Is God still in the lives of atheists even though they have rejected Him?

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Great questions, still not evidence of evolution though.

Arguing against organic evolution is a losing argument. The evidence is utterly overwhelming to any honest person who cares to look carefully. Your only defense is to say that "God said evolution is false." And if you could show that God really did say that, it would carry a lot of weight with me and other religious folks. But God never said any such thing.

[Bad Karma]

47 minutes ago, Vort said:

The former is responsible for policies that murder prenatal infants, marginalize anyone who doesn't agree to promote their sociopolitical agenda, and promote anti-religion as "science". I'd say that pretty much trumps your list in every detail.

Wow, that's going to leave a welt! 

[Bad Karma]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

 

I didn't watch the second video, only skipped around a bit. That dude is hard enough to follow without the tiresome radio show format. One thing I caught that I want to address real quick though was his claim that liberals (implying atheists) are hypocrites when it comes to religion, that we embrace Islam and vilify Christianity. While there is some truth to that, I want to make it clear that we don't so much embrace Islam as we do Muslims. And yes, that is a very important distinction. To reverse a common catchphrase, "Hate the game, not the player." If you browse through atheist discussion boards or Facebook groups, I think you'll find plenty of vilification towards Islam as a religion. One of the more popular images in those circles is a picture of the Twin Towers with a caption that reads "Imagine No Religion". I find that Christian liberals are typically more embracing of religions in addition to the people who follow them (religious equivalent of white guilt, I suppose), whereas atheists will demonize religions while (usually) being careful to not extend their spite towards the religious people, especially the majority who practice their faith peacefully. 

The captions in bold and or underlined are things that either make you an interesting person or perhaps more of a person of interest. I understand that of your comments, one could call you the garden variety Atheist, but that said, why would you want to hang out with a bunch of Mormons? Especially since 2008, I mean that's commitment. I am truly puzzled. 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Bad Karma

[Windseeker]

14 hours ago, Godless said:

One of the big problems with his approach is that he fails to identify why atheists tend towards leftism, which in reality has a lot less to do with big government and nearly everything to do with secular social values. The moral/social values of liberalism/socialism/Democrats align far more closely to atheism than conservatism/Republicans. The latter is responsible for policies that suppress womens' health programs, marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sense, and promote religious teachings in the science classroom. If you want to know why we lean left, there it is.

You are correct, that it has more to do with moral/social values. But the atheists’ highest value of radical equality, where it's not about equal opportunity but equal outcome, can only be brought about and enforced by a totalitarian government which is why they align with liberalism/socialism/Democrats. 

Quote

The consequence (of atheism) is that society begins to gravitate around radical equality. That is, people will fight and fight until society cannot and will not recognize that any choice is better than another, that any lifestyle, belief, or action has more moral merit than another....Many post-modern Atheist philosophers, following the logic of Atheism, say that all differences, such as gender and family hierarchy must be eliminated in the process...And so, an Atheist society will continue to struggle and struggle under the banner of equality until the world cannot tell a moral difference between two choices.

 

[Guest MormonGator]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

Arguing against organic evolution is a losing argument. The evidence is utterly overwhelming to any honest person who cares to look carefully. Your only defense is to say that "God said evolution is false." And if you could show that God really did say that, it would carry a lot of weight with me and other religious folks. But God never said any such thing.

@Vort, if you and I agree on this, I think I hear a trumpet of doomsday in the background. 

[Rob Osborn]

9 hours ago, Vort said:

Arguing against organic evolution is a losing argument. The evidence is utterly overwhelming to any honest person who cares to look carefully. Your only defense is to say that "God said evolution is false." And if you could show that God really did say that, it would carry a lot of weight with me and other religious folks. But God never said any such thing.

There is no overwhelming evidence. We have evidence of catastrophic flooding that quickly encapsulated a myriad of species and buried them randomingly all over the world in deep flood laid sedimentary layers all over the world. The great upthrusted layers now expose that catastrophy. It only points to evidence of a global flood catastrophy.

The present is being the key to the past as scientists like to argue is just not true. Nowhere on the planet do we see such great sedimentary depisits being laid encapsulating millions of species.

We have the testamony of the Bible of a global flood. We have the evidence of the rocks and fossils as a sure witness and testimony that the flood really happened.

[Anddenex]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

Arguing against organic evolution is a losing argument. The evidence is utterly overwhelming to any honest person who cares to look carefully. Your only defense is to say that "God said evolution is false." And if you could show that God really did say that, it would carry a lot of weight with me and other religious folks. But God never said any such thing.

Removing content for a knee jerk reaction and apologize to Vort publicly for anyone (including himself) if they read my previous response. Now removed from I can respond better:

1) I made no argument for or against "organic evolution"; although, people who have been on here long enough know that I support organic evolution on a micro level (within kinds), but not the macro.

2) The idea presented that "any honest" person would accept organic evolution (both scales) is short sighted. There are plenty of "honest" people who "look carefully" and still do not accept organic evolution. The implied sentiment of the second sentence is that if you don't support organic evolution you are "dishonest" or an "honest" person who hasn't looked carefully -- I disagree.

3) As I made no argument for or against organic evolution I therefore made no argument specifying "God said evolution is false." This is implying interpretation to something I did not say. My statement is factual. Fossils do not give evidence to organic evolution. Great questions do not give evidence to organic evolution. If you have something that refutes the statement provided that fossils are not evidence of evolution, please provide source. I have listened to prominent scientists who have publicly declared, "Fossils are not evidence of evolution, they are only evidence that a creature existed, not its parentage."

4) As pertaining to "God said so..." one needs to carefully consider their thoughts (beliefs) pertaining to how God speaks and reveals secrets. In 1909 we received a proclamation regarding "The Origin of Man" and that the human race (Adam) did not organically evolve from a lower species of animals. This proclamation has been republished in authorized Church materials and we are given restatements from others regarding the origin of man: 1) Liahona 1980 2) Ensign 2002 3) Joseph Fielding Smith 4) Joseph F Smith Media Library 2012 5) Chapter 37, Teaching of Joseph F. Smith.

So pertaining to "organic evolution" as a whole God has not said anything; however, as pertaining to the organic evolution of his offspring, it appears God has said plenty and the Church continues to reiterate this point to its members.

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Anddenex

[Guest Godless]

16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Whether he makes the connection or not, or what it is "about" wasn't his point.  His point was the hypocrisy of liberal atheists who say it's fine to vote for the sword of government to enforce ones own ideas, but it's wrong for a man to stand up and "say" religious things that you disagree with.

If you're not one who says it's wrong for someone to say things, that's great.  But when you vote for government to enforce your ideals at gun point, you're doing exactly that.  

If it's not about the nanny state, why do you vote for it and defend it in discussion after discussion?

Because given the choice between seeing someone sitting on a couch eating Cheetos and collecting welfare benefits and seeing the same person holding a cardboard sign on a street corner, I'll take the former all day every day. And I would hope that Christian compassion would direct similar attitudes, though it rarely seems that way. Now, option 1 certainly is far from ideal. The answer to government's role in addressing poverty is not a simple one, and I don't believe that either side of of the political spectrum has quite come up with a good solution. But I believe the Left is closer to being on the right track.

Ever since governments started to exist, they have operated on tax revenue, some more tyrannically than others. The great thing about our government is that we have checks and balances in place to prevent tyranny and totalitarianism. 100% of the population will never agree with taxation or the use of tax dollars. That doesn't make taxation or its uses totalitarian. Heck, I don't like paying taxes. I do, however, enjoy having things like a well-funded military, public education, and government assistance for the poor (something I've had to take advantage of in the past, while working full-time). 

Quote

If it's about social issues, I'd ask which is worse, to sue people and put them out of business, to put them in jail, and even physically brutalize them for disagreeing (which is exactly what the left has done time and time again) or to simply "marginalize" (your word) those considered different?  When you put someone in jail, they have no more options.  When you marginalize someone, they still have options.  Which is more of a liberty mindset?

In order to understand this, you have to view the same-sex issue the way liberals do. If a baker refused service to an interracial couple on moral grounds, how would your outrage level compare to that of the baker who refused service to a same-sex couple on the same grounds? Please understand that from our viewpoint, there is literally no ethical difference. BTW, discrimination against interracial couples used to be 100% legal in some states. When that changed, I'm sure there was outrage a-plenty towards the unjust government forcing its moral values on people. 

That being said, I want to go on record and say that I absolutely abhor violence, threats of violence, baseless threats of imprisonment, and any other form of hateful retribution towards a perceived bigot. If anti-discrimination laws were broken, then a day in court is deserved. There is no need for "street justice".

Quote

What's evil is when you use the arm of government in such a way that it allows you to enforce your will on someone to the point that they have no way out but to go against their own conscience to serve your wants.  And the left does that FAR MORE than the right ever does.  You can cry about social issues all you want.  But it is an absolute fact that the left is where the abundance of frivolous lawsuits come from because someone's feelings were hurt or because we refused to call a man a woman or a woman a man just because they claimed it.  People have been put out of business.  

See above. I'm not going to deny that frivolous lawsuits are a problem in this country. But again, as social attitudes change, sometimes it's necessary for government to intervene in the face of discrimination and intolerance. The extent to which government should get involved is a debate that I don't think is entirely relevant to this discussion, mainly because the most vocal opinions on the left are ones that I don't completely share. Interestingly, I don't think this is the first time that we've had discussion of a radical minority defining an entire political body.

Quote

But the worst you can say about the religious is that they wanted some measures to keep people from having more abortions.  

Like easier access to birth control, maybe? Oh wait... 

Quote

Do you not see the parallels to bowing down to the altar of planned parenthood and paying them to perform human sacrifice?  And when the mother can't afford to they take money from government who in turn took that money from others who would not support it of their own free will?

That hasn't been legal since the 1970s (Google the Hyde Amendment). The only exception is that some states allow Medicaid funds to be used on abortions in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity, all circumstances under which the LDS Church views abortion as acceptable. But as of right now, no direct federal funds are used to fund abortions under any circumstances. That's why liberals are so up in arms about Congress trying to defund PP. They're literally voting to defund everything PP does that is not abortion-related, because abortion is already not funded by the government. 

 

Edited January 12, 2017 by Godless

[Guest Godless]

13 hours ago, Bad Karma said:

The captions in bold and or underlined are things that either make you an interesting person or perhaps more of a person of interest. I understand that of your comments, one could call you the garden variety Atheist, but that said, why would you want to hang out with a bunch of Mormons? Especially since 2008, I mean that's commitment. I am truly puzzled. 

I distrust all religions equally, the LDS Church included, but LDS people are generally some pretty cool cats. I hang out here because I enjoy the discourse. I used to frequent other religious sites for the same reason, but found it difficult to keep up with the inconsistencies of Christian dogma (If you think Mormon arguments over doctrine are bad, trying watching an Episcopal and a Pentecostal go at it). Also, I was mostly trying to debate Young Earth Creationists at those sites, but quickly learned that doing so is the very definition of futility. I was born and raised LDS, so I was pleased to find a website that deals in matters of doctrine with which I'm a bit more familiar.  

Most of all though, I firmly believe in the importance of constantly challenging your worldview. Belief systems that are left in protective bubbles often become stagnant. It is for this reason that I am not a member of any of the aforementioned atheist online groups (literally zero). I don't want an echo chamber, I want intellectual stimulation. 

Interestingly enough, I ran into this little tidbit from @Traveler recently while taking a nostalgic tour through this site's deep, dark underbelly. 

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/16033-are-we-missing-the-simplicity-of-the-gospel/?do=findComment&comment=307586

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

20 minutes ago, Godless said:

Most of all though, I firmly believe in the importance of constantly challenging your worldview. Belief systems that are left in protective bubbles often become stagnant.

I like this.  To be honest, I don't see challenges to my worldview, but I don't avoid them either.  

I'm glad you are here on the forum, because I think it is interesting to hear other points of view.  One of my closest friends was Jewish, then LDS, and now Atheist.  We have some great conversations.  

[Guest MormonGator]

28 minutes ago, Godless said:

\Most of all though, I firmly believe in the importance of constantly challenging your worldview. Belief systems that are left in protective bubbles often become stagnant. It is for this reason that I am not a member of any of the aforementioned atheist online groups (literally zero). I don't want an echo chamber

 

Absolutely true. Totally agree my friend. 

 

[Guest Godless]

8 hours ago, Windseeker said:

You are correct, that it has more to do with moral/social values. But the atheists’ highest value of radical equality, where it's not about equal opportunity but equal outcome, can only be brought about and enforced by a totalitarian government which is why they align with liberalism/socialism/Democrats. 

 

Equal outcome is a delusion perpetrated by radical leftists, and in turn eaten up by those on the right. Equal opportunity truly is the more common goal. That's where government programs can have a great deal of potential if utilized properly. It also makes a strong case for a living wage. And this is one area where we can make a significant dent in the welfare argument, but conservatives won't have it. They refuse to raise wages, but they also don't want their tax dollars to financially support working families who can't make ends meet, all the while somehow failing to see that enacting the former can greatly reduce the need for the latter. We see this same inconsistency in the women's health debate. You want fewer elective abortions? Make birth control and contraceptives more accessible. It's really that simple. 

[Anddenex]

47 minutes ago, Godless said:

You want fewer elective abortions? Make birth control and contraceptives more accessible. It's really that simple. 

Contraceptives are accessible, never had any problems with abortion nor contraceptives. Abortions have very little to do with contraceptives and forms of birth control.  It is really that simple. It is called being responsible. Since people choose not to be responsible (character development) they blame things rather than themselves.

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, Godless said:

Equal outcome is a delusion perpetrated by radical leftists, and in turn eaten up by those on the right. Equal opportunity truly is the more common goal. That's where government programs can have a great deal of potential if utilized properly. It also makes a strong case for a living wage. And this is one area where we can make a significant dent in the welfare argument, but conservatives won't have it. They refuse to raise wages, but they also don't want their tax dollars to financially support working families who can't make ends meet, all the while somehow failing to see that enacting the former can greatly reduce the need for the latter. We see this same inconsistency in the women's health debate. You want fewer elective abortions? Make birth control and contraceptives more accessible. It's really that simple. 

Greetings @Godless and welcome to the New Year.  I like to lean on you because I find your thinking attitude interesting.   Part of the problem with the equal idea is that different segments define equal very differently.  For example some believe equal means that those that sacrifice more and work harder deserve an equal share greater than the lazy bum that does nothing and often deliberately sabotages other’s excess from success.  They believe equal means the same pay for the same work or effort.  Others believe equal means everybody gets the exact same regardless of effort or position.  Some think that the burden of compromise lies with those that live by the higher standards or abilities – but that would force compromise to the lowest common denominator – which in reality is not a compromise for those that hold to the lowest common denominator as their highest standard but is a sacrifice for everyone else.

Part of the problem of the poor is that there are many different reasons some one individual is poor.  I have concluded that there are at least 5 major classifications or reasons for poverty with the possibility that more than one major classification can be present with an individual.  But the problem is that each classification requires a very different solution – those with more than one problem or classification will require more than one resolution.  What we have learned is that money is not really a solution for any category – beyond something temporary and unsustainable.  The old feed a person and you will solve their hunger for a day.  I like the saying that if you build someone a fire you can warm them for a moment but if you light them on fire you will warm them for the rest of their life. 

I am a proponent of the negative income tax.  This would replace the minimum pay, welfare entitlements, food stamps and even social security or any other government subsidy. It would solve the finance side of the problem.   But even that does not and will not solve poverty.  But it would be a giant step from the failed systems employed by our (and other) government.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, Godless said:

I distrust all religions equally, the LDS Church included, but LDS people are generally some pretty cool cats. I hang out here because I enjoy the discourse. I used to frequent other religious sites for the same reason, but found it difficult to keep up with the inconsistencies of Christian dogma (If you think Mormon arguments over doctrine are bad, trying watching an Episcopal and a Pentecostal go at it). Also, I was mostly trying to debate Young Earth Creationists at those sites, but quickly learned that doing so is the very definition of futility. I was born and raised LDS, so I was pleased to find a website that deals in matters of doctrine with which I'm a bit more familiar.  

Most of all though, I firmly believe in the importance of constantly challenging your worldview. Belief systems that are left in protective bubbles often become stagnant. It is for this reason that I am not a member of any of the aforementioned atheist online groups (literally zero). I don't want an echo chamber, I want intellectual stimulation. 

Interestingly enough, I ran into this little tidbit from @Traveler recently while taking a nostalgic tour through this site's deep, dark underbelly. 

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/16033-are-we-missing-the-simplicity-of-the-gospel/?do=findComment&comment=307586

 

 

When you say you distrust all religions equally some understand that you distrust institutions of religion equally and some would think you distrust all involved with religion the same.  I, myself, find the concept of trusting or distrusting all categories or anything to be a poor approach to just about anything unless someone is just trying to make an excuse for not paying attention. 

One thing I have learned in life is that very few, if anything can be thought of having equal value or the same equal detriment.  One of the greatest skills needed in life is the skill of realizing what has what value.  Let me put this another way.  To the person that thinks of themselves as a hammer – everything will look like a nail – which is what I understand as something equal.  But the simple truth is that only nails are nails and everything else is not a nail.

I like to think all religions have benefit and problems.  And I am willing to accept the idea that this applies to governments and businesses as well – any human institution.  But I would never pretend that the benefits and problems are equal – I honestly believe you need to rationally rethink your position.  I would attempt to ask a bunch of question in hope that you would come to this conclusion on your own but rather than invest in that manner – I will try something different.  Hopefully, this will save a lot of posts back and forth.

BTW - very interesting tidbit

 

The Traveler

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Greetings @Godless and welcome to the New Year.  I like to lean on you because I find your thinking attitude interesting.   Part of the problem with the equal idea is that different segments define equal very differently.  For example some believe equal means that those that sacrifice more and work harder deserve an equal share greater than the lazy bum that does nothing and often deliberately sabotages other’s excess from success.  They believe equal means the same pay for the same work or effort.  Others believe equal means everybody gets the exact same regardless of effort or position.  Some think that the burden of compromise lies with those that live by the higher standards or abilities – but that would force compromise to the lowest common denominator – which in reality is not a compromise for those that hold to the lowest common denominator as their highest standard but is a sacrifice for everyone else.

Yes, definitions tend to be very inconsistent when we're talking about equal opportunity/outcome, and there are inconsistencies on both sides of the debate. On the left, you have views ranging from full-on economic equality (Robin Hood-style) to the more moderate views of enabling those in need to take the necessary steps towards self-reliance (and helping them put food on the table in the meantime). On the right, you have views fairly close to the "enabling" approach I just mentioned, and then you have people who want to gut our social assistance programs rather than constructively reform them. I think there's a middle ground that can be agreeable to both sides so long as they're willing to set aside unhelpful rhetoric like "fat cats", "leeches", "1%ers", and "bums". I'll confess that I slip up from time to time, but I try my best to approach the issue as objectively as possible. As someone who has never been unemployed but has had to rely on government assistance in the past, that's admittedly hard to do sometimes.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

Part of the problem of the poor is that there are many different reasons some one individual is poor.  I have concluded that there are at least 5 major classifications or reasons for poverty with the possibility that more than one major classification can be present with an individual.  But the problem is that each classification requires a very different solution – those with more than one problem or classification will require more than one resolution.  What we have learned is that money is not really a solution for any category – beyond something temporary and unsustainable.  The old feed a person and you will solve their hunger for a day.  I like the saying that if you build someone a fire you can warm them for a moment but if you light them on fire you will warm them for the rest of their life. 

I am a proponent of the negative income tax.  This would replace the minimum pay, welfare entitlements, food stamps and even social security or any other government subsidy. It would solve the finance side of the problem.   But even that does not and will not solve poverty.  But it would be a giant step from the failed systems employed by our (and other) government.

 

The Traveler

I think you and I may be close to being on the same page on this issue.

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

When you say you distrust all religions equally some understand that you distrust institutions of religion equally and some would think you distrust all involved with religion the same.  I, myself, find the concept of trusting or distrusting all categories or anything to be a poor approach to just about anything unless someone is just trying to make an excuse for not paying attention. 

One thing I have learned in life is that very few, if anything can be thought of having equal value or the same equal detriment.  One of the greatest skills needed in life is the skill of realizing what has what value.  Let me put this another way.  To the person that thinks of themselves as a hammer – everything will look like a nail – which is what I understand as something equal.  But the simple truth is that only nails are nails and everything else is not a nail.

I like to think all religions have benefit and problems.  And I am willing to accept the idea that this applies to governments and businesses as well – any human institution.  But I would never pretend that the benefits and problems are equal – I honestly believe you need to rationally rethink your position.  I would attempt to ask a bunch of question in hope that you would come to this conclusion on your own but rather than invest in that manner – I will try something different.  Hopefully, this will save a lot of posts back and forth.

BTW - very interesting tidbit

 

The Traveler

You're not wrong. For example, it could be argued that Judaism, Islam, and Catholicism are historically responsible for far more bloodshed than Mormonism or Hinduism. In that sense, the latter two are probably more deserving of my trust and respect. When I say that I distrust all religions equally, what I'm referring to is the intangible belief systems that they espouse, all different in detail but equal in lack of plausibility from where I sit. The institutions themselves all have their pluses and minuses, but they are all centered on belief systems that I outright reject. Given that the core of those belief systems, whatever other differences there may be, always depend on the existence of an intangible higher power/being, I don't think it's too unreasonable to have a blanket skepticism for such beliefs.

[wenglund]

On 1/11/2017 at 3:45 PM, Godless said:

No, I understood perfectly what you meant. And my response reflected that.

A self-hating atheist? That's a new one. I've seen the first video before. Dude says a lot about "the State" and the evils of it, makes a claim that atheists are slaves to this evil State, but fails to make a connection in a religious sense (even figuratively so). One of the big problems with his approach is that he fails to identify why atheists tend towards leftism, which in reality has a lot less to do with big government and nearly everything to do with secular social values. The moral/social values of liberalism/socialism/Democrats align far more closely to atheism than conservatism/Republicans. The latter is responsible for policies that suppress womens' health programs, marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sense, and promote religious teachings in the science classroom. If you want to know why we lean left, there it is. It's not about creating a nanny state in which people suck helplessly at the teet of big government (though the assumption that government assistance programs are evil by default is ludicrous). And it's certainly not about running around with guns to ensure compliance (seriously, has this guy ever even met a liberal?). 

I want to go back and focus on the section in bold for a minute. The issues I brought up in that statement are all issues that, at one time or another, have been left in the hands of big daddy government. And it wasn't liberals who were responsible for that. Conservatives want a smaller government, but they just can't help sticking their noses (via their "small" government) where they don't belong, like the the bedroom, the classroom, and womens' bodies. Hypocritical much?

Ultimately, you're going to find passionate people wherever you go on the political spectrum, and it has nothing to do with relgion (figuratively or literally). Conservative Christians are often just as politically outspoken as godless liberals (or, you know, the millions of liberals who are theists). If you're going to say that issues of government and politics are a (figuratively) religious concern for atheists, I think a strong case could me made for religious conservatives as well. Heck, I think some conservatives are more devoted to their political views than they are to their religious values. If this weren't the case, I think social issues would be far less contentious in this country.

I didn't watch the second video, only skipped around a bit. That dude is hard enough to follow without the tiresome radio show format. One thing I caught that I want to address real quick though was his claim that liberals (implying atheists) are hypocrites when it comes to religion, that we embrace Islam and vilify Christianity. While there is some truth to that, I want to make it clear that we don't so much embrace Islam as we do Muslims. And yes, that is a very important distinction. To reverse a common catchphrase, "Hate the game, not the player." If you browse through atheist discussion boards or Facebook groups, I think you'll find plenty of vilification towards Islam as a religion. One of the more popular images in those circles is a picture of the Twin Towers with a caption that reads "Imagine No Religion". I find that Christian liberals are typically more embracing of religions in addition to the people who follow them (religious equivalent of white guilt, I suppose), whereas atheists will demonize religions while (usually) being careful to not extend their spite towards the religious people, especially the majority who practice their faith peacefully. 

In the voice of Yoda I say: "The Leftist propagandized indoctrination runs deep in this one." Where to start? Perhaps the bolded sentence is as good a place as any.

Quote

The latter is responsible for policies that suppress womens' health programs,

If I read you correctly, this is Leftist-speak for Conservatives not  wishing to pay women to kill their unborn babies or otherwise their wishing to protect the welfare of the unborn baby's body. From what you seem to suggest, Atheists tend to lean Left, in part, because, while they say they want to keep the government out of the bedroom, they want the government (i.e. tax payers) to reach deep within the women's body by paying to fix in the womb the results of what happens in the bedroom. Is that correct? If so, it appears Atheists prefer the deepest form of intrusion by big government--not just deep within the women's body, but to the very life center of the unborn baby..

Thanks, Wade Englund

Edited January 13, 2017 by wenglund

[Guest Godless]

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

In the voice of Yoda I say: "The Leftist propagandized indoctrination runs deep in this one."

Ironically, I'd imagine that many of the more outspoken leftists would probably be disappointed by the extent of my liberalism (or lack thereof by their standards).

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

If I read you correctly, this is Leftist-speak for Conservatives not  wishing to pay women to kill their unborn babies or otherwise their wishing to protect the welfare of the unborn baby's body. From what you seem to suggest, Atheists tend to lean Left, in part, because, while they say they want to keep the government out of the bedroom, they want the government (i.e. tax payers) to reach deep within the women's body by paying to fix in the womb the results of what happens in the bedroom. Is that correct? If so, it appears you prefer the deepest form of intrusion by big government.

Thanks, Wade Englund

No, you didn't read that correctly, and apparently you didn't read this either:

On 1/12/2017 at 2:26 PM, Godless said:

[Taxpayer-funded abortion] hasn't been legal since the 1970s (Google the Hyde Amendment). The only exception is that some states allow Medicaid funds to be used on abortions in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity, all circumstances under which the LDS Church views abortion as acceptable. But as of right now, no direct federal funds are used to fund abortions under any circumstances. That's why liberals are so up in arms about Congress trying to defund PP. They're literally voting to defund everything PP does that is not abortion-related, because abortion is already not funded by the government. 

 

 

[Bad Karma]

5 hours ago, Godless said:

On 1/12/2017 at 0:26 PM, Godless said:

[Taxpayer-funded abortion] hasn't been legal since the 1970s (Google the Hyde Amendment). The only exception is that some states allow Medicaid funds to be used on abortions in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity, all circumstances under which the LDS Church views abortion as acceptable. But as of right now, no direct federal funds are used to fund abortions under any circumstances. That's why liberals are so up in arms about Congress trying to defund PP. They're literally voting to defund everything PP does that is not abortion-related, because abortion is already not funded by the government. 

Not true,

 

Planned Parenthood in California accepts MEDI-CAL for elective abortions, which is medicaid. 

source: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/california/alhambra/91801/alhambra-health-center-3561-90090/abortion

Interestingly enough, a simple inquiry produced the answer that Medi-cal pays for an adult to have one there as well.  Hmm, I'm wondering where this FREE CLINIC gets all it's FREE FUNDS from Medi-Cal (Fed to state subsidy)

 

Just sayin'. 

[Guest Godless]

10 hours ago, Bad Karma said:

Not true,

 

Planned Parenthood in California accepts MEDI-CAL for elective abortions, which is medicaid. 

source: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-center/california/alhambra/91801/alhambra-health-center-3561-90090/abortion

Interestingly enough, a simple inquiry produced the answer that Medi-cal pays for an adult to have one there as well.  Hmm, I'm wondering where this FREE CLINIC gets all it's FREE FUNDS from Medi-Cal (Fed to state subsidy)

 

Just sayin'. 

Not all Medicaid funds come from the federal government, and the Hyde Amendment sets no restrictions on state funds used for abortions [Source]. That's a state issue, not a federal one. So my statement about the damage of the federal government trying to defund PP still stands.

[Bad Karma]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

Not all Medicaid funds come from the federal government, and the Hyde Amendment sets no restrictions on state funds used for abortions [Source]. That's a state issue, not a federal one. So my statement about the damage of the federal government trying to defund PP still stands.

Not really, it's not magic money that manifests itself out of thin air. Where do you suppose the state gets it's medicaid funds from? Your argument is not without merit, still, medicaid is a federally funded program never the less. 

On a more moral note, and as previously discussed, absent incidents of rape/incest/medical necessity, PP exists to cater to failure to keep one's pants on in a moral-less climate that shouts if it feels good, do it! Sadly, yet with much humor in society, making father's day a very mysterious holiday for all too many. Welcome to the Jerry Springer era (And the clone talk shows that duplicate it). and all the fun and games associated with human tragedy. It's a "Step on up to the sexual buffeet, America" mindset, but then why should the Fed pay for individual poor choices? Why should the STATE pay for individual poor choices? 

You have provided interesting argument with the bottom effect, how would YOU solve the problem if you were king for but one day? I for one can't answer that, anymore than my favorite football team listens to the plays I shout out to the television. (They never listen)

[Blackmarch]

On July 10, 2016 at 6:57 PM, carlimac said:

When we as believers have problems in our lives we almost immediately turn to prayer and ask for help from our Heavenly Father. We also believe that Jesus can soothe our souls and help us resolve our issues through His atonement.  And when our issues are solved, hopefully we then thank our heavenly Father for His help. 

So I assume that atheists don't turn to God with their problems. But I also assume that they don't often just hang onto their hardships their whole lives, either. Unemployment comes to an end, Relationships have their downs but their ups, too. Illnesses are cured and sticky problems in life are done away with for them, perhaps at about the same rate as for believers.

So do you think that it's the influence of God that is helping them, despite their rejection of Him? Or is it simply mind over matter or that they develop other ways of coping mentally and emotionally with their issues?

If we attribute all our blessings to deity, how do we account for successes (blessings) for those who don't believe?  They obviously don't ask for those blessings...from God anyway. 

Can anyone find scriptures to help with this question?

They live. Let us not forget that all those who are born here strove to some degree or another with God in the previous life. Thats got to count for something... That and we are all his family.( how would you treat one of your own children if they totally rejected you?) 

there blessings we get, just for being us, there are blessings that all you have to do is ask for, and then there are blessings for which you really, really have to sacrifice for first before you get them.

[wenglund]

On 1/13/2017 at 2:33 PM, Godless said:

I[Taxpayer-funded abortion] hasn't been legal since the 1970s (Google the Hyde Amendment). The only exception is that some states allow Medicaid funds to be used on abortions in cases of rape, incest, or medical necessity, all circumstances under which the LDS Church views abortion as acceptable. But as of right now, no direct federal funds are used to fund abortions under any circumstances. That's why liberals are so up in arms about Congress trying to defund PP. They're literally voting to defund everything PP does that is not abortion-related, because abortion is already not funded by the government. 

I am familiar with the Hyde Amendment. I am also aware how the Left has feverishly attempted to find ways around it--not the least of which is via Obamacare (http://www.obamacareabortion.com/), and things like Medi-Cal, as Bad Karma pointed out. Another way around it is to fund organizations that provide other medical services besides abortion (like Planned Parenthood), under the guise of only funding the non-abortion services, as if that ultimately makes any difference.

But, this is heading us a bit into the weeds. My main point is, whether intended or not, most atheists have supplanted worship of God with worship of the state. As Stefan points out, the latter is potentially far more imposing on opposing views. Religions can't force atheists to attend church against their will, but atheists can force Christians to bake cakes against their will. 

A secondary point is how the liberals, after realizing they haven't a rational leg to stand on, are left to play emotionally-charged word games, with the hope of creating the illusion of moral superiority and virtue, whereas in reality it is just the opposite. The misleading way in which the abortion debate was framed (as women's health issues) is just one case in point.

Another is the claim that atheists lean Left because conservatives, "marginalize anyone who doesn't identify as a heterosexual in the traditional sens"--they push government "into the bedroom." This is leftist-speak for the Right being against using the government to corrupt longstanding social morays as well as the fundamental institution of society, with the end goal of forced legitimacy and  promotion of sodomy. Far from keeping the government out of the bedroom, liberals call for the state seal of approval on what happens in homosexual beds. It also calls for government benefits for what happens in the homosexual beds. Does it get much more intrusive than that? And, this is not all. it requires the government force people who believe differently to  celebrate the state seal of approval on what happens in the homosexual bed.

In both cases (abortion and same-sex marriage) do you see how the Left offers up the seeming lofty illusions of looking out for certain minorities and preventing government intrusion into private lives, while doing just the opposite?

Do you see how the Left pretends to the virtue of protecting homosexual rights, while in reality disgustingly making gays indentured servants of the state and shredding the moral and institutional fabric of society? The gays, like blacks and women before them, are being used as pawns to further ingratiate and empower the political elite.

In other words, If atheists have been leaning Left for the reasons you suggest, they may wish to cut through all the linguistic smoke and mirrors (propaganda), pull back to see what is really behind the political curtain, and realize that they are getting the opposite from that which they presumed to pay. Just saying.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Edited January 15, 2017 by wenglund
Spelling.

[Vort]

By the way, in response to the OP and the title of this thread: God loves all his children. He certainly does not abandon his child just because that child ceases to follow him or even believe in his existence, any more than we would disown our own children for such conduct. But I believe that whether God is "in the lives" of his children is primarily a function of those children. Insofar as he can be, God is "in the lives" of his children, be they atheists, homosexuals, Democrats, hypocrites, or people who fail to do their home teaching.

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

 any more than we would disown our own children for such conduct.

For the record everyone @Vort is really my dad. He's disowned me more times than I can count!