[Squeek]

Originally Posted by funmonkey54

Well, I am Christian, but I will come at this point from an outside perspective.

Personally, I believe that religions as a whole state that there is a definite right or wrong. The idea of a definite right or wrong means that not everything people do is ok. Which is against our nature. We want to be ok with what we are and everything we do and not be judged in any way, shape or form. The idea that something would judge us out of our control is unappealing to say the least.

So, obviously, the most simple way of avoiding this within our own minds is to completely deny its existence. Ideas such as "seeing is believing" and such make that easy in our minds to simply say nothing exists because we have not personally seen it. Although, there is hypocrisy in that seeing as how we believe in many things we are just told and have not yet seen. (Such as nearly everyone believes that there is a Taj Mahal and yet very few of us have actually seen it) But, at the same time, there is arguable hypocrisy within and standpoint we take. So, the easiest way out is to not take a stand and just ignore the existence of all of it.

No offense, but this is a horrible argument.

The expression you are using is completely misused. "You have to see it to believe it" is used when something goes against our natural beliefs. I don't deny that there's a palace in India. That's not hard to believe. There are lots of palaces in India. There are lots of palaces around the world. Why would it be difficult for me to believe it? Telling me that there's a being in the sky that governs what we do? That's difficult for me to believe.

To touch on what you were trying to argue, the reason I know the Taj Mahal exists is because we have multiple recorded sources of its existence. Its existence is a known fact. The only sources we have of any kind of "God" is based on unproven writings from thousands of years ago. None of these people saw this "God" fellow. They 'heard' him. Well, lots of people hear voices in their heads. They're called 'insane'. Why do you treat these people with much higher regard than the average schizo?

And to the OP, the last three posts are touching on why there's hostility toward Christians. Faith-based measures impede on society. You believe what you want to believe, but when push comes to shove, you stay out of our business. That's the deal we struck when we started this country, because we knew involving religion into government was a slippery slope.