Agreed. The wish not to believe can influence as strongly as the wish to believe.

So?

Atheists don't have the same rights to register their dislike of all things religious?

Why do the religious have the right to tell me what I can't buy on Sunday?

How about making Wednesday atheists day. No ice cream for the religious.

That wasn't my point. I was referring to Actor's comment that "atheism" was equivalent to the "off" state of a TV.

I'm sorry...I am confused here. Is there something that the atheists are not allowed to buy on Sundays?

I understand. But to expect indifference is unrealistic. Atheism my be the absence of religiosity but it doesn't mean atheists can't or shouldn't be passionate about their position.

Never on a Sunday
 

Try Ouzo in Arkansas.

I understand too, TJDave...and I fully support the people's right to believe, or disbelieve, anything that they choose. And they should believe, or disbelieve, with all the passion that they can muster.

What I don't enjoy seeing is them fighting with one another...as if either group can actually PROVE that their position is the correct one.

Wow...I didn't know that. Now I can understand your frustration. :)

Agree, Atheists have the right to actively and passionately convert people to their belief.

Cute. :rolleyes:

In this case it impacts religious and spiritual people too. My religion doesn't prohibit me from purchasing Ouzo on Sunday. The law is unfair to me too.

But what is the point to atheism? More debauchery? More ungodly behavior? More sexual promiscuity? More hedonism? More disrespect and disregard for human life and dignity?

Boxcar
P.S. Human Secularism is a religion, according to the S.C. And rightfully so, since man elevates himself to the supreme authority in the universe (practically speaking).

Do you have to be religious in order to be a decent human being?

Only one other here rivals your proclivity for lying. I spelled out your lie in my last post.

A person's nature changes when he becomes a partaker of the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4), and that happens when one is miraculously born again. Until that happens degenerate sinners are hopelessly and helplessly enslaved to their sinful natures in which no good thing dwells!

Really tough concepts to understand, eh?

Boxcar

It's not that simple. The issue is not that some religious symbol "hurts" someone. The issue is the separation of church and state. If you look through a list of Supreme Court cases where atheists have triumphed I think you will find that to be the issue, and I have pointed out that they have sometimes been joined by religious litigants in such cases.

I'm not that knowledgeable about the recent "ground zero" case but some here seem to think the case was about the plaintiff's being offended by the cross shaped ironwork. If that was indeed the only case they had then their defeat was predictable.

I've often heard the phrase "freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion". Fortunately the Supreme Court does not agree.

The false belief that America is a "Christian Nation" is widespread. The constitution clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise of the same". There are those in positions of power, or who seek positions of power, who would change that and make America a Christian Theocracy. The ultimate consequence of that, whether the dominionists know it or not, is total intolerance to opposing views, i.e., Nazism.

There are those in the atheist community, myself among them, who believe that, to maintain our simple right to think differently than the majority, we must be militant in our efforts to maintain the separation of church and state. That is what "propels the atheists all the way to the Supreme Court".