Thoughts on Freedom From Religion

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Any more thoughts on being free from someone's religion?

 

[Joshua260]

Yes those men were religious but they also clearly stated that their constitution was not based on the bible or Christianity...
[/B]

I'm curious as to where you say the founding fathers said this. You're not possibly referring to the Treaty of Tripoli are you because unbelievers commonly misunderstand the purpose of certain language contained within?

But I draw your attention to what I explained earlier, that the Declaration and Constitution refer to or imply a divinity.

Look at the first amendment:

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.

Did you not know that your rights, such as the right of freedom of speech, was thought by the founding fathers to be a God-given right, and not just a right given to you by a body of government? Notice that the first amendment does not say that the government gives you those rights. Rather, it implies that you already have those rights, and that they should not be infringed upon.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Joshua

I am not going to keep talking about the law... if you think you have a right to shape everyone's government by your religious beliefs then that's great.

Do you have any more comments to add a person being free from your religion? Do you think I should be free from your religion?

 

[Joshua260]

Joshua

I am not going to keep talking about the law... if you think you have a right to shape everyone's government by your religious beliefs then that's great.

Do you have any more comments to add a person being free from your religion? Do you think I should be free from your religion?

As I said before, even the bible teaches that you are free not to worship God. I only meant to point out in my last post that you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that our government ignores the existance of a divinity, when in fact it was established declaring to the world that a divinity had endowed us with rights that were being trampled on by another government. It was the founding father's recognition of a higher moral authority which led to the establishment of the Bill of Rights...which form part of our law. If you want to remove God out of our government, you would remove our basis for our declared freedoms.

In other words, it would be as if you were to saw off the tree limb on which you rest.

 

[aiki]

Your freedom to demand that the religious leave you alone arises ultimately from a Judeo-Christian worldview. In atheistic Stalinist Russia no such freedom existed. The only way to think and behave was the way the State (meaning Stalin, ultimately) told you to do so. If you did not, you were killed. Only under the Judeo-Christian worldview do innate and inalienable rights and freedoms imparted by a Creator exist. In godless societies, totalitarian states inevitably develop and when they do, the rights and freedoms you presently enjoy are among the first things to disappear. Joshua260 is right: You are thumbing your nose at the very source of your freedom to thumb your nose.

Selah.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Your freedom to demand that the religious leave you alone arises ultimately from a Judeo-Christian worldview. In atheistic Stalinist Russia no such freedom existed. The only way to think and behave was the way the State (meaning Stalin, ultimately) told you to do so. If you did not, you were killed. Only under the Judeo-Christian worldview do innate and inalienable rights and freedoms imparted by a Creator exist. In godless societies, totalitarian states inevitably develop and when they do, the rights and freedoms you presently enjoy are among the first things to disappear. Joshua260 is right: You are thumbing your nose at the very source of your freedom to thumb your nose.

Selah.

There is no god and human's still derived a concept of freedom. Such a freedom is truly only a means of gathering resources and continuing our own existence. Morality is subjective but few of us wants to be hurt or killed and that's because our genes pursue resources, to spread and continue. All of this happens without a god. You may claim that your rejected system is the source of my goodness... cool story bro.

It's ironic that your system which denies my freedom to be anything other than what your god wants to me to be under threat of death and torture is your basis of freedom. Both of us want to be free and that's because our genes cause us to want to live and spread, no god was necessary. Your god had homosexuals murdered, prostitutes burned alive, children killed, non-believers put down with the sword and you think your system is the source of freedom?

In Romans 1.32 Paul said sinners deserve to die and you think that is the source of my freedom?

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

As I said before, even the bible teaches that you are free not to worship God. I only meant to point out in my last post that you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that our government ignores the existance of a divinity, when in fact it was established declaring to the world that a divinity had endowed us with rights that were being trampled on by another government. It was the founding father's recognition of a higher moral authority which led to the establishment of the Bill of Rights...which form part of our law. If you want to remove God out of our government, you would remove our basis for our declared freedoms.

In other words, it would be as if you were to saw off the tree limb on which you rest.

oh, no it isn't. I'd never hurt or restrain humans the way <staff edit>does. I chose not to respond to the majority of your post because I want to stay on topic and not go into areas that are easily confused

 

[Albion]

There is no god and human's still derived a concept of freedom.

They derived that concept only because there is a God or, to be more precise, because Men acknowledged a God.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

They derived that concept only because there is a God or, to be more precise, because Men acknowledged a God.

Confucius didn't worship a god, Buddhists aren't always theists, I am not a Christian and I believe in freedom for everyone. Our central nervous systems and survival instincts, our genes are perfectly capable of pursuing their own survival... a god is not necessary. Much a less a god as destructive and horrifying as the Christian god. A god who created a burning hell for all non-believers knows nothing of freedom. Humans did not craft a Geneva Convention by the influence of a god who burns humans in a hell and says they deserve to die for committing sins.

Thomas Jefferson thought the bible was a pile of feces with a few jems inside. Christianity is not the source of anyone's freedom.

 

[Albion]

Confucius didn't worship a god, Buddhists aren't always theists

Exactly.

I am not a Christian and I believe in freedom for everyone.

That would be good, then, and I don't doubt you. However, that's somewhat beside the point which dealt with God or belief in God having anything to do with promoting or permitting freedom in human society.

Humans did not craft a Geneva Convention by the influence of a god who burns humans in a hell and says they deserve to die for committing sins.

As a matter of fact, they did exactly that. This is why it's the Geneva Convention and not the Bangkok Convention.

 

[Albion]

By the way, there may be a small problem with this thread. Is it supposed to be about freedom from religion or freedom from God?

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Albion

Exactly.

The independence of freedom from a god is proven.

That would be good, then, and I don't doubt you. However, that's somewhat beside the point which dealt with God or belief in God having anything to do with promoting or permitting freedom in human society.

My lack of a god and my need for freedom is THE point.

As a matter of fact, they did exactly that. This is why it's the Geneva Convention and not the Bangkok Convention.

You don't comprehend the moral and physical differences between our Geneva Convention and the way Jesus treats people? You think Paul who thought sinners deserved to die and Jesus who will set me on fire one day would write a Geneva convention?

Even if they really would be so incomprehensible, the two are polar opposites, they do not agree.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

By the way, there may be a small problem with this thread. Is it supposed to be about freedom from religion or freedom from God?

Your god is a religion and your peers have insisted on me talking about their god and when you say that your god wants this or that and I say that's really bad, your make believe god is really really bad, that is me expressing my need to be free from your religion.

 

[Albion]

Your god is a religion

God is not a religion. Religion is unsually about God. But there are religions that are nontheistic, that's true.

and your peers have insisted on me talking about their god and when you say that your god wants this or that and I say that's really bad, your make believe god is really really bad

Who has "insisted" on you talking about their god? I don't see how you can be forced to do so, and you are the one who started this thread!

?? I have not said or "made believe" that God is really really bad, no.

that is me expressing my need to be free from your religion.

I think we got point that right away, so what now? And again, are we supposed to talk about freedom from religion or freedom from God?

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Albion

Your god is a belief in the supernatural, that makes it a religion.

If I were to begin to show why your religion does not support freedom, it is inevitably and unavoidable that I begin to talk about your religion (your god).

I don't desire to talk to your god.

I made this thread intending to just listen to the answers but when people began to claim that I was just being rude and their system was the only basis for my freedom I felt compelled to respond because I felt threatened. I was naive in thinking I could make this thread and just listen to the answers.

 

[Albion]

Exactly

The independence of freedom from a god is proven.

Uh, no. What I answered "exactly" to was your comment that certain religions do not posit the existence of a god, that's all.

My lack of a god and my need for freedom is THE point.

All right. If you want that to be the topic. I didn't seem to be the topic a few posts ago, is all.

You don't comprehend the moral and physical differences between our Geneva Convention and the way Jesus treats people?

You apparently missed the point. The Geneva Convention was possible only because of a certain religion which historically made possible the free institutions and ideals that you associate with freedom from religion. It's a common misconception.

when people began to claim that I was just being rude and their system was the only basis for my freedom I felt compelled to respond because I felt threatened.

Why would you feel "threatened" by something like the mention of an historical perspective at odds with your own?

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Albion

Uh, no. What I answered "exactly" to was your comment that certain religions do not posit the existence of a god, that's all.

Which proves that freedom is not dependent on a god.

All right. If you want that to be the topic. I didn't seem to be the topic a few posts ago, is all.

I was responding to claims that your religious system is the foundation of freedom itself and obviously it is not.

You apparently missed the point. The Geneva Convention was possible only because of a certain religion which historically made possible the free institutions and ideals that you associate with freedom from religion. It's a common misconception.

You apparently missed the point that your system is NOTHING like the Geneva Convention and completely contrary to it. It does everything the Geneva Convention says you do not do... and thus could not be the true source of it, much less the source of freedom itself.

 

[Albion]

Albion



Which proves that freedom is not dependent on a god.

No, it only proves that religion is not dependent on belief in a god.

I was responding to claims that your religious system is the foundation of freedom itself and obviously it is not.

IF you have some reasoning or facts to contribute, I'd be interested in reading that. Merely to deny, without further comment, that which is well-known doesn't do much IMO.

You apparently missed the point that your system is NOTHING like the Geneva Convention and completely contrary to it. It does everything the Geneva Convention says you do not do... and thus could not be the true source of it, much less the source of freedom itself.

I'm going to conclude that you aren't particularly familiar with the history that's involved in this. The Geneva Convention is not the whole of Western Civilization rolled up into one tidy conference, that's so, but it would not have been possible--nor its principles--in some other religious setting, or in a non-religious one, for that matter. Put another way, you get war and oppression in all cultures, but the movement in world history towards peace and freedom owes to one of them.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Albion

I recommend rereading my posts.

 

[Kiritsugu Emiyah]

Based on what the United states did to homosexuals Native Americans African Americans and women I think it is evident that the United Stateswas not divinely influenced by any God or was the basis of freedom itself. it is merely the product of developing central nervous systems seekig security resources and to continue