me with the written equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears. You say, “there is NO “no religious test clause” in the Constitution”. I show you the exact Article and paragraph in which it is located in the Constitution, and provide you the text. You then continue to assert that you are correct. You’ve lost all credibility after your first sentence.

  • March 28, 2014 at 11:24am

    VRW Conspirator
    “there is NO “no religious test clause” in the Constitution…”
    “Please…if you are going to try and argue a point…use the correct terminology”
    You think as an Atheist, I dont know the difference? Again, you are the one that is incorrect. People need to educate themselves. Please utilize the best research tool that was ever created (the internet), before you say someone is wrong. Im amazed.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Religious_Test_Clause
    The No Religious Test Clause of the United States Constitution is found in Article VI, paragraph 3, and states that:
    The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

  • March 28, 2014 at 11:21am

    And here are my sources…Primary sources. They look like Huffpo for sure…dope.
    Constitution of the State of Arkansas. Little Rock, AR: Arkansas State Legislature. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
    “Constitution of Maryland”. Annapolis, MD: Maryland State Archives. June 10, 2011. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
    Jump up ^ “Constitution of the State of Mississippi”. Jackson, MS: Secretary of State, State of Mississippi. p. 117. Retrieved 17 July 2012.
    “North Carolina State Constitution Article VI Section 8.”. Retrieved 2012-12-28.
    “South Carolina Constitution Article 17 Section 4.”. Retrieved 2012-06-18.
    “Article IX, Disqualifications”. Tennessee Blue Book 2011-2012. Nashville, TN: Secretary of State, State of Tennessee.
    “Texas Constitution, Article 1, Section 4.”. Retrieved 2012-06-18.
    “Pennsylvania Constitution, Article 1, Section 4.”. Retrieved 2012-10-10.

  • March 28, 2014 at 11:16am

    Texas: “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.”

    An eighth state constitution discriminates against atheists by affording special protection to theists only.
    Pennsylvania:”No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.”

  • March 28, 2014 at 11:13am

    @My Sacred Honor
    You know, you have the most powerful means to search for information that has ever existed. Perhaps you should use it before you type your response and prove how un-educated you are on the topics you try to discuss. Here you go…
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

    Arkansas: “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”
    Maryland:”That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.”
    Mississippi: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.”
    North Carolina: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
    South Carolina: “No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.”[89]
    Tennessee: “No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.”

    No shhhhhhh. Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt.

  • March 28, 2014 at 10:18am

    The Blaze…Fighters for personal freedoms, until they disagree with the decision made.

    Responses (1) +
  • March 28, 2014 at 10:13am

    I see so many people on here claiming that Christians are being persecuted for their beliefs. Are you out of your mind?!? There are currently eight states where Atheists are not allowed to hold public office! Eight states where Christians have taken away a non-believers rights. Eight states that clearly defile the “No Religious Test Clause” of the constitution.

    For you to say that christians are being persecuted is asinine! There is specific legislation barring people like me from holding office based on my religious beliefs; find me one piece of legislation that keeps christians from holding office. Christians are the oppressors, not the oppressed. Stop crying about being persecuted, and start living by the same rules that everyone else has to adhere to.

  • March 28, 2014 at 10:11am

    Are you out of your mind? There are currently eight states where Atheists are not allowed to hold public office! Eight states where Christians have taken away a non-believers rights. Eight states that clearly defile the “No Religious Test Clause” of the constitution.

    For you to say that christians are being persecuted is asinine! There is specific legislation barring people like me from holding office based on my religious beliefs; find me one piece of legislation that keeps christians from holding office. Christians are the oppressors, not the oppressed. Stop crying about being persecuted, and start living by the same rules that everyone else has to adhere to.

  • March 14, 2014 at 12:43pm

    Why would you quote the bible to an atheist? These passages mean nothing to me. If you would like to discuss something logically, I would be open to it.

123 To page: Go