Very Disturbing Christian Website

[Stealth Hunter]

This is an example... and it's just the KID section!

http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/

Listen to this:


If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood,
TELL A PARENT OR PASTOR RIGHT AWAY!

You may be moved to try and witness to
these poor lost souls yourself, however
AVOID TALKING TO THEM!

Atheists are often very grumpy and bitter and will lash out at children or they may even try to trick you into neglecting God's Word.

Very advanced witnessing techniques are needed for these grouches. Let the adults handle them.


Also, the kid section states that the world is less than 10,000 years old and dinosaurs still walk the earth.:o

Damn... no wonder kids are becoming so fruity today.:nope: You know the United States ranks 18th in scientific research? I'm ashamed of how separation of church and state no longer means anything. We're slowly lagging behind due to religious morality. Creepy stuff.

[XabbaRus]

Crazy, condenscending git. I see the bit about jews are imperfect pre-christians. Ah don't you love the net, anyone can write what they want.

[antikristuseke]

Free speech comes with its own share of twats id like to shut up, but whose right to speak i respect.
Im not going to make the grand gesture saying that i would defend their right to speak to my dieing breath, because in all honesty, I probably wouldnt. But i will make no effort to stop them speaking.

Edit: i might revise my statement when i get some sleep and sober up, have watched Blade Runner directors cut, Chopper, Monty Pythons Holy Grail, dawn of the Dead and Evil Aliens in a row while puting a pint of whisky and 4 pints of beer behind my breath.

[antikristuseke]

heh, they would be real scared if they took Estonia under their scope, hrere the vast mojority are aheists, though most claim to belive in some spiritual forces.

[Letum]

Calm down guys!

This is a parody site.
However, it is very, very hard to tell. They never write articles that have not been
written on genuine sites first and often link to genuine sites.

Supremely subtle. They got you chaps hook and line huh? ;)

*edit* for the proofs, look at the childrens art section.

http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/art/kidzart-jesusshineshislove.png
(am I allwoed to post that one ^ ?)
http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/art/kidzart-smotingjesus.jpg
http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/art/kidzart-jesusanddalton.png
http://objectiveministries.org/kidz/art/kidzart-tommy_holy_spirt_fill.png

[antikristuseke]

As i said previously, i'll have to check back when im less inebriated, detecting subtelyt is not muy strong site right now.

[Letum]

I like these guys better than Landover.

[nikimcbee]

As i said previously, i'll have to check back when im less inebriated, detecting subtelyt is not muy strong site right now.

typing drunk is sdfgoihrghiofgdnijofgdijofgdijofgdhuiorgehio;dfbnd sfghoiiiodfgijo;hufgdyt4ty89huirge:oops: fghjhuhni (fun)

[antikristuseke]

my typing cant be that abd, the years of practice iv had at typing drunk cant have all gone to wastre

[3Jane]

The real ones are just as bizarre, the right wing politicals as well.

[Biggles]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:

[Tchocky]

Edit: i might revise my statement when i get some sleep and sober up, have watched Blade Runner directors cut, Chopper, Monty Pythons Holy Grail, dawn of the Dead and Evil Aliens in a row while puting a pint of whisky and 4 pints of beer behind my breath.

:lol::lol::lol:

Legend

[Dowly]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:

:o Best... site... ever...


:p

[nikimcbee]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:

:o Best... site... ever...


:p

So who does god love then: Finland or Norway?

[Dowly]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:
:o Best... site... ever...


:p
So who does god love then: Finland or Norway?

I have no idea and nor do I care. I dont believe in god. ;)

[Trex]

Interesting that people focus in on right-wing whacko's, be it political or religious. Which is not to defend such nutbars, but there are some very strange people on both sides of the spectrum. I just cannot understand why only half of them are routinely targetted.
\
We are not alone - there are strangers on this planet!

[Respenus]

OK, now I'm scared. It's not that I have anything against christians, quite the contrary, I believe that some basic morals that we consider Christian should be more wide spread, yet this site gave me the creeps. There's religion and there's fanatism. For the love of ... fosils are not something God put in the Earth as a hoax or something. And guess how many christians drink coffee?

I don't mind religion, yet forcing obvious lies upon children is too much. They should decide what they believe in. Making them flunk school because they are fed such things is just... :damn: The thing is, you can't fight them. So you look the other way.

About the last photo posted here, yes, it does need an after cigarette, even though I'm against smoking.

[Biggles]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:
:o Best... site... ever...


:p
So who does god love then: Finland or Norway?

I have no idea and nor do I care. I dont believe in god. ;)

I don't believe in God either, but that doesn't make me feel better at all. These people hate me, not because my political views, religion, sexual thoughts etc. They hate me because I happened to be born in Sweden (which is a lovely country, I can assure you that).

About 500 swedes died in the Tsunami of 2004. They praised God and said it was our punishment for treating homosexuals like humans. What the F*CK is that suppose to mean anyway? These tiny-brained wipers of other peoples bottoms can just......

You know what, I'm too tired...

[Skybird]

Interesting that people focus in on right-wing whacko's, be it political or religious. Which is not to defend such nutbars, but there are some very strange people on both sides of the spectrum. I just cannot understand why only half of them are routinely targetted.

Because most of the time it is in combination with the US, and due to the enormous influence the US projects worldwide, US personnells and structures are under closer observation than for example innerpolitical issues in Germany. Because more people worldwide are affected by innerpolitical issues in America, than they are affected by those in Germany. Note that over the past couple of months I occasionally linked to essays on Germany, but these found little or even no interest, where as essays on US issues or cultural confrontations triggered much ore attention in general, followed by those on British PC issues. And fact is that the Christian right and conservative and centre politicians dominate the US stage, whereas a truly left or atheist political alternatives are unlikely to become a factor in washington, or the US economy, soon. Much of what for American conservatives is "left", outside the US still is considered as "centre" and "moderate", sometimes even "moderate conservative". US politics in this rehgard appear to me as being extremely polarized, maybe that is a blowback from having only a two-party system. Many arch-conservatives yell "Communism!" and "Beware socialsim!" at every opportunity to discredit everything that is not as conservative than they are themselves, but most often - especially in this forum - these characterizations are pointless and just indicate that the person speaking does not know what communism really is, and what differs "social" from "socialism". It'S black-white-thinking.

[mrbeast]

Interesting that people focus in on right-wing whacko's, be it political or religious. Which is not to defend such nutbars, but there are some very strange people on both sides of the spectrum. I just cannot understand why only half of them are routinely targetted.

Because most of the time it is in combination with the US, and due to the enormous influence the US projects worldwide, US personnells and structures are under closer observation than for example innerpolitical issues in Germany. Because more people worldwide are affected by innerpolitical issues in America, than they are affected by those in Germany. Note that over the past couple of months I occasionally linked to essays on Germany, but these found little or even no interest, where as essays on US issues or cultural confrontations triggered much ore attention in general, followed by those on British PC issues. And fact is that the Christian right and conservative and centre politicians dominate the US stage, whereas a truly left or atheist political alternatives are unlikely to become a factor in washington, or the US economy, soon. Much of what for American conservatives is "left", outside the US still is considered as "centre" and "moderate", sometimes even "moderate conservative". US politics in this rehgard appear to me as being extremely polarized, maybe that is a blowback from having only a two-party system. Many arch-conservatives yell "Communism!" and "Beware socialsim!" at every opportunity to discredit everything that is not as conservative than they are themselves, but most often - especially in this forum - these characterizations are pointless and just indicate that the person speaking does not know what communism really is, and what differs "social" from "socialism". It'S black-white-thinking.

Think you hit the nail right on the head there Skybird.:up:

I always find it bemusing when US posters on here for example call Hillary Clinton a comunist! :roll: :hmm: :confused:

[Skybird]

OK, now I'm scared. It's not that I have anything against christians, quite the contrary, I believe that some basic morals that we consider Christian should be more wide spread, yet this site gave me the creeps. There's religion and there's fanatism. For the love of ... fosils are not something God put in the Earth as a hoax or something. And guess how many christians drink coffee?

I don't mind religion, yet forcing obvious lies upon children is too much. They should decide what they believe in. Making them flunk school because they are fed such things is just... :damn: The thing is, you can't fight them. So you look the other way.

A reasonable mind should be able to agree on the following, no matter if considering him-/herself a member of any religion, an atheist, or whatever. It comes to my mind because by chance I have watched again Kingdom of Heaven a very short while ago, and did so with a friend, and there is a scene where one knight says this:

"I put no stock in religion. I've seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called "the will of God". I've seen too much religion in the eyes of too many murderers. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. And goodness - what God desires - is here (points to the head) and here (points to the heart). By what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man... or not (smiles)."

As we all know, in Texas just another Mormon sect had been dugged out. The ammount of sexual abuse seems to have been enormous, they now conduct genetical testings on the dozens of girls they found, as seems to be with the ammount of psychological damage and traumata done to many of the women. Another pervert has abused the will of people to believe in something so that they do not need to think and be responsible themnselves, and he did so in order to put his own desires at the centre of their yearning and acting, that way to feed his selfish drives and declare the evil he did by that as "holy". This is the very nature and essence of all religion once it got institutionalised. And that is why I hate and disgust institutionalised "religion" so uncompromisingly, and make mockery of it at every opportunity. Mormon girls and women are edcuated to look and behave cute and sweet and young as long as possible, whereas man can only find their way into heaven if they have at least three wives. That this fits together like lock and key hardly is by random chance. nor is it random chance that so many religious sects that often find a most dramatic or even lethal ending, so moften showed massive forms of systematic sexual abuse of even young girls. To hell with all these sick bastards preaching infantile garbage. Show me a person being proud of his religion, and I show you a dumb and rotten mind.

[Trex]

About 500 swedes died in the Tsunami of 2004. They praised God and said it was our punishment for treating homosexuals like humans. What the F*CK is that suppose to mean anyway?

Don't take it personally (or nationally). This sort of creature stages demonstrations at the funerals of returning US servicemen, saying it's good they died because the US is too kind to homosexuals. I am a Christian and have nothing in common with people like that. They are small-minded, hate-filled bigots who can only make themselves feel big by making somebody else feel small.

Sorry for 2004.

[nikimcbee]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:
:o Best... site... ever...


:p
So who does god love then: Finland or Norway?

I have no idea and nor do I care. I dont believe in god. ;)
:roll: Those poor norwiegans. Atleast Finland has Teemu Selane, I guess he'll do.:|\\

[Dowly]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:
:o Best... site... ever...


:p
So who does god love then: Finland or Norway?
I have no idea and nor do I care. I dont believe in god. ;) :roll: Those poor norwiegans. Atleast Finland has Teemu Selane, I guess he'll do.:|\\

Aye, and the fecka better come to our team when the WC hockey starts in 2 weeks. ;) He's my namesake too. :yep:

[antikristuseke]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:

If memory serves me correctly that site is run by the Westboro Babtist Church, according to who God hates pretty much everything and everyone. But he loves you. They are just ignorant, hateful biggots.

[kiwi_2005]

I can't see anything wrong with that site? They're warning about Antheist and saying the world is not more than 10,000yrs old with dinosaurs still roaming they sound pretty much okay by me. :rotfl: They could mean when they say dinosaurs meaning crocodiles still around today?. Seriously they are probably harmless and who knows they probably get abuse from antheists.

The christian, (really they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves christians) grp i found offending were that cult in the USA who go to soldiers funerals and protest that they deserved to die and hes/shes' going to hell you probably all heard of them I can't remeber the name of the grp but the pastor is hitting 90 and is well known in America. According to them God hates America he wants American and its allies to lose everyone who fights for freedom is going to hell cause God hates everyone except them! :rotfl:

[Blacklight]

ROFL !!! Aparently T-Rex was a herbavore and used his sharp teeth for chewing plants so when he was on Noah's Ark, the other animals were safe !!! :rotfl:

[Safe-Keeper]

I'm surprised no one's linked to fstdt.com (http://www.fstdt.com) yet.

The worst thing is that the newer quotes are actually pretty mild. Go through the earliest archives for some serious crazy ****.

[Stealth Hunter]

I'm surprised no one's linked to fstdt.com (http://www.fstdt.com) yet.

The worst thing is that the newer quotes are actually pretty mild. Go through the earliest archives for some serious crazy ****.

:o

I vow to NEVER enter that site again.

[Safe-Keeper]

Yeah, so did I. But it's like a really bad multiple-fatality car accident - it hurts your heart to watch it, but you can't look away.

You'll be back:cry:.

[Trex]

Skybird - Interesting theory but I am not so sure. It is not limited to the USA and it's not a new phenomenon.

For many years, people have damned right-wing dictatorships in South America, Asia and elsewhere, but tolerated, nay idolized left-wing dictatorships. Apartheid was a world issue, but equally odious racial policies in Africa were met with a blind eye. Same behaviour, same nasty laws, but a totally different reaction.

This is not to defend those right-wing problems, but it is a curious fact.

[Blacklight]

These people have opposed every single scientific advance we've ever made since the times we were living in caves.

They won't be satisfied till they fling us back to those "simpler" days. :nope:

[Catfish]

Hello,
as a geologist, and a paleontologist, i can tell you the news that the dinosaurs are among us ! Seldomly animals become extinct, only their forms and variety change. Speaking of birds here.

Speaking of 7000 to 10.000 years of earth's age, yeah right. You know what ? It does not bother me. If i am a senator, or a trucker or whatever i do not bother whether the stars are billions of other suns, or just lamps hanging there for my personal pleasure. If i am a geologist helping producing oil i am not interested in when it generated (160 m. years ? Atheist !!), it is plain there. Why should i care.

There certainly are some forms and species that have really vanished, however the genetically religious type does not seem to become ever extinct.

I bet even the Australopithecus still lives, i only need to look for certain managers, politicians and religious personnel of the type mentioned above :88)

And this is old, and i posted it before, but i still think it is worth a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a15KgyXBX24
And I do not even mean that ironically.

Greetings
Catfish

[Skybird]

Skybird - Interesting theory but I am not so sure. It is not limited to the USA and it's not a new phenomenon.

For many years, people have damned right-wing dictatorships in South America, Asia and elsewhere, but tolerated, nay idolized left-wing dictatorships. Apartheid was a world issue, but equally odious racial policies in Africa were met with a blind eye. Same behaviour, same nasty laws, but a totally different reaction.

This is not to defend those right-wing problems, but it is a curious fact.
It is possible that I saw you too much as commenting on the forum only.

[HunterICX]

Pfah...no wonder religion is 90% the cause of a war....

HunterICX

[Trex]

These people have opposed every single scientific advance we've ever made since the times we were living in caves.

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is generally burned at the stake...

[Trex]

Pfah...no wonder religion is 90% the cause of a war....

HunterICX

I keep seeing this posted. OK, I'll call. There have been some, to be sure, but 90 percent? On what are you basing that figure?

[August]

Pfah...no wonder religion is 90% the cause of a war....

HunterICX
I keep seeing this posted. OK, I'll call. There have been some, to be sure, but 90 percent? On what are you basing that figure?

Be careful Trex. Hunter is ok but the forums athiest whacko contingent will come down on you for questioning their dogma...

[Trex]

August - Thanks for the warning, but I am always amused when it becomes clear that atheism has become a faith in its own right. If a person wishes to be an atheist, that's their choice, but I can see little difference between a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim ranting about the evils of others and a fundamentalist atheist doing the same.

I'm willing to be the lightning rod - let's see if I get something asides from a 180 degree turnaround of what's on the website that started all this.

[Trex]

Skybird – I think you have a point WRT the current political situation in the USA. As to the larger question, I am starting to see it as conspiracy theory writ very large.

The p-shrinks seem to feel that those embracing conspiracy theories are inherently lacking in self-confidence. (A lack of education also contributes to it, of course.) Put simply, such vulnerable people are unable to see the complexity that guides the world or appreciate the huge role that random chance plays. They find it hard to accept personal or national failure. The simplest way out of this for many people is to look for the hidden hand, a vast, shadowy Them on which to blame all the problems of the world.

The evils of the world, so this line of thought goes, just have to be the result of somebody acting with evil intent. Even things with a simple explanation must be the result of a larger plot. It’s as if Occam’s Razor has never been postulated. Some examples:

As the USA is all-powerful and as the CIA is all-knowing, 9/11 just couldn’t have been the result of a limited plot by a bunch of &%^$#! ragheads – that would be a unacceptable blow to national pride. How to explain it? Well, it had to be a conspiracy involving the highest levels of the US government. They (generally led by a cabal of George Bush, gray aliens, Jews and the Freemasons) knew but didn’t stop it. Or plotted it. Or a bomb was built into the World Trade Centre when it was built by a Republican architect in order to be able at some time in the future distract national attention away from domestic problems. It goes on.
No loonie ex-Marine could possibly have killed the President all by himself. Therefore, according to conspiracy theory, there had to have been a plot, a big one, one preferably involving the unlikely mix of the Mafia, the John Birch Society, the CIA (again), Castro and, presumably, SPECTRE. (Which is not to say that there are not real conspiracies, real plots. Nixon was a classic example of a conspirator, but note how badly those secrets were kept.)

Taken further, given that somebody has to be responsible for all the ills of this world, it is comforting to settle on an entity with (supposedly) the power to make it all happen. At a stroke, the USA is demonized and everything it does tainted. (Personally, although the Yanks can be bullies at times and although they sure do make mistakes, if there is to be a superpower in the world, I am profoundly grateful that it is the USA, which at least tries to work towards freedom and democracy.) In turn, anybody the USA is civil to or supports is damned by association. Anybody opposing the USA or its allies is automatically good.

Facts are ignored, parallel abuses condoned or waved off, balance dispensed with, logic and fairness of mind simply suspended. As just some examples, racism here is despicable; racism there is OK. Soviet MRBMs are OK, ours are provocative threats to peace. Fighting in Afghanistan is Bad, but we need to get into the same sort of war in the Sudan; that would be Good. A white South African policeman shooting a protestor is Bad; Winnie Mandela can order necklacing and commit fraud but is still Good.

The problem of course is that these things start feeding on themselves. Once one accepts that the United States of Amerika is responsible for all of the evils in the world (OK, the Burmese junta too, but they’re bit players), everything that George Bush does becomes part of the conspiracy. I’m not defending Bush, but the poor man couldn’t announce a trillion dollar plan to completely eliminate global warming by 2012 without the usual pack of attack Chihuahuas coming out with charges that he’s trying to (insert evil plot here).

[HunterICX]

@Trex,

I will honestly admit that my statement of 90% was sucked out of my thumb, but there is nothing more in the world that can piss me off and that is Religious Extremism(which is the cause of many wars in history).

forcing and saying that THEIR religion is the only Religion.
I have no religion at all, people that have a religion I keep them in their respect as long they dont bother me with it.
I have a Muslim working next door, a hard working fella I have good chats with him. he for example spits on that scum that are the cause giving all the muslims a bad name.

I dont hate religion itself, I hate the people abusing it.

HunterICX

[Trex]

Hunter - I could not agree more with that. Any of it.

[August]

@Trex,

I will honestly admit that my statement of 90% was sucked out of my thumb, but there is nothing more in the world that can piss me off and that is Religious Extremism(which is the cause of many wars in history).

forcing and saying that THEIR religion is the only Religion.
I have no religion at all, people that have a religion I keep them in their respect as long they dont bother me with it.
I have a Muslim working next door, a hard working fella I have good chats with him. he for example spits on that scum that are the cause giving all the muslims a bad name.

I dont hate religion itself, I hate the people abusing it.

HunterICX

That's the problem in a nutshell Hunter. People blame religion for starting wars when in reality religion was just used as an excuse, a cover, for the real motive, common greed.

[Blacklight]

Be careful Trex. Hunter is ok but the forums athiest whacko contingent will come down on you for questioning their dogma...

Yeah !!! And us athiests are aparently really grumpy, cranky, and mean too !!! Make sure you have an adult handle us or move you away from us ! :D

[TLAM Strike]

Hello,
as a geologist, and a paleontologist, i can tell you the news that the dinosaurs are among us ! Seldomly animals become extinct, only their forms and variety change. Speaking of birds here.

If I remember correctly 'Gators, 'Crocks, and Sharks all date back to the time of the dinosaurs. Also I think Dragonflies do too although they were much bigger back then. :hmm:


Also if you built a time machine and went back to Big Bang you could claim humans exisisted since the bigining of time. :p

[Catfish]

Hello Tlam strike,

good to read you again :D
you are right, with the crocodiles and dragonflys. Some kind of appearance of life seems to be initially perfect, or better perfectly fitting, so (maybe) no reason for a change. It was always a question how dragonflys, other insects and some giant spiders were able to exist with their spiracle respiration system, which would prevent such a size today. But it is now generally accepted that during the Carbon times the content of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere was much higher than today. After all it was the first time in history that oxygen-producing plants became abundant.

" ... Also if you built a time machine and went back to Big Bang you could claim humans exisisted since the bigining of time. ..."

You have made a point here :up: .
But if, i hope we will not poach around and mess up our future :hmm:

Greetings,
Catfish

[StdDev]

I have no idea and nor do I care. I dont believe in god. ;)

GASP!!!!!!

This calls for..... an intervention!!!!!

Dowly.. it is imperitive that you immediately expose yourself to THIS (http://www.subgenius.com/)wisdom!
It's not too late!

May you find SLACK

[Biggles]

Dowly, you are accused of heresy on three counts: heresy by thought, heresy by word, heresy by deed, and heresy by action...:four counts. Do you confess?

Otherwise I'd have to call for these lads...they ain't so nice once they have their cushions...
http://www.qrz.com/uploads/post-7-71517-Monty_Python_Spanish_Inquisition.jpg

[StdDev]

Whoa....
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!! :p

[Biggles]

Of course not! Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency-their three weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...their four.....uh, never mind...

[Skybird]

Skybird – I think you have a point WRT the current political situation in the USA. As to the larger question, I am starting to see it as conspiracy theory writ very large.

The p-shrinks seem to feel that those embracing conspiracy theories are inherently lacking in self-confidence. (A lack of education also contributes to it, of course.) Put simply, such vulnerable people are unable to see the complexity that guides the world or appreciate the huge role that random chance plays. They find it hard to accept personal or national failure. The simplest way out of this for many people is to look for the hidden hand, a vast, shadowy Them on which to blame all the problems of the world.

The evils of the world, so this line of thought goes, just have to be the result of somebody acting with evil intent. Even things with a simple explanation must be the result of a larger plot. It’s as if Occam’s Razor has never been postulated. Some examples:

As the USA is all-powerful and as the CIA is all-knowing, 9/11 just couldn’t have been the result of a limited plot by a bunch of &%^$#! ragheads – that would be a unacceptable blow to national pride. How to explain it? Well, it had to be a conspiracy involving the highest levels of the US government. They (generally led by a cabal of George Bush, gray aliens, Jews and the Freemasons) knew but didn’t stop it. Or plotted it. Or a bomb was built into the World Trade Centre when it was built by a Republican architect in order to be able at some time in the future distract national attention away from domestic problems. It goes on.
No loonie ex-Marine could possibly have killed the President all by himself. Therefore, according to conspiracy theory, there had to have been a plot, a big one, one preferably involving the unlikely mix of the Mafia, the John Birch Society, the CIA (again), Castro and, presumably, SPECTRE. (Which is not to say that there are not real conspiracies, real plots. Nixon was a classic example of a conspirator, but note how badly those secrets were kept.)

Taken further, given that somebody has to be responsible for all the ills of this world, it is comforting to settle on an entity with (supposedly) the power to make it all happen. At a stroke, the USA is demonized and everything it does tainted. (Personally, although the Yanks can be bullies at times and although they sure do make mistakes, if there is to be a superpower in the world, I am profoundly grateful that it is the USA, which at least tries to work towards freedom and democracy.) In turn, anybody the USA is civil to or supports is damned by association. Anybody opposing the USA or its allies is automatically good.

Facts are ignored, parallel abuses condoned or waved off, balance dispensed with, logic and fairness of mind simply suspended. As just some examples, racism here is despicable; racism there is OK. Soviet MRBMs are OK, ours are provocative threats to peace. Fighting in Afghanistan is Bad, but we need to get into the same sort of war in the Sudan; that would be Good. A white South African policeman shooting a protestor is Bad; Winnie Mandela can order necklacing and commit fraud but is still Good.

The problem of course is that these things start feeding on themselves. Once one accepts that the United States of Amerika is responsible for all of the evils in the world (OK, the Burmese junta too, but they’re bit players), everything that George Bush does becomes part of the conspiracy. I’m not defending Bush, but the poor man couldn’t announce a trillion dollar plan to completely eliminate global warming by 2012 without the usual pack of attack Chihuahuas coming out with charges that he’s trying to (insert evil plot here).

Not sure if you adress me and expect any kind of response from me...!?

Regarding the general thread content, I refer to that quote from KoH that I gave, and leave it to that.

And please - stop typing in this light grey text colour and use the default colour that automatically changes when people have a different forum colour layout. You appear as light-grey text on silver background over here - no fun to read that. ;)

[kiwi_2005]

These are the fanatics christians grps you want to be weary of. From my preivous post i couldn't remeber the leaders name till now 'Fred Phelps' and his band of followers who protest at dead soldiers funerals.

Fred Phelps' controversial church, Westboro Baptist Church, is using the funerals of US soldiers as a chance to not only protest the Iraq war, but also the Catholic Church.

http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?id=2888


Fred Phelps' controversial church, Westboro Baptist Church, is using the funerals of US soldiers as a chance to not only protest the Iraq war, but also the Catholic Church.

Protesters hailing from Topeka Kansas bearing placards reading “God hates fags”, “The Pope is in Hell”, “God hates America”, and “God hates your tears” attended the funeral of Spc. Joshua Youmans, 26, who died last week due to landmine injuries incurred in Iraq as a US soldier with the 1st Battalion of the 125th Infantry.

Like the many other soldiers and marines who have been sacrificed in the war in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2004, he was accompanied to his graveside by a grieving family. He also left a widow and an infant son. Spc. Youman’s funeral Mass was held at St. Robert Bellarmine Catholic Church in Flushing – a small quiet suburb near Flint Michigan. A bagpiper played a mournful air as his casket was brought forth from the church, while Army honor guards – some openly weeping – stood by. Sgt. Mickey Tarrance, presenting the Army at the funeral said “He is one of ours”, in tribute to the fallen soldier.

Leading six women from the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka Kansas was the daughter of church founder Fred Phelps. Elizabeth Phelps, bearing a placard proclaiming “Land of the Fags” and stick figures apparently engaged in an un-natural act, told Spero News, “God is punishing a defiant nation” ... “God will not be mocked” and ”America has defied Him for the last time”.

The Westboro Baptist Church was founded by disbarred attorney and preacher Fred Phelps. While members of Westboro identify themselves as “Baptist”, they are not affiliated with any recognized Baptist church, and they are monitored as a hate group by the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Phelps' book, The Conspiracy, co-authored by Brent Roper, is often cited by the Ku Klux Klan and the Christian Identity movement. Westboro Baptist Church opposes the US invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. At the same time, Ms. Phelps used the occassion of the funeral to denounce the Catholic Church as an “international pedophile organization and nothing less than that.”

The church’s website commonly refers to Catholic churches as “kennels” where “dogs” worship. Elizabeth Phelps explained to Spero News that dogs are used as a Scriptural metaphor of “shamelessness” and she referred to recent court cases in which Catholic priests were convicted of sexual acts upon minors.

Asked how her theology squares with the Scriptural definition that “God is love”, Ms. Phelps said “God is not only love, he has many beautiful attributes. They are just and they are Him.”

[Skybird]

I just have finished cleaning my monitor after this:

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5069/reverendfunatheistjoexy2.gif (http://imageshack.us)

:rotfl:

[kiwi_2005]

The Professor and the Christian.

The problem science has with Jesus Christ." The atheist
professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of
his new students to stand.


"You're a Christian, aren't you, son?"


"Yes sir," the student says.


"So you believe in God?"


"Absolutely."


"Is God good?"


"Sure! God's good."


"Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?"


"Yes."


"Are you good or evil?"


"The Bible says I'm evil."


The professor grins knowingly. "Aha! The Bible!" He considers for a
moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and
you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help him? Would you try?"


"Yes sir, I would."


"So you're good...!"


"I wouldn't say that."


"But why not say that? You'd help a sick and maimed person if you
could. Most of us would if we could. But God doesn't."


The student does not answer, so the professor continues. "He doesn't,
does he? My brother was a Christian who died of cancer, even though he
prayed to Jesus to heal him. How is this Jesus good? Hmmm? Can you
answer that one?"


The student remains silent.


"No, you can't, can you?" the professor says. He takes a sip of water
from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax.


"Let's start again, young fella. Is God good?"


"Er...yes," the student says.


"Is Satan good?"


The student doesn't hesitate on this one. "No."


"Then where does Satan come from?"


The student falters. "From...God..."


"That's right. God made Satan, didn't he? Tell me, son. Is there evil
in this world?"


"Yes, sir."


"Evil's everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything, correct?"


"Yes."


"So who created evil?" The professor continued, "If God created
everything, then God created evil, since evil exists, and according to the
principle that our works define who we are, then God is evil."


Again, the student has no answer. "Is there sickness? Immorality?
Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things, do they exist in this world?"


The student squirms on his feet. "Yes."


"So who created them?"


The student does not answer again, so the professor repeats his
question. "Who created them? There is still no answer. Suddenly the lecturer
breaks away to pace in front of the classroom. The class is mesmerized.
"Tell me," he continues onto another student. "Do you believe in Jesus
Christ, son?"


The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor, I do."


The old man stops pacing. "Science says you have five senses you use to
identify and observe the world around you. Have you ever seen Jesus?"


"No sir. I've never seen Him."


"Then tell us if you've ever heard your Jesus?"


"No, sir, I have not."


"Have you ever felt your Jesus, tasted your Jesus or smelt your Jesus?
Have you ever had any sensory perception of Jesus Christ, or God for
that matter?"


"No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't."


"Yet you still believe in him?"


"Yes."


"According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol,
science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?"


"Nothing," the student replies. "I only have my faith."


"Yes, faith," the professor repeats. "And that is the problem science
has with God. There is no evidence, only faith."


The student stands quietly for a moment, before asking a question of
his own. "Professor, is there such thing as heat?"


"Yes," the professor replies. "There's heat."


"And is there such a thing as cold?"


"Yes, son, there's cold too."


"No sir, there isn't."


The professor turns to face the student, obviously interested. The room
suddenly becomes very quiet. The student begins to explain.


"You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat,
unlimited heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat, but we don't have
anything called 'cold'. We can hit up to 458 degrees below zero, which is
no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing
as cold; otherwise we would be able to go colder than the lowest -458
degrees. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or
transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit
energy. Absolute zero (-458 F) is the total absence of heat. You see,
sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We
cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is
energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it."


Silence across the room. A pen drops somewhere in the classroom,
sounding like a hammer.


"What about darkness, professor. Is there such a thing as darkness?"


"Yes," the professor replies without hesitation. "What is night if it
isn't darkness?"


"You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something; it is the absence
of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light,
flashing light, but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and
it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the
word. In reality, darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make
darkness darker, wouldn't you?"


The professor begins to smile at the student in front of him. This will
be a good semester. "So what point are you making, young man?"


"Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to
start with, and so your conclusion must also be flawed."


The professor's face cannot hide his surprise this time. Flawed? Can
you explain how?"


"You are working on the premise of duality," the student explains. "You
argue that there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad
God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something
we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses
electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood
either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of
the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not
the opposite of life, just the absence of it."


"Now tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved
from a monkey?"


"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man,
yes, of course I do."


"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"


The professor begins to shake his head, still smiling, as he realizes
where the argument is going. A very good semester, indeed.


"Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and
cannot even prove that this process is an on-going Endeavour, are you not
teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a
preacher?"


The class is in uproar. The student remains silent until the commotion
has subsided.


"To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student,
let me give you an example of what I mean."


The student looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who
has ever seen the professor's brain?" The class breaks out into laughter.
"Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain, felt
the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain? No one
appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of
empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain,
with all due respect, sir. So if science says you have no brain, how
can we trust your lectures, sir?"


Now the room is silent. The professor just stares at the student, his
face unreadable.


Finally, after what seems an eternity, the old man answers. "I guess
you'll have to take them on faith."


"Now, you accept that there is faith, and, in fact, faith exists with
life," the student continues. "Now, sir, is there such a thing as evil?"


Now uncertain, the professor responds, "Of course, there is. We see it
everyday. It is in the daily example of man's inhumanity to man. It is
in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil."


To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist sir, or at least it
does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is
just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the
absence of God.

God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that
comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no
light."


The professor sat down.

[Catfish]

Hello,,
Kiwi this is a very good text :lol:

However can you tell me why a scientist should be completely unable to believe in a higher being, if not in the special God, Allah, Buddah or whatever that is brought to us by human (sic) institutions like the church ?

- You are a geologist ?
Yes
- So what are you looking for ?
I am looking for the remnants of an animal that became extinct a long time ago.
- Hmm, how old ?
We currently think this must have been around 460 million years ago.
- So you do not believe in God, atheist.


Greetings,
Catfish


P.S. seems this thread has developed into something else :hmm:

[Skybird]

Karl Popper was one who explicitly showed that the correctness of scientific theories never can be proven, and that scientific research data never should be understood as being evidence. Thus, sciences never are an argument for or against theistic deities, and in the end: miracles as well.

But to argue that something like evolution as a theoretic construct (more it is not and never has been!) does not exist and thus, claims of religion necessarily must be true, is not less absurd like saying scientific theories could be proven. Evolution and religion: it is no "either this or that" case. It is two different things, and any attempt to make conclusions on the one by thinking about the other, is comparing apples with oranges.
Considering that there are millions of variables that need to stay in a fragile balance in order to enable this spectacle we call life on planet earth, it is hard to imagine that it is by random, by cosmic trial and error over 13 billion years. To argue there was a big bang, raises serious problems. What was before Big Bang? And if there was nothing before, how could come something from nothing? What and how triggered the starting event of Big Bang? Why is there something at all today, instead of simply "nothing"? Also, the concept of an expanding universe raises problems: those questions about Big Bang with only minor adjustments could be asked regarding the universe as well, and if it is expanding, it is limited in size, so the question is: what is beyond it's borders? How can there be something beyond it's borders, if the universe includes all? And if there is nothing beyond - how could the universe being just limited then? It all just makes no sense for a reasonable mind, and lets you run into logical contradiction neither science nor religion can solve.

We even have no reason to think of the world being existent in the form we usually, during our everday-life, think that it is, with houses and roads and meadows and forest and other people and a blue sky. Neither sight nor sound, neither smell nor taste nor fingertips give us any evidence at all that things are what they form up as images in our mind. Our senses just function in the way they were meant to do, they react with electric potentials and chemical reactions when chemical agents, physical pressures, waves and photons hit according receptors, they translates these into certain cascades of electric pulses running into our brain, and inside our brain "something" all of a sudden decides to turn electricity that is pulsating in changing frequencies and jumps from one neuron to another by exchange of chemical agents, into forms and images, smells and tastes, and inside our brain it all is put into relation to each other (and the very same inputs can very well lead to very different ways of establishing these mutual relations between signals, which is obvious in case of mental illness, but also happens regarding the differences between cultural and social environments), and we do not just "perceive" things (well, it should be clear now that we NEVER perceive things and cannot even say that things are there), and even more: we attach meaning and sense to them. All this our brain does, it all exists in our brains only. Not to mention philosophy and gods and religion, Big Bang and extending universes. Its all just in our brain. It all comes down to what we call "mind".

Cognito ergo sum - I think, therefore I am. That"we" exist, is beyond doubt for us: we know it, we are aware of us, we thing, we see, we have memories, we have sympathies and antipathies, and although all atoms in our body have been exchanged with new ones from the environment in which we live every six years, and although in a material understanding after 6 years we literally are no longer the person we used to be, we still know beyond doubt: "this is me, this is what I am, this is what I see as my personality and persona history, this is what links my present to my far away childhood".

Neurologists say they are able to locate certain brain areas that show typical activity patterns when man does something like deep meditation, or a believer has something that is called an experience of God. They try to link all other qualities of mind to certain brain activities, arguing that with the brain dyeing, everything is over, and that scientific concepts are just patterns in the brain as well as are any conceptions and imagined realisations of gods and deities. Memories, just twenty years ago being focused on as being stored in chemical molecules, today are mostly seen as changes in the hard-wiring of brain's neurons, while others claim memories are affecting all the brain's structure and are present in all the brain like the smallest detail of the complete pictures is present in both the complete hologram as in the smallest quantity of the hologram as well. All that is nice and well, but it is just mind playing with itself, like is philosophy as well. Because you could ask a neurologist the same questions about big Bang and universe and still will not get any reasonable answer from him. Neurologists, in their effort to create artificial intelligence by creating copies of the brain's complexity, a simulation of the brain so to speak, do not seem to realise that by their work, which I do not want to minimise at all, they only realise the mechanics and ways of functioning of the brain - but that they do not explain how mind emerges from neurons firing, and they have even less an answer to the question: why? They cannot explain what mind is, and will never be able, necessarily, for they actually only deal with what I would call the condensate of mind. I call it that because in the end not only are all images of reality and world just inside our mind, or b rain, as I said above, but our understanding of brain itself: also is just an image in our minds. Brain and mind to certain degrees correlate - but obviously the one includes the other, mind includes brain, and not th eother way around: brain does include cognitions and perception processing, memory storage, intellectual activity: but brain does not include this certain something that points, shows and leads beyond it.

Recently I had an unpleasant discussion on these things and the question of free will. Neurologists today say there is no free will , because they are able to show that the decision process that leads to a given outcome is already activated and came to a result before people become aware of the choice they want to make. They would say: you do not decide but yo get decided and being made to feel you decided yourself. I do not wish to argue from a position of "it cannot be what shall not be", when pointing out that such an understanding means most dramatic consequences for all the world's cultural fundaments of civilisation, because it strips you of all argument for having laws and penalties for not obeying them (because a penalty only makes sense if you have the free choice between good and bad doing), as well as all philosophy and ethics that implies free will and free choice, and base on both. I spare me to point at the implications in context with the various religions, of whom only those would make sense anymore that say that "everything is written", "everything is predetermined and man cannot do anything to escape of being doomed in advance". In the end, if this empty void that neurologist's conclusions of "no free will" and "all and everything dying with our brain" would create, could lead to to the greatest nihilistic, depressed breakdown in man's history, and could mean very well the end of history, the breakdown of civilisation, ratio and reason, and turning life on earth into a meaningless existence in a fatalistic hell-hole ruled by anarchy and the law of the strongest. Because, if I may lend that phrase, "God is dead". In fact i would say: "meaning is dead, life makes no sense anymore". Because as a ex-psychologist I know some things on man for sure, and one of these is this: man needs to have a meaning in life in order to be survivable, and if there is no meaning, he will invent and self-construct a meaning in which to believe. Or in the words of KZ-survivor and psychotherapist and founder of Logo therapy and existence analysis Victor Frankl: "Man does not want to be happy. He wants a reason to be happy." You do not need to make people happy. All you need is showing them a reason to be, and they will become happy all by themselves. That the neurological nihilism glooming at the horizon creates existential problems form man, sciences have realised by themselves already: that's why they have build new creative disciplines like neuro-theology (no joke).

On a side-line one can also ask: when neurologists say they will be able one day to create intelligence, and if the network of data processing is only complex enough this intelligence eventually will become aware of itself and that way: alive, well, then the question can be asked: is this possible or reasonable to assume? Can the copy serve the same that the original did: will the simulation of reality be able to become reality itself? I don't go deeper into it, but I see this question again leading to a mind that goes much beyond just brain functions. All the universe in one mind only? Actually I think: it could be. actually as I see it would say: there is just one mind anyway, and like all is linked to everything, there cannot be different types and kinds of mind. This is where some religions maybe would start to translate it into "universal spirit". But the religion's language is not my language.

But this depressing perspective does not really bother me, since I can see and understand the serious holes in neurologists' concept of future things to come. It is not that they are wrong in what they say, it is that they are not complete. take the result of god-experiences being linked to activity in certain brain areas. You can even stimulate these areas, and trigger that experience.but it is a physical correlate only, and the correlate feeding back on the source. both ways are like a two-dimensional shadow being thrown by a three-dimensional object. That's why I use to say the brain does not create mind, but mind creates a brain. In the end, neurologists today say that all we consider to be our "self", of what we think "this is me", is linked to brain activities of this and that kind, and if the brain is no more, there is neither "me" nor "self". but that is an old hat, and you can find it being described in the most complex system of a psychological system that I know of and that beats Western models hands down: the teachings of the five skhandas, five categories of "existential factors" of different material density, whose interaction and endless flowing creates the image, or may I say: illusion of what we call "ego", and what Buddhism refers to as "wrong/untrue self", or atman. There is more, there is mind that I referred to in my introduction above, and that is hard if not impossible to being pointed at precisely, and that you can only refer to by describing what it NOT is. It is the meaning shimmering through between the lines of illusive reality. It is what tipped an image with its finger, smiling, and turned that image into a brain that gave order and structure to all cosmos: one way of order, one kind of structure. You can see it shimmering through in the image of a mirror held up by mind by which it looks at it's own face, and sees that it is you. You can see it shimmering through in the questions about Big Bang and universe I asked. You can see it shimmering through when meditating and stepping back from yourself and your knowledge of a certain brain area being active now - and then stepping back from this stepping back.

But you cannot see it shimmering through when forgetting yourself and not even wanting to look at the shimmer - but you can become the shimmer itself. If you prefer a more theistic language: leave all your idols and understandings of God behind, for there is no other God than the God you turn out to be yourself. You are He, and you are not the smallest bit different from Him. So, whether God is a tyrant or a loving being, is decided by you and your deeds, and what you do to others, you do to yourself. Heaven and hell do exist for sure, but they are no locations, and no times, but they exist as states of a calm or a disturbed mind. The kingdom of heaven is not here, and you cannot find it there, for it is a kingdom of your heart. why needing to believe in a Jesus or refer to a Buddha? You have all you need and all there is all inside of you. Carrying the picture of two long rotten corpses with you - what's the use of this?

[August]

However can you tell me why a scientist should be completely unable to believe in a higher being, if not in the special God, Allah, Buddah or whatever that is brought to us by human (sic) institutions like the church ?

God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church Catfish. That's like saying daytime is brought to us by the weatherman.

[deamyont]

http://www.godhatessweden.com/

This is for real though. Those SOBs hates Sweden for this and that reason, and claims that everyone from Sweden will go to hell straight away.....bloody wankers:nope:
If memory serves me correctly that site is run by the Westboro Babtist Church, according to who God hates pretty much everything and everyone. But he loves you. They are just ignorant, hateful biggots.

One day it's "love everyone else as you love yourself!" like that jesus guy was supposed to have said, the next day its this. But then you get the impression that some of the christian fanatics over there actually think women are supposed to be locked up in the kitchen when not giving birth. These peoples statements are in my opinion nothing short of a nazi-level, and should be considered the same by the law, and punished as such.

Seriously, if there was an almighty good god which could create his most perfect image of himself, would those creatures be it? They are the opposite of the purely good, all-loving father they speak so well about.

But then of course this religon was made up for one sole purpoise: control of people.

Cheers.

[deamyont]

Living beings defend themselves against parasites and diseases. Nothing strange about that, is it? Otherwise they would not survive, right?

Our democratic sociaty is a living being.

Faschists, communists, religous fanatics, etc: they look different sometimes but in the end they are all the same. They all leech on our socity, taking full advantage of all the benefits of democracy (freedom of speech, being safe, etc), while in the end they all strive towards the same goal: to destroy it. They are in the end all the same - parasites. Democracies needs tools to defend themselves against these kind of threats. Here we have some, but that only seems to include against right-wing extremists. We need tools to defend it against all other aswell. I don't care if their agenda is against jews, black, capitalists, white, women, older, children, homosexuals - in any way they discriminate some group and is trying the ruin the very basic fundament of democracy in some way - our equal worth.

We need tools to defend it before it's too late. Look at WWII. If Churchill had a chance to make things different, I'm sure war would be declared on Germany in 1938 - or much rather something done earlier to prevent it all toghether. If people knew how it would end up, the thought of Europe teaming up and intervining in the russian revolution to save people isn't far of either.

But this should of course not be mixed up with invading some little country somewhere far away á la USA for whatever reason. Democracy here needs to be defended from extremists here before things go bad - it's not the same as projecting capitalist agenda anywhere in the world in the name of "security" or "democracy".

[antikristuseke]

One day it's "love everyone else as you love yourself!" like that jesus guy was supposed to have said, the next day its this. But then you get the impression that some of the christian fanatics over there actually think women are supposed to be locked up in the kitchen when not giving birth. These peoples statements are in my opinion nothing short of a nazi-level, and should be considered the same by the law, and punished as such.

Seriously, if there was an almighty good god which could create his most perfect image of himself, would those creatures be it? They are the opposite of the purely good, all-loving father they speak so well about.

But then of course this religon was made up for one sole purpoise: control of people.

Cheers.

In its early days it might have been something diferent, but thats what it has become over the centuries.
Anyway I stick all religious fanatics in the same pot, doesnt mater to me one bit if its christian fanatism, muslim fanatism etc.

[deamyont]

One day it's "love everyone else as you love yourself!" like that jesus guy was supposed to have said, the next day its this. But then you get the impression that some of the christian fanatics over there actually think women are supposed to be locked up in the kitchen when not giving birth. These peoples statements are in my opinion nothing short of a nazi-level, and should be considered the same by the law, and punished as such.

Seriously, if there was an almighty good god which could create his most perfect image of himself, would those creatures be it? They are the opposite of the purely good, all-loving father they speak so well about.

But then of course this religon was made up for one sole purpoise: control of people.

Cheers.
In its early days it might have been something diferent, but thats what it has become over the centuries.
Anyway I stick all religious fanatics in the same pot, doesnt mater to me one bit if its christian fanatism, muslim fanatism etc.

I'm sure it was different back then, but now it's just a tool. A tool for autocracy.

I do stick them in the same spot too, toghether with those who "worship" extremist political views. It's all the same thing in the end, really.

[Trex]

If people knew how it would end up, the thought of Europe teaming up and intervining in the russian revolution to save people isn't far of either.

Um, check your history. There were Western troops in Russia until 1920 or so - Canada, France, Japan, the UK and the USA (among others) all had troops fighting against the reds.

[deamyont]

If people knew how it would end up, the thought of Europe teaming up and intervining in the russian revolution to save people isn't far of either.
Um, check your history. There were Western troops in Russia until 1920 or so - Canada, France, Japan, the UK and the USA (among others) all had troops fighting against the reds.

Um, check yours: 4,000 canadians, 760 french, 1,600 british and 13,000 american troops hardly matter.

The only significant ammount was sent from Japan, up to 70,000 - but all in Vladivostok area.

[mrbeast]

Of course not! Their chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...their two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency-their three weapons are fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...their four.....uh, never mind...

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSlQMs0LseI

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk


Scary stuff, right there. I like how the preacher claimed that the Christians were the ones under fire and they were just protecting the other kids... funny how only 2% of the country is Atheist and 75% is Christian. CHRISTIANS are the ones under fire? Ha, I think not...:roll:

[August]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk


Scary stuff, right there. I like how the preacher claimed that the Christians were the ones under fire and they were just protecting the other kids... funny how only 2% of the country is Atheist and 75% is Christian. CHRISTIANS are the ones under fire? Ha, I think not...:roll:

So the poor little athiest girl wants to prevent her fellow students from praying before games because she feels left out and now nobody likes her? You think they'll like her any more when her father sues the crap out of the town and forces them to ban praying altogether?

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTRDRP2n4Sk


Scary stuff, right there. I like how the preacher claimed that the Christians were the ones under fire and they were just protecting the other kids... funny how only 2% of the country is Atheist and 75% is Christian. CHRISTIANS are the ones under fire? Ha, I think not...:roll:

So the poor little athiest girl wants to prevent her fellow students from praying before games because she feels left out and now nobody likes her? You think they'll like her any more when her father sues the crap out of the town and forces them to ban praying altogether?

May I bring to your attention the Constitutional principle of Separation of Church and State, a law, might I add. The school officials were joining in, they were LEADING it, and that's a violation of the law. Strike 1.

She doesn't feel left out, smartass. These kids ganged up on her, and so did the school staff. They didn't bother to help her when kids bullied her, and they wanted her gone (having the audacity to claim that she'd threatened to kill the superintendent's daughter... and then she was suspended from the basketball team since she was "poor for team morale", although her record clearly contradicts this "point" made by the coach). From what I heard on the news, the school staff even joined in to ridicule her.

He's not going to force them to ban praying altogether.:roll: Once again, I bring to your attention Separation of Church from State. There's no need to pray in school. Go to church to pray, go to school to learn. If you keep it in church, there's no problem. HOWEVER, when you drag it into public facilities like this and start misusing it and lying, then it's a problem.

There's a simple amendment in this country... and it's one of the main reasons why the refugees came to North America during the 1600's. It's freedom of religion and the right not to be discriminated against for your beliefs. She never did anything to discriminate against these people. She simply told them that she didn't believe what they did, and she left their circle because she didn't want them to feel strange with an Atheist in their group. They, being strong Christians, didn't like it at all, and so the kids and the staff began to attack her. They're the ones who are guilty of discrimination, not her.

Thank you for revealing your position on Atheists, August.

[Iceman]

God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church Catfish. That's like saying daytime is brought to us by the weatherman.

What a thread lol...just had to comment on this...what an awesome modern parable August.:up:

and Kiwi...great recent post.

Good Stuff


I know, that I know, that I know....and I think therfore I am taxed...lol :)

[August]

Thank you for revealing your position on Atheists, August.
So what makes you think "my position on Atheists" was hidden? I've never made a secret of it in the three years i've been on this board and i resent your implication otherwise.

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.

There's a simple amendment in this country... and it's one of the main reasons why the refugees came to North America during the 1600's.
May I remind you that the US Constitution and it's amendments did not exist in the 1600's and that the Puritans you're referencing were more than happy to hang as a witch anyone who didn't follow their rather strict religious beliefs. Care to tell me again what these poor refugees came to North America for?

He's not going to force them to ban praying altogether.:roll: Once again, I bring to your attention Separation of Church from State. There's no need to pray in school.
Says who, you?, the guy who said he'd abandon this country the minute the gravy train dries up? :roll: Before you go why don't you try reading the actual amendment some time: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" It doesn't say "... but only in government approved places that are out of sight and sound of any individual who for whatever reason might have an issue with it."

Now the people of this small and tight knit community want to be able to pray to God before a basketball game. To tell the truth it seems a little odd to me but certainly not in the same league as witch burning, or honor killing, and they have been saying these pre-game prayers long before this family showed up. Now the entire town is swamped with lawyers and will likely end up far less free to exercise their religion than before. Score one for the Godless. :roll:

FWIW I don't blame the kid, I blame the hippy, dippy father who brainwashed his own kid and is now using her and the rest of his family as pawns to stick it to the hated theists. What kind of father does that to his own kids? What kind of father condems his family to being social pariahs? It's just what i'd expect from an Athiest.

[Skybird]

May I bring to your attention the Constitutional principle of Separation of Church and State, a law, might I add. The school officials were joining in, they were LEADING it, and that's a violation of the law. Strike 1.

She doesn't feel left out, smartass. These kids ganged up on her, and so did the school staff. They didn't bother to help her when kids bullied her, and they wanted her gone (having the audacity to claim that she'd threatened to kill the superintendent's daughter... and then she was suspended from the basketball team since she was "poor for team morale", although her record clearly contradicts this "point" made by the coach). From what I heard on the news, the school staff even joined in to ridicule her.

He's not going to force them to ban praying altogether.:roll: Once again, I bring to your attention Separation of Church from State. There's no need to pray in school. Go to church to pray, go to school to learn. If you keep it in church, there's no problem. HOWEVER, when you drag it into public facilities like this and start misusing it and lying, then it's a problem.

There's a simple amendment in this country... and it's one of the main reasons why the refugees came to North America during the 1600's. It's freedom of religion and the right not to be discriminated against for your beliefs. She never did anything to discriminate against these people. She simply told them that she didn't believe what they did, and she left their circle because she didn't want them to feel strange with an Atheist in their group. They, being strong Christians, didn't like it at all, and so the kids and the staff began to attack her. They're the ones who are guilty of discrimination, not her.

:up: Agreed!


http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/231/20070602bousquetatheistge2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[darius359au]

Thank you for revealing your position on Atheists, August.
So what makes you think "my position on Atheists" was hidden? I've never made a secret of it in the three years i've been on this board and i resent your implication otherwise.

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.



Wonderful generalisation there , you don't believe in "God" so your untrustworthy , self-serving and discriminatory...nice:nope:

[joea]

Thank you for revealing your position on Atheists, August.
So what makes you think "my position on Atheists" was hidden? I've never made a secret of it in the three years i've been on this board and i resent your implication otherwise.

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.



Wonderful generalisation there , you don't believe in "God" so your untrustworthy , self-serving and discriminatory...nice:nope:

Indeed but that's not the first such generalisation I've seen him make. :shifty:

[kurtz]

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.


I'm kinda glad you don't have a use for us. But to make a generalisation people who believe in God tend to murder people, abuse children or run off with church funds.

[Letum]

God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church Catfish. That's like saying daytime is brought to us by the weatherman.

If there was no other evidence for sunlight other than the weatherman and the
weatherman had no evidence for it either, then it would be foolish to suppose that
there was any sunlight. :88)

[joegrundman]

And as we are into generalisations this season,

Let's not forget to mention that Christians are obsessed with gay sex and drugs.

http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/2344/haggardjesuscampvq2.jpg

Your Pastor needs YOU, boy!

[kurtz]

God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church Catfish. That's like saying daytime is brought to us by the weatherman.

If there was no other evidence for sunlight other than the weatherman and the
weatherman had no evidence for it either, then it would be foolish to suppose that
there was any sunlight. :88)

Logic Extreme!:up:

Great Post.

[August]

I'm kinda glad you don't have a use for us. But to make a generalisation people who believe in God tend to murder people, abuse children or run off with church funds.

Where have you been? I see those generalizations on this board all the time. Heck even in this thread that wierdo Phelps and his family are cast as your average Christian. In other threads you have people saying that all Muslims are potential suicide bombers.

[August]

If there was no other evidence for sunlight other than the weatherman and the weatherman had no evidence for it either, then it would be foolish to suppose that there was any sunlight. :88)

Except like the sun rising every morning the evidence is all around you if you would only see it.

[mrbeast]

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.

Hmmmm.....:hmm:

I have little use for anyone who believes in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.

[August]

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.
Hmmmm.....:hmm:

I have little use for anyone who believes in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.

It seems we have little use for each other then. Somehow I don't see this as a loss.

[Fish]

I can't see anything wrong with that site? They're warning about Antheist and saying the world is not more than 10,000yrs old with dinosaurs still roaming they sound pretty much okay by me. :rotfl: They could mean when they say dinosaurs meaning crocodiles still around today?. Seriously they are probably harmless and who knows they probably get abuse from antheists.

The christian, (really they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves christians) grp i found offending were that cult in the USA who go to soldiers funerals and protest that they deserved to die and hes/shes' going to hell you probably all heard of them I can't remeber the name of the grp but the pastor is hitting 90 and is well known in America. According to them God hates America he wants American and its allies to lose everyone who fights for freedom is going to hell cause God hates everyone except them! :rotfl:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/17/us/17picket.html?_r=1&ex=1145505600&en=5c17ff51466affe2&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

[antikristuseke]

Where have you been? I see those generalizations on this board all the time. Heck even in this thread that wierdo Phelps and his family are cast as your average Christian. In other threads you have people saying that all Muslims are potential suicide bombers.

Have to agree with you here August, there is way too much generalisation on both sides of the fence and if there is to be any hope for normal coexistance both sides neet to stop.
But that being said two wrongs dont make a right and your generalization is every bit as bad as those who portray Phelps as the typical christian.

[kurtz]

If there was no other evidence for sunlight other than the weatherman and the weatherman had no evidence for it either, then it would be foolish to suppose that there was any sunlight. :88)

Except like the sun rising every morning the evidence is all around you if you would only see it.

That's a bit like Jesus isn't it?

I think you may have rather missed Letum's point here.

[August]

Have to agree with you here August, there is way too much generalisation on both sides of the fence and if there is to be any hope for normal coexistance both sides neet to stop.
But that being said two wrongs dont make a right and your generalization is every bit as bad as those who portray Phelps as the typical christian.

Unfortunately i'm beginning to believe that normal coexistance is not possible. Modern communications has made it too easy to rile people up and radicals on both sides are using that to their advantage.

[Safe-Keeper]

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess. Whoo-oopsie. My finger accidentally slipped and now August is on my ignore list:o. Worst thing is, when I try to get her out subsim.com tells me it won't let me:damn:!

[mrbeast]

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.
Hmmmm.....:hmm:

I have little use for anyone who believes in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.

It seems we have little use for each other then. Somehow I don't see this as a loss.

C'est la Vie

[August]

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.
Hmmmm.....:hmm:

I have little use for anyone who believes in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.
It seems we have little use for each other then. Somehow I don't see this as a loss.
C'est la Vie


Indeed.

[Stealth Hunter]

Thank you for revealing your position on Atheists, August.
So what makes you think "my position on Atheists" was hidden? I've never made a secret of it in the three years i've been on this board and i resent your implication otherwise.

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.



Wonderful generalisation there , you don't believe in "God" so your untrustworthy , self-serving and discriminatory...nice:nope:

Indeed but that's not the first such generalisation I've seen him make. :shifty:

Indeed.

[Wolfehunter]

Lol tell there priest that the adams family is in town.:rotfl: For christ sakes who cares what they do. Just take care of your family. I'm athiest and so is my family. I don't care what other religions or cults do as long as they don't get my family involved. I leave them be and its to there best interests to do the same.

Don't even bother to convert me in the believe of gods, vampires, ghosts, devils and such. I don't buy it.:hmm: Well unless you offer me alot of $$$$$$$$ maybe I might convert...;) Naw... lol

Anyhow we have plenty of crazies on this world to fit those catagories up.:yep:

[Stealth Hunter]

Anytime somebody mentions money and religion, "Trinity Broadcasting Network" instantly comes to mind. Those people make a fortune off God and their Biblical preachings... though I must admit that I LOVED to watch it when pink-haired lady was on... what's her name... well, nevermind, but anyway, she was very entertaining. At Christmas, you ought to see how they take cameras in their million dollar mansions and gloat/show-off their possessions and expensive items. Makes me sick to my stomach.

[Ducimus]

One thing ive learned over the years is that hate and discrimination has two ends. One extreme on one end, and another extreme on the other. Fundamentalist christians have been this up and coming thing for a few years now, and it progressively becomes worse and more widespread over time, like a cancer.

You know, i don't live very far from this monstrocity (http://www.friedmanarchives.com/California/pages/Crystal%20Cathedral%20Exterior.htm).

I refuse to step foot on the property. Organized fundamentalist christian groups takes in millions of dollars a year, they pay no taxes, and they always want more. It's quite the industry, on top of brainwashing people, and getting involved in poltics. We have seperation of chuch and state for a reason.

The biggest problems i have with these people:
- They play the "help im being oprressed!" card, when it is infact they who seek to oppress others.

- At every opportunity they seek to force their dogma upon others,

- they think that everybody should beleive as they do and actively seek to make that happen.

- They have no respect for anyones beleif's but their own.

- They preach tolerance when they have none.

They're hipocritical, deranged and condescending. Whats amazing about it all, is why some of these christian groups don't understand why some people are turning, decidedly anti-religious.

[August]

Thank you for revealing your position on Atheists, August.
So what makes you think "my position on Atheists" was hidden? I've never made a secret of it in the three years i've been on this board and i resent your implication otherwise.

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.


Wonderful generalisation there , you don't believe in "God" so your untrustworthy , self-serving and discriminatory...nice:nope:
Indeed but that's not the first such generalisation I've seen him make. :shifty:

Well then perhaps you ought to reread it Joe because it is anything but a generalization. Maybe the athiests i have met in my 48 years represent the worst part of the group I dunno, but i am as entitled as anyone else in drawing conclusions based on personal experience.

[TheSatyr]

Religion was perverted hundreds of years ago. The true teachings of Jesus got drowned out by the "white noise" of the power seekers who used religion to climb to power.I seriously doubt Jesus would be very happy with what Christianity has become.

I also feel that the "message" began to change as soon as he died. There is no doubt in my mind that the Apostles put their own "spin" on Jesus' teachings.

My Aunt and Uncle are both Deacons in the Episcopalian Church,(Spelling?) and even they think alot of Christians have gone too far in their hate and intolerance for anything or anyone "different" from them.

I am an Atheist,but I have the utmost respect for my Aunt and Uncle. I also respect Jesus the man. I also respected Pope John Paul II,but I can't say I have much respect for Pope Benedict,he has too many skeletons in his closet.

As an Atheist I'm not troubled by "One Nation Under God" or "In God We Trust",and it actually bugs me when other Atheists get so bent out of shape over it. To me,those phrases represent tradition not some mandated religious thing.

For me,what it all comes down to is this if you respect me and my views than I'll respect you and your views. I don't care if you are Christian,Jewish,Islamic,Bhuddist,Hindu,Wiccan a Satanist or any other religion. Show me some respect and you'll get mine.

[Skybird]

Religion was perverted hundreds of years ago. The true teachings of Jesus got drowned out by the "white noise" of the power seekers who used religion to climb to power.I seriously doubt Jesus would be very happy with what Christianity has become.

I also feel that the "message" began to change as soon as he died. There is no doubt in my mind that the Apostles put their own "spin" on Jesus' teachings.

Yes, and especially Paul gave it all a spin that served his interest: to move himself into the centre of athority. People are wrong when considering that Nietzsche was against relgion in general, he was against simple miracle believing, against the distortions of Christoian faitzh as you described it, and against a view that sees the single individual being the centre of all universe to whose spritual health and uniqueness all laws of nature shall bow - and espeically Paul was shreddered to pieces by Nietzsche whom he labeled the exact opposite of Jesus.


My Aunt and Uncle are both Deacons in the Episcopalian Church,(Spelling?) and even they think alot of Christians have gone too far in their hate and intolerance for anything or anyone "different" from them.

I am an Atheist,but I have the utmost respect for my Aunt and Uncle. I also respect Jesus the man. I also respected Pope John Paul II,but I can't say I have much respect for Pope Benedict,he has too many skeletons in his closet.
Okay, here I am 180° reversed, I do not like or respect John Paul II. a bit, and respect Benedict much more. Not because I agree with his belief, but for honestly being what he is and what - as a pope - he should be, and for his more substantial demand for reciprocity regarding the West's many favours towards Islam, and for being a smart, sharp thinker .

As an Atheist I'm not troubled by "One Nation Under God" or "In God We Trust",and it actually bugs me when other Atheists get so bent out of shape over it. To me,those phrases represent tradition not some mandated religious thing.
Those tradtions are just merely 50 years old! Not before massive catholic campaigns these mottos were added to the American money, and the pledge of allegiance! That was in the nineteen-fifties. they are not part of the founding intentions or the american history before that time! Seen that way they illustrate religious dogmatism marching and interfering with politics. Some months ago we had an air force thread and how the air force has been infiltrated by the religious right, it is a symptom of a similiar sneaking process, as I see it.

For me,what it all comes down to is this if you respect me and my views than I'll respect you and your views. I don't care if you are Christian,Jewish,Islamic,Bhuddist,Hindu,Wiccan a Satanist or any other religion. Show me some respect and you'll get mine.

Yes, we agree again on this. I would prefer the way Sailor Steve once put it both so simple and so convincing: I have no problem with anybody who does not raise problems to me. what colour somebody paints the walls inside his home in is not interesting for me. Just when he starts to trying to force me to sit there, or pushing it down my throat that I have to paint my own walls the same way, or when he tells me at every damn opportunity how great it looks, and that nothing looks better and that he cannot understand how others could paint their walls in different colours - that is when I start growling.

[Catfish]

Hello August,
... i mean i really did not want to post here again, but since i am adressed directly, but :damn:

Originally Posted by August
"God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church Catfish. That's like saying daytime is brought to us by the weatherman."

How unctuously. Indeed i exactly meant this kind of "argueing". I am not sure which religion you chose, if not your parents already did it for you.
You are right, literally: "God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church" - like any curch or religion i should say. Why is one in need then to have it explained by a priest or whatever ? And why do those priests tell everyone "if you behave in this way, you are doing good, if you take that way, you are wrong" etc..
They decide for you, if you let them, instead of god and your own free will, and call themselves god's attornies in fact.

I could call every creationist atheist because he is obviously not believing his own eyes god gave him. Ah, a test. God put the fossils into the earth's strata as a test for mankind to believe nevertheless ? Believe me, a god that is so close to mankind would have had better things to do. Not that i believe in such a notion.
Do you think people who torture believe in god ? It was almost a precondition in the middle ages. What do you think in what name they did what they did ? Don't you think they probably abused god's name as those TV priests and almost every religion does it today ? Do you think scientology is a religion ?

You are not even able, nor have you the right, to tell anyone he is an "atheist" or whatever, if he differs from your point of view. God or belief, faith in anything is not for an exclusive club, however named.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

Ah, a test. God put the fossils into the earth's strata as a test for mankind to believe nevertheless ? Believe me, a god that is so close to mankind would have had better things to do.

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able, and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God.

Epicurus

;)

[Catfish]

Hello,
logical deduction err well, those damn ancient smarta$$es knew it all before lol. And I sure would once again like to have a glass of Samos wine (they even drink wine in the bible).
Apart from Epikur it is sometimes good to remember that those cultural values we like to refer to as christian are indeed the successors of the greek philosophy, and their roman successors.

Golly, i know i have been absent for a year but Skybird you have 9000 plus posts ?!

Greetings,
Catfish

[Skybird]

Golly, i know i have been absent for a year but Skybird you have 9000 plus posts ?!

Greetings,
Catfish
Working my way towards my 5th star! :D Those 41 posts missing... pah, peanuts...

[August]

Hello August,
... i mean i really did not want to post here again, but since i am adressed directly, but :damn:

Originally Posted by August
"God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church Catfish. That's like saying daytime is brought to us by the weatherman."

How unctuously. Indeed i exactly meant this kind of "argueing". I am not sure which religion you chose, if not your parents already did it for you.
You are right, literally: "God isn't brought to us by human institutions like the church" - like any curch or religion i should say. Why is one in need then to have it explained by a priest or whatever ? And why do those priests tell everyone "if you behave in this way, you are doing good, if you take that way, you are wrong" etc..
They decide for you, if you let them, instead of god and your own free will, and call themselves god's attornies in fact.

I could call every creationist atheist because he is obviously not believing his own eyes god gave him. Ah, a test. God put the fossils into the earth's strata as a test for mankind to believe nevertheless ? Believe me, a god that is so close to mankind would have had better things to do. Not that i believe in such a notion.
Do you think people who torture believe in god ? It was almost a precondition in the middle ages. What do you think in what name they did what they did ? Don't you think they probably abused god's name as those TV priests and almost every religion does it today ? Do you think scientology is a religion ?

You are not even able, nor have you the right, to tell anyone he is an "atheist" or whatever, if he differs from your point of view. God or belief, faith in anything is not for an exclusive club, however named.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

Wow so many questions. Let me try to answer them:

Why is one in need then to have it explained by a priest or whatever ?
I don't know, everything is explained to everyone by someone eventually. There is little we figure out on our own.

And why do those priests tell everyone "if you behave in this way, you are doing good, if you take that way, you are wrong"
Depends on the behavior i'd think. Is it wrong to tell someone not to steal for example?

Do you think people who torture believe in god ?
I would expect that like any other sub group some do and some don't.

What do you think in what name they did what they did ?
I don't understand the question. If the first word is "why" then I would say probably for any number of reasons, including, but not limited to they thought they were doing Gods will.

Don't you think they probably abused god's name as those TV priests and almost every religion does it today ?
Yes I do.

Do you think scientology is a religion ?
My good friend Skybird doesn't think so. Personally i don't know or care very much.

------------------

Like I said Catfish, God is not an invention of religion. Religion, imo, is nothing but a human attempt to explain something that our minds cannot fully comprehend and like all human endeavors has it's flaws.

[mrbeast]

Hello,
logical deduction err well, those damn ancient smarta$$es knew it all before lol. And I sure would once again like to have a glass of Samos wine (they even drink wine in the bible).
Apart from Epikur it is sometimes good to remember that those cultural values we like to refer to as christian are indeed the successors of the greek philosophy, and their roman successors.

Golly, i know i have been absent for a year but Skybird you have 9000 plus posts ?!

Greetings,
Catfish

Much of what we think of as 'Christian Values' do indeed draw on earlier pagan values.

Early christianity was edited and changed so that it would not offend Roman sensibilities, allowing it to be easily assimilated into existing Roman society and later adopted as the state religon. For example many, if not all, of the overtly Jewish elements of early Christianity were done away with. The sabbeth was moved from Saturday to Sunday to coincide with worship of the sun god Apollo, who was associated with the Christian god by the Romans. Festivals had their dates changed to coincide with existing, pagan feast days. Christmas is a notable example. There was an existing Roman festival celebrated on 25 December so the Emperor Constantine declaired it as a festival to celebrate Jesus birth, it also slotted in nicely with other pagan winter solstice festivals.

[August]

Much of what we think of as 'Christian Values' do indeed draw on earlier pagan values.

Early christianity was edited and changed so that it would not offend Roman sensibilities, allowing it to be easily assimilated into existing Roman society and later adopted as the state religon. For example many, if not all, of the overtly Jewish elements of early Christianity were done away with. The sabbeth was moved from Saturday to Sunday to coincide with worship of the sun god Apollo, who was associated with the Christian god by the Romans. Festivals had their dates changed to coincide with existing, pagan feast days. Christmas is a notable example. There was an existing Roman festival celebrated on 25 December so the Emperor Constantine declaired it as a festival to celebrate Jesus birth, it also slotted in nicely with other pagan winter solstice festivals.

From what I read a lot of pagan festivals were co-opted by Christianity. Its a rather effective tactic.

[Brag]

Judging by the pictures, this sect believes in bestiality :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[kiwi_2005]

Hello,
logical deduction err well, those damn ancient smarta$$es knew it all before lol. And I sure would once again like to have a glass of Samos wine (they even drink wine in the bible).
Apart from Epikur it is sometimes good to remember that those cultural values we like to refer to as christian are indeed the successors of the greek philosophy, and their roman successors.

Golly, i know i have been absent for a year but Skybird you have 9000 plus posts ?!

Greetings,
Catfish
Much of what we think of as 'Christian Values' do indeed draw on earlier pagan values.

Early christianity was edited and changed so that it would not offend Roman sensibilities, allowing it to be easily assimilated into existing Roman society and later adopted as the state religon. For example many, if not all, of the overtly Jewish elements of early Christianity were done away with. The sabbeth was moved from Saturday to Sunday to coincide with worship of the sun god Apollo, who was associated with the Christian god by the Romans. Festivals had their dates changed to coincide with existing, pagan feast days. Christmas is a notable example. There was an existing Roman festival celebrated on 25 December so the Emperor Constantine declaired it as a festival to celebrate Jesus birth, it also slotted in nicely with other pagan winter solstice festivals.
Yep easter is the same it was a celebration of the pagan Goddess Easter.


Nowhere in the Bible does it celebrate or even mention Easter. The name Easter derived from the Saxon Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). The ancient Saxons in Northern Europe worshiped the Goddess Oestre at the time of the Spring Equinox.
The Goddess Easter represents the sunrise, spring-time and fertility, the renewal of life. Pagan Anglo-Saxons made offerings of colored eggs to her at the Vernal Equinox. They placed them at graves especially, probably as a charm of rebirth. (Egyptians and Greeks were also known to place eggs at gravesites).
Only later did the Christians pilfer the name for themselves and graft their religion onto a pagan celebration.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/easter.htm

[Foxtrot]

didn't read this whole thread but try "Jesus Camp", "Worship Bush" and Westboro sites :D

I don't understand one thing one thing about majority of Christians. They believe that god is jesus but also that jesus is the son of god. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

[Venatore]

Being an Aussie, I had to laugh at the Kangaroo character :rotfl:

[geetrue]

didn't read this whole thread but try "Jesus Camp", "Worship Bush" and Westboro sites :D

I don't understand one thing one thing about majority of Christians. They believe that god is jesus but also that jesus is the son of god. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

Jesus lives in your heart if you invite him in that is.

If the ice cream man came ding, ding, ding down the street and stopped at your house and wanted to give you something really good.

How would he get in?

You would have to go over to the door and unlock it and let him in to serve you.

Same with Jesus ... if you don't open up your heart to him. He will continue on down he street till he finds someone that does want the gift of eternal life.

God the Father is the father of Jesus and the father of us all.

Jesus is His son and was His son in heaven before he was a baby in the manager.

After Jesus paid for all of mankinds sins on the cross, He was raised to everlasting life and the gift of the Holy Spirit was released unto the church with the promise that Jesus would come back again someday to take his believers to be with him forever in heaven.

There is power in his love, power you have not felt yet, forgiveness of your sins by blood Jesus shed on the cross is the power you need to feel.

Revival has broken out in Lakeland, Flordia ... Todd Bentley from Canada is having a healing revival live on God TV every night on channel 365 Direct TV.

Turn him on and tune him in ... He has paid for all of your sins.

http://us.god.tv/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=1000030502

www.freshfire.ca (http://www.freshfire.ca)

Live online till May 4th and perhaps for much longer

[August]

Turn him on and tune him in ... He has paid for all of your sins.

I don't think these people really want to be preached to Geetrue... :D

[kurtz]

... Todd Bentley from Canada is having a healing revival live on God TV every night on channel 365 Direct TV.

Turn him on and tune him in ... He has paid for all of your sins.

Live online till May 4th and perhaps for much longer

Todd Bentley has paid for my sins? That's awfuly sweet of him.

[Fish]

[Todd Bentley from Canada is having a healing revival live on God TV every night on channel 365 Direct TV.



Typical they only heal lame or sick people, never give back a leg or a lost arm.

[kurtz]

[Todd Bentley from Canada is having a healing revival live on God TV every night on channel 365 Direct TV.



Typical they only heal lame or sick people, never give back a leg or a lost arm.

Now I think on this, won't god be angry if he's afflicted people with sickness if Todd goes round curing them?

[Skybird]

didn't read this whole thread but try "Jesus Camp", "Worship Bush" and Westboro sites :D

I don't understand one thing one thing about majority of Christians. They believe that god is jesus but also that jesus is the son of god. Pretty stupid if you ask me.

Jesus lives in your heart if you invite him in that is.

If the ice cream man came ding, ding, ding down the street and stopped at your house and wanted to give you something really good.

How would he get in?

You would have to go over to the door and unlock it and let him in to serve you.

Same with Jesus ... if you don't open up your heart to him. He will continue on down he street till he finds someone that does want the gift of eternal life.

God the Father is the father of Jesus and the father of us all.

Jesus is His son and was His son in heaven before he was a baby in the manager.

After Jesus paid for all of mankinds sins on the cross, He was raised to everlasting life and the gift of the Holy Spirit was released unto the church with the promise that Jesus would come back again someday to take his believers to be with him forever in heaven.

There is power in his love, power you have not felt yet, forgiveness of your sins by blood Jesus shed on the cross is the power you need to feel.

Revival has broken out in Lakeland, Flordia ... Todd Bentley from Canada is having a healing revival live on God TV every night on channel 365 Direct TV.

Turn him on and tune him in ... He has paid for all of your sins.

http://us.god.tv/Publisher/Article.aspx?id=1000030502

www.freshfire.ca (http://www.freshfire.ca)

Live online till May 4th and perhaps for much longer
Next time somebody wants to pay for my sins - he better asks me first what I think of it. Else he may find himself eating his divine ice cream himself. I hate ice cream - especially when you slip on it, fall down and brake your yawbone so that you cannot close your mouth again.

[Skybird]

Just in, and fitting into the meaning and theme of this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPG3-1gogXU

(...) Faith is a very dangerous word, it includes two completely separate entities, which have got nothing at all to do with each other, the one is good, and one is evil. One is called "spirituality", and the other is called "religion". One is a private experience, the other is a public nuisance. One leads to self-knowledge, the other leads to self-indulgence at everyone else's expense. In one there is no compulsion, where as the other depends on compulsion for it's survival. On is grounded in innocence, the other in guilt. One embraces life, the other worships death. It's hard to imagine how these two things could be any more different, yet for some reason they are always sold to us together, in a single package under the banner of "faith". If you take one, you've got to take the other, a bit like a pet-shop giving away a free rattlesnake with every bunny-rabbit. I'm not saying that there is not more to this life than what meets the eye, because there obviously is... (...) It's clear that we are part of a reality that we do not fully understand. And if there is a "life-force" in this universe - and let's face it: there must be, otherwise there wouldn't be any life - it's natural that we would want to make some connection with it, because everybody wants to feel more alive. But there is no evidence that it requires "worshipping", or any form of subservient behavior, or that we are in any way central to it's agenda, or that we are even relevant to it any more than any other organism on this planet or in the universe - this universe or any other universe. So in that sense, i think we really need to get over ourselves big time. Also we need to stop pretending that all the man-made trappings of faith, the ornamental accessories if you like, are really anything more than just that; I'm talking about scripture, dogma, ritual, prophecy, religious law, all these things that have been put there to give religion some kind of structure, and to be fair: that's why they are there, isn't it. It's a bit like dressing the invisible man: once he's got some clothes on - you can see him! But of course you don't see him - you see the clothes. And that is the problem: everyone has become so obsessed with the god-damn clothes we've fogotten if there ever was anyone there in the first place. If you are a spiritual person, you don't need religion - and you know it. and you are certainly not interested in forcing your beliefs onto anybody else. If you are not a spiritual person, then what the bloody hell are you doing on your knees praying like an idiot, like a dog that had been taught how to do something without understanding why. Get up and stop making a fool of yourself! Because your faith is not a virtue - it's a vice. It's a slave to dogma, to scriptual certainties which nevertheless are open to self-interested interpretation by man. I'm sure you can see the obvious flaw in that little arrangement. Also, faith in it's Alice-in-Wonderland-way defines and measures itself according to lack of evidence - the less evidence there is, the more faith is required, and the more worthy it is of respect and [not understood] for some reason, not to mention large ammounts of public money, generous tax brakes, and the freedom to fill the minds of innocent young children with violent superstitions, and baseless fears - and this to me really is the curse of faith, and it is something that really ashames us from generation to generation. (...)

Damn, I cannot count how often I have preached exactly this to my meditation students in past years before. And what Pat says is so very much the same what Nietzsche brought up into arms as well, as he puts it so biting and determined in "The Anti-Christ", chapters 42 and 43:

Hard upon the heels of the "glad tidings" came the worst imaginable: those of Paul. In Paul is incarnated the very opposite of the "bearer of glad tidings"; he represents the genius for hatred, the vision of hatred, the relentless logic of hatred. What, indeed, has not this dysangelist sacrificed to hatred! Above all, the Saviour: he nailed him to his own cross. The life, the example, the teach-ing, the death of Christ, the meaning and the law of the whole gospels - nothing was left of all this after that counterfeiter in hatred had reduced it to his uses. Surely not real-ity; surely not historical truth! … Once more the priestly instinct of the Jew perpetrated the same old master crime against history - he simply struck out the yesterday and the day before yesterday of Christianity, and in-vented his own history of Christian beginnings. Going further, he treated the history of Israel to another falsification, so that it became a mere prologue to his achievement: all the prophets, it now ap-peared, had referred to his "Saviour."… Later on the church even falsified the his-tory of man in order to make it a prologue to Christianity... The figure of the Saviour, his teaching, his way of life, his death, the meaning of his death, even the conse-quences of his death - nothing remained untouched, nothing remained in even re-mote contact with reality. Paul simply shifted the centre of gravity of that whole life to a place behind this existence - in the lie of the "risen" Jesus. At bottom, he had no use for the life of the Saviour - what he needed was the death on the cross, and something more. To see anything honest in such a man as Paul, whose home was at the centre of the Stoical enlightenment, when he converts an hallucination into a proof of the resurrection of the Saviour, or even to be-lieve his tale that he suffered from this hallucination himself - this would be a genu-ine niaiserie in a psychologist. Paul willed the end; therefore he also willed the means. - What he himself didn't believe was swal-lowed readily enough by the idiots among whom he spread his teaching. - What he wanted was power; in Paul the priest once more reached out for power - he had use only for such concepts, teachings and sym-bols as served the purpose of tyrannizing over the masses and organizing mobs. What was the only part of Christianity that Mo-hammed borrowed later on? Paul's invention, his device for establishing priestly tyranny and organizing the mob: the belief in the immortality of the soul - that is to say, the doctrine of "judgment ... When the centre of gravity of life is placed, not in life itself, but in "the beyond" - in nothingness - then one has taken away its centre of gravity altogether. The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct - henceforth, everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning: this is now the "meaning" of life… Why be public-spirited? Why take any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labour together, trust one another, or con-cern one's self about the common welfare, and try to serve it? Merely so many "tempta-tions," so many strayings from the "straight path." – “One thing only is necessary"… That every man, because he has an "immor-tal soul," is as good as every other man; that in an infinite universe of things the "salvation" of every individual may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant big-ots and the three-fourths insane may assume that the laws of nature are con-stantly suspended in their behalf - it is impossible to lavish too much contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to infinity, to insolence. […] The "salvation of the soul" - in plain English: "the world revolves around me." … […] To allow "immortality" to every Peter and Paul was the greatest, the most vicious outrage upon noble humanity ever perpetrated.

[caspofungin]

ok, playing devil's advocate...

without a belief in the immortal soul and eventual judgement, what's to stop an individual from living his life just to improve his own lot, regardless of the consequences to others? doesn't the fear of one day being called to account temper the actions of men?

[Skybird]

Never understood what drives people to make that link of religion causing ethics. And it seems to me that the attitude developing from that constant and horrific fear of hellfire has turned out the worst in man and made him commit many acts of the utmost brutality and mercilessness, as if wantint to prove that if hell cannot be found after death, man can create it himself while still living, and that way fulfilling his own selfmade prophecy. Or aide workers in the third world: are they all only going there in obedience to their faith, not because of the people? Well, i know that better for sure.

Why does anybody assume where there is no relgion, there is no ethical behavior? One thing I know for sure: my parents deeply love me - for the sake of myself, not to be obedient to any religious demands. And where I loved others, and deeply loved a girl once, far beyond just superficial desire, I never had any religious motivation on my mind with that. But those who had - all to often preach in favour of war, aggression, hate, intolerance, torture - always with the best intentions on mind.

Without religious dogma - we would have a far better, ethically more intact world, I think, which lacks this unholy separation between sacred and profane.. And where greed and envy and selfishness rule in business and politics in the past and present - religion it seems does not prevent that to be, and never has prevented it, but often enflamed and assisted it.

To "prove" how evil and bad atheism is, it often is pointed to communism, or Nazism. But that is nonsens. Materialistic ideologies like these (or capitalism!) are maybe atheist in that they are excessively materialistic, but not every face of atheism is limited to these - like every shepard dog is a dog, but not every dog is a shepard dog. Pat and Nietzsche both say what I say, too: for true sprituality, you need to leave religion behind. Atheism can also be the understanding that rejecting the concepts and dogmas of the religions and their self-constructed deities is a necessary precondition to spirituality, and sprituality never is a public affair, or a group event - it is most private, intimate thing and beyond words and thus: not to be delivered by teachings and dogmas anyway. you can't point at it with your finger and say here it is, and there you see it. You can only describe it by telling what it is NOT. the more people tell you about what God is and how much he loves you and what you need to do to be happy in his shining light - the less they know. "He who talks, does not know. He who knows, talks not." that's why I only talk in negations about "it" - when I talk about "it" at all. For the most, all these discussion, from my point of view, are about the more or less obvious social, cultural and political consequences of religions and how they behave inside a society or culture. Here is where I am concerned, and engage. Where people don't bother the world with their beliefs, I do not care, and do not start anything.

The name of God cannot be pronounced, the Jews use to say. People should understand that metaphor more precisely, and less literally - because there is much truth in it. Or as I translated my own german interpretation of the TaoTeKing, (1) :

The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner Essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires, means to reach the invisible inside.
Acting with desires, means to stay by the limited outside.
The all-One and the all-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and in name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to true understanding.

[caspofungin]

Never understood what drives people to make that link of religion causing ethics.
easy tiger, i personally believe that if someone wants to screw someone else over, they'll do so regardless of their religion or lack of it -- "religion it seems does not prevent that to be, and never has prevented it, but often enflamed and assisted it." -- i'm with you there ;)

like i said, just being the devil's advocate.

Without religious dogma - we would have a far better, ethically more intact world
maybe, but this is assuming that without religion, everyone will be automatically "ethically intact" -- i just wanted to know your thoughts on the idea that sometimes, religion can act as a moral "brake" and make someone act more ethically than they would have otherwise. or in other words, without religion, what's the drive that cause people to act "good?" does spirituality have to have some aspect of "good will be rewarded, evil will be punished" to make people respect each other?

sorry, i've not had any formal philosophical training, so my point may not be getting across as precisely as i would like...

[Skybird]

I think "intact" ethics not so much come from adding some considered positive quality to life, but from not adding a negative quality to life. ethics to me are not so much abiout something that is there, but about something bad that is missing, like I also often think of evil not being a quality that exists in itself, but as being the absence of goodness. I am a bit naturalistic in that, maybe. I follow the TaoTeKing's guidance in this, or maybe also what I imagine (not knowing for sure!) to be "American-Indian" in the widest sense and how I perceive it to be grounded in Earth and Nature itself. But with that reference maybe I am just romantically dreaming, I possibly have many chlichees on Indians on my mind. If Ishmael would have a laugh at me for this, I would not be angry and accept his correction. Interestingly I once found him mentioning Taoism to be part of his repertoire, too.

And just to be sure, regarding "easy Tiger", no, I took nothing queer that you said. You maybe misunderstood me when making your remark, or my wording was misleading. ;)

[caspofungin]

:up:

[mrbeast]

Some good stuff there Skybird.:up:

To return to your point that people often point to nazism and communism to show how 'bad atheism is though.

When people make this argument I think they miss quite a glaring point about communism (by communism I'm largely talking about Stalinism and Maoism) and nazism is that they had most of the trappings of religon.

They had dogmatic rhetoric (class war etc, the superiority of the aryan race). A figurehead who had a personality cult and was held in almost divine awe (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al). They had sacred texts (Mein Kampf, Das Kapital and other Marxist works, Mao's little red book). They promised their followers a paradise to strive for (Greater Germany and a world free of Jewery and Bolshievism, a workers or peasants paradise).

Above all they imbued their followers with a lack of moral uncertainty.

Another point to make about nazism is that it was not an entirely athiest ideology, every observant German soldier would have noted that his belt buckle carried the moto 'Gott mit uns'.

[August]

Another point to make about nazism is that it was not an entirely athiest ideology, every observant German soldier would have noted that his belt buckle carried the moto 'Gott mit uns'.
Actually like many of the German uniforms attributes those belt buckle slogans predate the Nazis.

[Skybird]

Some good stuff there Skybird.:up:

To return to your point that people often point to nazism and communism to show how 'bad atheism is though.

When people make this argument I think they miss quite a glaring point about communism (by communism I'm largely talking about Stalinism and Maoism) and nazism is that they had most of the trappings of religon.

They had dogmatic rhetoric (class war etc, the superiority of the aryan race). A figurehead who had a personality cult and was held in almost divine awe (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot et al). They had sacred texts (Mein Kampf, Das Kapital and other Marxist works, Mao's little red book). They promised their followers a paradise to strive for (Greater Germany and a world free of Jewery and Bolshievism, a workers or peasants paradise).

Above all they imbued their followers with a lack of moral uncertainty.

Another point to make about nazism is that it was not an entirely athiest ideology, every observant German soldier would have noted that his belt buckle carried the moto 'Gott mit uns'.

Not too mention Hitler'S and other Nazi'S fascination for mysticism, Tibet and cultic rituals, and concerning that motto on german belt buckles, I am ot sure, but I seem to remember that this was no feature the Nazis invented, but was already part of the German uniforms in WW!. I do not know out of the blue wether or not Nazi speeches did not occassionally refer to something like "God with us", but I wouldn't be surprised if goebbels or hitler and others did not make use of the motivating effect when refering to God to point out one's own war is a just cause. If they really meant it and really believed in God and relgion - of course is a completely different issue.

[Iceman]

Proverbs 1

[22] How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
[23] Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.
[24] Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out my hand, and no man regarded;
[25] But ye have set at nought all my counsel, and would none of my reproof:
[26] I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
[27] When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.
[28] Then shall they call upon me, but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me:
[29] For that they hated knowledge, and did not choose the fear of the LORD:
[30] They would none of my counsel: they despised all my reproof.
[31] Therefore shall they eat of the fruit of their own way, and be filled with their own devices.
[32] For the turning away of the simple shall slay them, and the prosperity of fools shall destroy them.
[33] But whoso hearkeneth unto me shall dwell safely, and shall be quiet from fear of evil.

How long indeed?...I suspect right up until the very end.

[Skybird]

Oh look, Pat - more proverbs! :lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.cagle.com/news/PatRobertson/images/parker.gif

[Skybird]

I know all 40 videos by Pat Condell but I cannot remember that he ever called for assassonation of huga chavez - or anybody else.

Talking of two different Pats, mybe? I thought that I meant Pat Condell might be obvious from this thread and my earlier reference to him.

[joea]

Pat Robertson, American TV evangelist and would-be presidential candidate at one time IIRC.

[Skybird]

Pat Robertson, American TV evangelist and would-be presidential candidate at one time IIRC.Thanks for briefing me. I did not know that. But the cartoon is mis-aimed, then (at least if it was meant in reply to me).

[THE_MASK]

God = Time divided by thought X Rs = 2MG /C2 (the stairway to heaven).


Disprove that hawking !!!!!!!!!

[Tchocky]

I slunk in my seat, trying to look inconspicuous. My disguise was modeled on other men I'd seen in church — pane glasses and the very gayest blue-and-white-striped Gap polo shirt I'd been able to find that afternoon. Buried on a clearance rack next to the underwear section in a nearby mall, the Gap shirt was one of those irritating throwbacks to the Meatballs/Seventies-summer-camp-geek look, but stripped of its sartorial irony, it really just screamed Friendless Loser! — so I bought it without hesitation and tried to match it with that sheepish, ashamed-to-have-a-penis look I had seen so many other young men wearing in church. With the glasses and a slouch I hoped I was at least in the ballpark of what I thought I needed to look like, which was a slow-moving hulk of confused, shipwrecked masculinity, flailing for an Answer.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20278737/jesus_made_me_puke/print

:lol:

[Foxtrot]

So according to the latest news: Girls recovered from Texas compund are teeange moms. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7372485.stm)

*sarcasm* Now after reading stuff about this sect, I am seriously considering to join it. Thinking about three pretty girls serving you without any question, and no nagging at home. And of course, it is likely possible that these women are not leftovers of some dude before you

[antikristuseke]

"In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, I cast out the demon of the intellect!" Fortenberry continued. "In the name of Jesus, I cast out the demon of anal fissures!"

Demon of anal fissures?:roll:

[silentrunner]

Allright I haven't been on subsim for a while so I haven't posted in this thread. I have to say that that original sight offends me. It makes all Christians sound like ignorant ass holes. That part about how you shouldn't talk to atheists because they are mean and grumpy; that was retarded. I don't really care what your beliefs are; it is none of business. Yeah I will try to spread my religion, but I will just tell people about it. I will not cram it down any body's throat. Because really I don't want people craming their beliefs down my throat, so why would they want me to do it to them. Whoever created that site is not a very good Christian when all the site preaches is hatred of other people.

[Fish]

Pat Robertson, American TV evangelist and would-be presidential candidate at one time IIRC.Thanks for briefing me. I did not know that. But the cartoon is mis-aimed, then (at least if it was meant in reply to me).

Pat Condell, doesn't have that much hair. ;)

[Stealth Hunter]

http://www.jesusanswers.com/

[kurtz]

http://www.jesusanswers.com/

Good for finding that porn you've lost on your pc, we're a bit obsessive on that site aren't we.

[mrbeast]

"IS THERE PORN ON YOUR PC ?" You bet !
"ARE YOU SURE ?" Damn yeah !
"FREE CHECK" No need :rotfl:

:rotfl: :rotfl:

Would be quite amusing if some teenage boy made a search for the word porn on the net and it came up with this site.

Strange that a christian site would be so obssessed with porn? :hmm:

[kurtz]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=x45EOzMJA5o

[Foxtrot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owCXbDVTLRE

I find it interesting that Iraqi kids are handed over to Christian missionaries whose parents are died from invasion. Maybe Lord is busy in His mysterious J-O-B?

And why the hell is this sort of stuff not reported by mainstream media?

[Skybird]

Fundamentalists - in other words: the inflamed appendix of mankind. Nobody wants it. Nobody needs it. Nothing good has ever or will ever come from it. But much pain and suffering already has come from it.

Tribes in the Amazon region have the tradition of forming shrunken heads from dead bodies. The religions are more advanced - they shrunk heads with subjects still being alive.

:dead:

The story reminds of the Osmans, though. The Turks used to steal the children of Christian families and convert them to Islam and form a fanatic military elite of them, totally loyal to the sultan.

[Fish]

ok, playing devil's advocate...

without a belief in the immortal soul and eventual judgement, what's to stop an individual from living his life just to improve his own lot, regardless of the consequences to others? doesn't the fear of one day being called to account temper the actions of men?

Common sense. :up:

[caspofungin]

so it's common sense to not take advantage of those weaker than you? how so? if you can get away with something, and that something will improve your position, why not do it?

[August]

Right, but it's not like if religious don't do that either :)

At least the religious have to jump through a few hoops to justify their evil. What is your inhibition? ;)

[antikristuseke]

Treat others like you would like to be treated. That and empathy, being a human being means having certain emotions, feelings, urges etc. due to empathy i realize that other humans are not much dissimilar and why would i hurt them? Besides there is more to be gained from social behaviour than there is from a mad strugle for power, if selfish motivators are to be brought in.
Personaly i help others for the sake of helping them, not because of fear of eternal damnation. Now anyway, when i was a few years younger I did chase profits at the expense of others and that has cost me dearly. But thats not to say that i try to do good now because I am repenting my past action, that would be inacurate, sure i have regrets but with the choises i had available at the time and knowing what i know now i doubt i would choose diferently.

[caspofungin]

At least the religious have to jump through a few hoops to justify their evil. What is your inhibition?

Treat others like you would like to be treated. That and empathy, being a human being means having certain emotions, feelings, urges etc. due to empathy

that's a laudable view, but in my opinion and in my experience, the defining human charactistic is selfishness -- to varying degrees, to be sure, but selfishness nonetheless. empathy is something that is found in the minority, and has nothing to do with religion. i'm not even sure it has anything to do with upbringing, either.

Unlike you, antikristuseke, some people just can't comprehend the Golden Rule for whatever reason.

[Schroeder]

What bothers me with religion is that those who claim to be the most religious are often the most evil people.
Have a look at Mr. Bush for example. He claims to be a good Christian, yet he lied and started a private war that cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

But I don't even have to look over the Atlantic. When I was in school those who claimed to be "good Christians" were always those to show off with marks, clothes, cars... and let others who weren't as wealthy feel that they were "inferior".

Besides I've got some Jehovah witnesses (is that the English term?) in my family.
I've seen how they have closed their eyes and ears for everything that was not part of their religion. They are like zombies caught in dogmas!

I was always surprised how the story of the creation can still be believed by so many people today. Especially in the US one would just have to look out of the window to see that it can't have been that way.

If we are all the descendants of the white couple Adam and Eve, and there is no such thing as evolution, how is it possible that there a coloured people? You must agree that they are strange looking for descendants of whites but maybe they are all just exaggerating sunbathing..... And what are the Asians doing with their eyes and skulls? Does every Asian get a cosmetic operation after birth? Remember, according to the bible there is no evolution!

As we see that's not going to work the way the bible teaches us. I bet if the religions weren't against the thought of evolution it would not be regarded as a theory any more but as a proven fact.



Just my humble opinion.:roll:

[antikristuseke]

You dont seem to understand what a theory means in science, A thory is a model which explains facts and events that take place and makes testable predictions.
It does not mean the same as it does in everyday usage.

[mrbeast]

Right, but it's not like if religious don't do that either :)

At least the religious have to jump through a few hoops to justify their evil. What is your inhibition? ;)

I think this is a rather spurious argument. So evil committed by a religous person is better than that committed by a secular person because they haven't jumped through hoops?

Is the end result any different?

Its not that religion fails to inhibbit the 'evil' committed by people; it provides more oppurtunities for what you might describe as evil acts to take place. Religion often provides the pretext for 'evil' to be committed.

[August]

I think this is a rather spurious argument. So evil committed by a religous person is better than that committed by a secular person because they haven't jumped through hoops?

No, that's not what i meant as you well know.

Is the end result any different?

Its not that religion fails to inhibbit the 'evil' committed by people; it provides more oppurtunities for what you might describe as evil acts to take place. Religion often provides the pretext for 'evil' to be committed.

Your reasoning is backwards.

The Ten Commandments for example are a pretty good guide on things one should not do. Where is your thou shalt not?

[August]

If we are all the descendants of the white couple Adam and Eve,

Where in the bible does it say Adam and Eve were white?

[Schroeder]

In all the paintings I've seen they were shown as a white couple. If the bible doesn't say so then I'm sorry for claiming it would have.

Besides it doesn't matter. Let them be black, Asian or what ever it doesn't change that today's ethnical groups can't go back to a single couple without evolution.


The Ten Commandments for example are a pretty good guide on things one should not do. Where is your thou shalt not? The things you are looking for a called laws.;)
Atheism doesn't mean that there are no rules.




@antikristuseke
O.K. I really didn't know that the term means something different in science. Thank you for telling me.:D

[mrbeast]

No, that's not what i meant as you well know.

Well what did you mean?

Your whole theme in this thread seems to be that atheists or secular people are incapable of being moral beings because there is no divine big brother to keep you on the staight and narrow.

That is a very pessimistic view of humanity, and also a patently ridiculous one.

The Ten Commandments for example are a pretty good guide on things one should not do. Where is your thou shalt not?

The ten commandments are a pretty banal list if you ask me.

Commandments 1-4 are concerned with religous rules, not really applicable to morality or commiting evil acts. 5-9 Are found pretty much everywhere else in humanity in one form or another and the last commandment is a bit strange to say the least, how are you going to enforce it?

But then again there are way more than 10 commandments in the Bible.

For example are you married? Was your wife a virgin before you married her? The Bible commands that should someone marry a woman who transpires not to be a virgin, you should have her stoned to death and her father has to pay you compensation; nice commandment eh?;)

I think that its probably a good thing that 99.9% of Christians don't follow all the rules, but will god be so forgiving?

If I was looking for a set of moral commandments I don't think I'd be looking in the Bible for it.

[DeepIron]

If I was looking for a set of moral commandments I don't think I'd be looking in the Bible for it.Where would you look?

[mrbeast]

If I was looking for a set of moral commandments I don't think I'd be looking in the Bible for it.Where would you look?

Thats a good question. :hmm:

[DeepIron]

Personally I think this is one of the best summations of the Ten Commandments I've run across:

The 10 Commandments - Christ's Summation in the New Testament
The 10 Commandments were summed up in the New Testament at Matthew 22, when Jesus was confronted by the religious "experts" of the day:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:36-40).

A reflective reading of Christ's teaching reveals that the first four commandments given to the children of Israel are contained in the statement: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." It continues that the last six commandments are enclosed in the statement: "Love your neighbor as yourself."

If accepted in this context, the Ten Commandments are "reduced" to two. Something that, IMHO, would be MUCH more understandable to us today rather than trying to apply (or understand) the Ten Commandments from the Old Testament.

As far as practical "everyday" application of even these two "simplified commandments", well, that's another matter... ;)

[DeepIron]

It's all down to "common sense" as said Fish above.Hmm, common sense is open to a wide interpretation IMO. And, where does "common sense" derive from to begin with?

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, Mankind has displayed a deplorable lack of common sense throughout the ages...

Right, but it's not like if religious don't do that either...I try not to confuse "religious" with "having faith". The Pharisees were "religious"... ;)

[August]

If I was looking for a set of moral commandments I don't think I'd be looking in the Bible for it.Where would you look?
Thats a good question. :hmm:

Hence my point.

[DeepIron]

And what about philosophy ? At least philosophers didn't pretend to be "god" nor did they try to enforce their vision to others. "commandements" are just some mind enslaving stuff.Yes, what about philosophy? Gotta love this quote from Bertrand Russell: "The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."
Contrast that with what I posted earlier... simply love God and others as you would yourself. I'll choose what Christ said... If for no other reason than it's easier to understand and doesn't require any forays into 'philosophy'...

BTW, which branch of philosophy would you like to follow? Metaphyical, Logical, Ethical, etc. Or perhaps realism, nomimalism or conceptualism? Which branch of philosophy is the definitive basis for "common sense"?

I'm just curious but why do you consider "commandments" as "mind enslaving"? Do you believe that accepting a 'philosophical' approach is less "inhibitive"? I'd argue that the reverse is true; God requires very little of our minds, He wants our hearts. Adopting a 'philosophical view' can be much more "mind limiting" IMO. How does a philosophical doctrine that chooses "logic" for example adequately explain emotion? Or existence?

[DeepIron]

I don't believe there's any kind of god out there...I want to respond to your statement without coming across like some 'religious zealot' or unintelligent person blinded by my beliefs.

My spin is this: your choice to "believe or not" in God, is exactly that, your choice. No one can force you to believe. By the same token, I do believe and no one can make me stop believing in God. This is both very cool and very damning and has led to a LOT of misunderstandings IMO. I don't consider you any less a person for your convictions. They are, after all, yours. I would hope that you would consider me in the same light...

Now, if people from both "camps" would just give one another the courtesy of respecting the other, regardless of whether they 'believe' or not, the world would be a nicer place I think.

so these "holy" texts have been written by guys just like today's politicians write laws to suit their agenda...
A little something for thought: There has been much research done on the "authenticity" of the Gospels, especially the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark and Luke) and there is a lot of evidence that points to them being very real and not collaborative. The Gospel of John was written after the others and has always been the "odd man out" as far a narrative but has also been shown to be "authentic".

The point being is this: IF one considers the Gospels from a purely historical point of view, one thing emerges: There are eyewitness accounts that a man from Galilee was crucified (killed) and was later seen alive again.

[DeepIron]

I have to admit anyway that I can't help but feel funny about people who "really" believe in god, just like I would feel funny about someone who truly believe in santa claus.:lol: I know... it's something that quite a few people tend to find a bit weird... It's "ok" to love cats or <insert something else here>, but less "ok" to love God... If you know what I mean... ;)

btw I think I shared many of your opinions about various subjects here, it's just that particular part.No worries Mikhayl... I enjoy engaging conversations! :up:

[Skybird]

This is what I consider to be one of the key passages - if not the key passage of Stanislav Lem's highly philosophical famous novel "Solaris" (my own inadequate translation from German to English). There, one of the protagonsits says:

"We start out into cosmos, we are prepared for everything, that is the loneliness, the struggle, the martyrdom, death. For modesty’s reason we do not speak it out, but sometimes we believe that we are wonderful. However, that is not all, and our readiness turns out to be just play-acting. Actually we do not want to conquer all space, we just want to expand Earth up to its’ boundaries! Some planets have to be like a desert like the Sahara, others have to be as icy as the poles, or tropical like the Brazilian jungle. We are humanitarian, and we are noble, we do not want to subjugate other races, we just want to bring them our values, and adopting their inheritance. We think we are the knights of the holy contact. That is the second lie. Humans we do seek, no one else! We do not need other worlds, we need mirrors! We don’t know what to do with other worlds. We want to find our own, idealized image; these globes, these civilizations have to be more perfect than ours, while in those others we hope to find the image of our own primitive past. However, there is something on the other side that we do not accept, against which we fight, and after all it is not only the pure distillate of human virtues that we have brought with us from Earth, the heroic monument of mankind! We have come here like we really are, and if the other side is showing us this truth, this part of it that we hide – then we are unable to accept that!"

[iambecomelife]

I have to admit anyway that I can't help but feel funny about people who "really" believe in god, just like I would feel funny about someone who truly believe in santa claus.:lol: I know... it's something that quite a few people tend to find a bit weird... It's "ok" to love cats or <insert something else here>, but less "ok" to love God... If you know what I mean... ;)

btw I think I shared many of your opinions about various subjects here, it's just that particular part.No worries Mikhayl... I enjoy engaging conversations! :up:

I agree DeepIron. When you mention that you have a particular hobby/interest, most people will be slightly intrigued or at least not disrespectful. Mention religious beliefs and people start ranting & raving about fundies, bible-belters, etc etc.

I love how so many of these atheists demonize Christianity, but when you bring up Islam or any other "hip" "non-Western" religion they start to genuflect right away.

Nevertheless I do respect atheists like Pat Condell & Christopher Hitchens who are at least consistent about condemning religion.

[DeepIron]

Just a thought watch a movie called Zeitgeist. Just a different perspective. Opened few parts to my mind......Cool graphics and soundtrack... But not much else that hasn't been "postulated" as "truth" before... There have been many, many explanations, many theories, many opinions, and that's fine. Without contrasts, the world would be pretty boring... I like movies like Zeitgeist because they give me the opportunity to test MY faith...

I love how so many of these atheists demonize Chrtistianity, but when you bring up Islam or any other "hip" "non-Western" religion they start to genuflect right away.:rotfl: Good point... :up:

[iambecomelife]

Just a thought watch a movie called Zeitgeist. Just a different perspective. Opened few parts to my mind......Cool graphics and soundtrack... But not much else that hasn't been "postulated" as "truth" before... There have been many, many explanations, many theories, many opinions, and that's fine. Without contrasts, the world would be pretty boring... I like movies like Zeitgeist because they give me the opportunity to test MY faith...

I love how so many of these atheists demonize Chrtistianity, but when you bring up Islam or any other "hip" "non-Western" religion they start to genuflect right away.:rotfl: Good point... :up:

It looks like that poster misspelled the name of the religion. We'd better get some members of this peaceful religion to peacefully chop his peaceful head off.

And if you suggest that their religion is violent, they'll peacefully detonate a suicide bomber in your local shopping mall.

These days, violence seems to be the best way to get people to think highly of your religion - no? :roll:

[August]

These days, violence seems to be the best way to get people to think highly of your religion - no? :roll:

Fear or scorn does seem to be the two most popular choices these days.

[flyingdane]

Please People".......Words of the few do not reflect the words of the many. :-?

[antikristuseke]

Just a thought watch a movie called Zeitgeist. Just a different perspective. Opened few parts to my mind......Cool graphics and soundtrack... But not much else that hasn't been "postulated" as "truth" before... There have been many, many explanations, many theories, many opinions, and that's fine. Without contrasts, the world would be pretty boring... I like movies like Zeitgeist because they give me the opportunity to test MY faith... Have to agree here, Zeitgeist brought up some interesting points, but it bases its claims too much on anectotal evidence. Some claims it makes are very detached from reality, while others are factual.

I love how so many of these atheists demonize Chrtistianity, but when you bring up Islam or any other "hip" "non-Western" religion they start to genuflect right away.:rotfl: Good point... :up:

Nice generalisation there. But thats something that admitedly hapens on both sides so oh well. Anyway personaly i dont diferentiate between religions when it comes to religious zealotry, they all face the same contempt from me. I may be an *******, but I am an equal oportunity *******.:yep:

[iambecomelife]

Just a thought watch a movie called Zeitgeist. Just a different perspective. Opened few parts to my mind......Cool graphics and soundtrack... But not much else that hasn't been "postulated" as "truth" before... There have been many, many explanations, many theories, many opinions, and that's fine. Without contrasts, the world would be pretty boring... I like movies like Zeitgeist because they give me the opportunity to test MY faith... Have to agree here, Zeitgeist brought up some interesting points, but it bases its claims too much on anectotal evidence. Some claims it makes are very detached from reality, while others are factual.

I love how so many of these atheists demonize Chrtistianity, but when you bring up Islam or any other "hip" "non-Western" religion they start to genuflect right away.:rotfl: Good point... :up:

Nice generalisation there. But thats something that admitedly hapens on both sides so oh well. Anyway personaly i dont diferentiate between religions when it comes to religious zealotry, they all face the same contempt from me. I may be an *******, but I am an equal oportunity *******.:yep:

Well, if that's true then you're somewhat unique. I don't know about your nation but in practice, quite a few "secularists" in the US aren't so much anti-religion as they are anti-Christianity. For instance - if I'm not mistaken, a certain "secular" organization in the US that targets Christianity was only too happy to support the installation of Muslim foot-baths at a public college.

Notice that instead of "generalizing" I praised atheists like Condell and Hitchens who are intellectually honest WRT critiquing religion.

[antikristuseke]

I'll take this as a compliment, thanks, but i am by no means unique, I have several friends who hold views very similar to mind when it comes to this subject.
Anyhow Estonia/Estland is predominantly atheistic, though a majority of people claim some spirituality. If memory serves me correctly the religions with the largest followings in declining order are Lutherians and Orthodox, there is allso a small jewish community and a very small number of muslims. Though according to polls the largest group of people who belive in some gods follow the ancient estonian religion which is very similar to what the vikings had, but there is no large organisation to speak of. Ohyeah there is allso a very small number of fundamentalist christians who maybe number 100 people or so, they parrot the stuff that comes from AiG and other creationist sources, but due to their small number and general public opinion towards any religious zealotry they are nothing more than a public laughinstock to be honest.

On to the ACLU, it seems to be that this organisation has gone the same route as Greenpeace, started off with a noble cause but now is little more than concentrated stupidity as things have been taken to the extreme and beyond.

[Platapus]

I consider the ACLU like a very large defense attorney office.

They represent cases I agree with
They represent cases I disagree with
The represent cases I have no interest in

Just like I can't brand an attorney as being bad because he or she represents a case I disagree with, the same applies to the ACLU.

I like them when they represent cases I agree with
I hate them when they represent cases I disagree with
I ignore them when they represent cases I have no interest in

But I am glad they are there.

There is no way any defense attorney or the ACLU could do their job without pissing someone off :up:

[Tchocky]

Remember the ACLU defending Larry Craig?

Always makes me smile

[DeepIron]

Remember the ACLU defending Larry Craig?

Always makes me smile:lol: I'm from Idaho and I wish I could forget it... :rotfl:

[iambecomelife]

I consider the ACLU like a very large defense attorney office.

They represent cases I agree with
They represent cases I disagree with
The represent cases I have no interest in

Just like I can't brand an attorney as being bad because he or she represents a case I disagree with, the same applies to the ACLU.

I like them when they represent cases I agree with
I hate them when they represent cases I disagree with
I ignore them when they represent cases I have no interest in

But I am glad they are there.

There is no way any defense attorney or the ACLU could do their job without pissing someone off :up:

I'm really glad that the ACLU exists too.

Protect militant Islam but go after Christianity.

Protect NAMBLA but act like the Boy Scouts are evil.

Defend Nazis' rights but when a Christian kid gets in trouble for his beliefs, claim you're "too busy" to take up this case (yes, this happened several years ago).

What are these "people" other than attention whores? Where I am currently I can't walk five feet without seeing these freaks' posters, asking me if I want to join their organization. Just like the joke in the "Onion", maybe someone will sue for the right to burn down ACLU headquarters, and they'll defend him.:roll:

Without the ACLU unpopular groups would still have access to representation. When someone faces criminal charges (s)he is ALWAYS entitled to free court-appointed counsel if necessary. If it's a non-criminal matter there are a large number of lawyers who to take up First Amendment and other Constitutional cases - either fulltime with their salaries paid by nonprofits or part time as a sort of community service.

[Safe-Keeper]

What is it with Christians and smearing the ACLU:-?? Seriously, keeping religion out of places where it does not belong in the first place is not attacking religion. Is that really so hard to understand? The mind boggles.

The ACLU is the organization that fought tooth and nail for ungrateful Christians' right to have organized prayers at extracurricular activities.

Protect militant Islam but go after Christianity.I have no idea of what you're refering to when you say that the ACLU "protects militant Islam".

Protect NAMBLA but act like the Boy Scouts are evil.NAMBLA, like Christian fundamentalists, have freedom of speech. On the other hand, the Boy Scouts, as a publicly funded organization, does not have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation - just like NAMBLA would not if they were publicly funded.

Defend Nazis' rightsNazis, just like Communists, chovinists, Christian fanatics hailing Paul Hill as a hero, do have rights. The whole point of "freedom of speech" is that everyone gets to speak, not just the ones who agree with you. I realize this sits very poorly with many people, but it's how it is.

but when a Christian kid gets in trouble for his beliefs, claim you're "too busy" to take up this case (yes, this happened several years ago).Right. They "claimed" to be too busy. Can you prove that this was not actually the case?

What are these "people" other than attention whores? Where I am currently I can't walk five feet without seeing these freaks' posters, asking me if I want to join their organization. Just like the joke in the "Onion", maybe someone will sue for the right to burn down ACLU headquarters, and they'll defend him.:roll:
Sometimes it feels as if I can't walk five feet without seeing a church or Christian cross. Should I be offended too? Don't... all organizations want to up their memberships?

Look, it's this simple: If you violate the Constitution, the ACLU comes after you. If it seems they're constantly on you Christians' case, maybe you should work on getting your fundies to violate the Constitution all the time?

[iambecomelife]

What is it with Christians and smearing the ACLU:-?? Seriously, keeping religion out of places where it does not belong in the first place is not attacking religion. Is that really so hard to understand? The mind boggles.

The ACLU is the organization that fought tooth and nail for ungrateful Christians' right to have organized prayers at extracurricular activities.

Protect militant Islam but go after Christianity.I have no idea of what you're refering to when you say that the ACLU "protects militant Islam".

Protect NAMBLA but act like the Boy Scouts are evil.NAMBLA, like Christian fundamentalists, have freedom of speech. On the other hand, the Boy Scouts, as a publicly funded organization, does not have the right to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation - just like NAMBLA would not if they were publicly funded.

Defend Nazis' rightsNazis, just like Communists, chovinists, Christian fanatics hailing Paul Hill as a hero, do have rights. The whole point of "freedom of speech" is that everyone gets to speak, not just the ones who agree with you. I realize this sits very poorly with many people, but it's how it is.

but when a Christian kid gets in trouble for his beliefs, claim you're "too busy" to take up this case (yes, this happened several years ago).Right. They "claimed" to be too busy. Can you prove that this was not actually the case?

What are these "people" other than attention whores? Where I am currently I can't walk five feet without seeing these freaks' posters, asking me if I want to join their organization. Just like the joke in the "Onion", maybe someone will sue for the right to burn down ACLU headquarters, and they'll defend him.:roll:
Sometimes it feels as if I can't walk five feet without seeing a church or Christian cross. Should I be offended too? Don't... all organizations want to up their memberships?

Look, it's this simple: If you violate the Constitution, the ACLU comes after you. If it seems they're constantly on you Christians' case, maybe you should work on getting your fundies to violate the Constitution all the time?

So I'm "smearing" the ACLU but you admit that they DO defend NAMBLA, Nazis, etc. Not sure I understand that logic, but maybe it makes sense to you.

It's not unheard of for private organizations to receive Government funding. For some strange reason, certain people only get concerned when this funding goes to the Boy Scouts and other "conservatively-aligned" groups.


Can you tell me where I posted that the ACLU does not have a right to recruit members, or where I said that Nazis etc should be denied free speech rights? That's right - you can't. They have the right to defend human scum and I have the right to have a negative opinion about them. Perhaps you admire Nazis or people who defend Nazis - I can't claim to know your motivation. At least try to remember that not everyone thinks extremist beliefs are admirable. It is entirely possible to support the right for the ACLU to exist while pointing out its selectiveness. If you believe deep down that criticism of the ACLU should be banned then by all means, come out and say it. I promise people won't think any less of you. :roll:

Maybe we should save the civics lesson for someone who needs it - no?

[DeepIron]

Look, it's this simple: If you violate the Constitution, the ACLU comes after you. If it seems they're constantly on you Christians' case, maybe you should work on getting your fundies to violate the Constitution all the time?

"... getting your fundies..." Fundies? Now, who's smearing who? :shifty:

[iambecomelife]

Look, it's this simple: If you violate the Constitution, the ACLU comes after you. If it seems they're constantly on you Christians' case, maybe you should work on getting your fundies to violate the Constitution all the time?

"... getting your fundies..." Fundies? Now, who's smearing who? :shifty:

You've got that right. I chose not to mention it in my original reply, but notice how some people pretend that they are concerned about all religion, but reserve a special disdain for Christian principles. I bet none of them can explain the logic of facilitating MUSLIM prayer at public universities even as they whine about nativity displays or the Ten Commandments.

[iambecomelife]

Don't know how it is in the US, here ALL religious signs are banned from schools. There's been some fuss a few years ago (3 or 4?) when they decided to ban the hijab from schools but it didn't last more than a month or so. To my knowledge only about 4 or 5 muslim girls had to be banned from school because they refused to leave their hijab at the gates. Now if only they could ban the religious BS from the medias that would make my day.

Although I'm concerned about radical Islam I still think that they should have the right to wear the hijab. There shouldn't be any restrictions on religious dress, as long as it's not something that's obviously spurious (like a t-shirt with explicit images, or something). I don't mind restrictions on prosyletizing in school as long as they're enforced equitably - no targeting one religion but permitting others to do it for the sake of PC-ness.

[DeepIron]

These are the kind of "religious" people I prefer to distance myself from:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/06/sect.leader.arrest/index.html

The leader of an apocalyptic New Mexico church who claims to be the Messiah was arrested Tuesday on sex charges, state police said.

This is just nutz... :roll:

[Skybird]

I sometimes have had this strange idea of the weakning Catholic church being so friendly and all-accepting towards growing Islam for it hopes to win kind of an ally in trying to bring society towards accepting again falling under more religious ruling, hollowing out the separation of church and state (which has cost the church a lot of power, wealth and influence) and boosting a general attitude of uncritically believing again what the high priests say.

Totally ridiculous and off limits a thought that is, of course.

Of course. What else?

[iambecomelife]

I sometimes have had this strange idea of the weakning Catholic church being so friendly and all-accepting towards growing Islam for it hopes to win kind of an ally in trying to bring society towards accepting again falling under more religious ruling, hollowing out the separation of church and state (which has cost the church a lot of power, wealth and influence) and boosting a general attitude of uncritically believing again what the high priests say.

Totally ridiculous and off limits a thought that is, of course.

Of course. What else?

Interesting. Religious people "uncritically believe what the high priests say". They don't make a personal decision to put their faith in a deity - oh, no. They're always brainwashed or duped.

[Tchocky]

Interesting. Religious people "uncritically believe what the high priests say". They don't make a personal decision to put their faith in a deity - oh, no. They're always brainwashed or duped.
I think you're making one leap too many here.
What brings people to religion/faith can vary, but many/most religions do entail a certain amount of blind faith/uncritical belief.
This does not invalidate the path, mind.

[Schroeder]

Interesting. Religious people "uncritically believe what the high priests say". They don't make a personal decision to put their faith in a deity - oh, no. They're always brainwashed or duped.
Unfortunately this happens often. Not to all religious people but some religious groups almost demand blindness. As I already said I've some Jehovah Witnesses in my family. Believe me you can't even talk with them about that. I once pointed out my thoughts about the story of the creation to them (can be found a few posts above). There only answer was that it can't be that way because the bible tells a different story.

To me the bible is no proof at all. It's just a book that was written by human beings, not by god.
They have never questioned the bible and it's contend and are believing in it blindly.

As I already said this is not a phenomenon among all religious people (I would even think that they are a minority) but those who don't question at all are the dangerous ones because they can be manipulated in every way their leader wants to.

[Skybird]

Interesting. Religious people "uncritically believe what the high priests say". They don't make a personal decision to put their faith in a deity - oh, no. They're always brainwashed or duped.
I mean every word of it. Religion and spirituality are mutually exclusive, and since religiosity means a club membership in the flock of sheep (and spirituality means a most personal, non-public experience and way of life that does not depend a single bit on what institutions try to force down your throat), club members alias relgious people are pretty much beolieving something, anything, no matter what, indeed - no matter what it is, no matter how mind-bending, laws-of-nature-offending, absurd. "I believe" - in other words: all cosmos revolves around me.

Well, I believe the sky is green and the grass is blue. If I say that in public, and make it known to everybody at every opportunity, then it is my relgion, and since there is freedom for relgious practicing, you have to tolerate that, and respect my religion. But if I remain silent about this my precious belief, and keep it for myself, you must not worry about it, and will not care, and you even will not know if I believe that nonsens indeed, or believe something different, or nothing - it must not be your concern.

Believing is not knowing. But the absence of knowledge is taken as an aergument why one should believe even more passionately. Ridiculous. Laughable. Dumb. But these people cry wolf every time an evil wicked slimey atheists complains about them trying to force down their religious dogmas on society, and press them into public education systems, and even say that who does not believe in a god shall not have a right to call himself a real American, in clear violation of the principles on which the USA were founded, and that had not much, if anything, to do with Christian relgion - or any other. but do not agree with this agressive acting of theirs, maybe even copy their aggressive behavior in setting up your resistance to them - and they immediately complain about being discriminated and attacked.

Pah. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, everybody. you are not anybody's problem as long as you do not start to missionize and try to make others being like you. And if you cannot show that self-restraint and maybe even call it your foolish religious duty not to do so - don't be surprised if you take occassional Flak from people defending against you - in legitimate self-defence.

Believing - systematically taking serious hear-say, untested and unproven stories, chinese whispers played since generations, started by people who did not experience what they first were telling tales about. You can build temples, you can be a priest, and you can follow rites and cultic rituals - it does not chnage anything in that you still do not know. You are obsessed by voices in your head, and you do like they tell you. -Clever!

Keep thy religion to thyself - no matter what religion it is. what you believe or not is of no concern for anyone else than you. Keep it there.

[August]

Keep thy religion to thyself - no matter what religion it is. what you believe or not is of no concern for anyone else than you. Keep it there.

Skybird try following your own advice.

[Tchocky]

Come on, August.

[August]

Come on, August.

How many times has he said he hates religion on this board in recent months? 50? 100 times already? The contempt and intolerance he constantly displays with his rabid brand of athiesm toward religious people is starting to go way beyond the realm of polite discussion.

[Tchocky]

Contempt and intolerance?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=844452&postcount=40

Also

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to make such posts, by all means say what you think, but at least consider the hypocrisy involved when telling others to be quiet.

[Skybird]

Just this, for illustration. One illustration of many possible.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/ghwbush.htm

[DeepIron]

How many times has he said he hates religion on this board in recent months? 50? 100 times already? The contempt and intolerance he constantly displays with his rabid brand of athiesm toward religious people is starting to go way beyond the realm of polite discussion.I agree with August. This is a recurring theme in Skybird's posts concerning "religion" or "discussions of faith"... I think it's very hypocritical to deride a "religious" conviction then espouse one's own brand of "anti-religious" sentiment...

I do not consider myself "Ridiculous. Laughable. Dumb." because I admit that there are things I don't understand and prefer to put my faith in God. Nor does it mean that I "blindly" accept Biblical teachings at face value. We are to "test and question" our faith constantly.

Just this, for illustration. One illustration of many possible. And your point is what exactly? That G. W. Bush (the last man on Earth I would defend BTW) has an opinion? Is his any more valid than yours? It would appear to me that his "tolerance" towards atheists is about on par with your tolerance towards "believers".

[August]

Contempt and intolerance?

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=844452&postcount=40

Also

I have little use for anyone who doesn't believe in some form of higher power than themselves. I have found that such people tend to be self serving, untrustworthy and often with an axe to grind against those who don't share their lack of beliefs. The nature of the beast i guess.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't be allowed to make such posts, by all means say what you think, but at least consider the hypocrisy involved when telling others to be quiet.

Oh please. :roll: Have you even read his post? Isn't he saying exactly that, telling religious people to be quiet?

Y'know you're awful quick to jump on me Tchocky but I never see you pointing it out when he does it. Besides I never said people aren't entitled to express their opinions like he has, but before you try to hit me with the hypocrite stick again try counting how many times each of us has said something like that. You've got, what, two examples there? One obviously made in jest, but I can point out dozens Skybird posts where he uses words like "Ridiculous. Laughable. Dumb", "obsessed by voices in your head", "flock of sheep" (to provide examples from just one post).

[Tchocky]

Now that I think of it, the sheep comment should be a compliment. Lord is my shepherd, and all that.

As a general note, I don't think hypocrisy is relative, depending on how many times someone posts something. Sure, I doubt any regular poster has a definite, clear-cut record on thread after thread, but we should be able to deal with posts in a more dignified matter than "follow your own advice". Arguing that religion should be a private voluntary matter is rather different than telling someone to shut up.
I might be jumping on you, this thread had new posts marked in it, so I read them.

I think that in a thread about religion, you're going to get personal opinions. Some of which, due to the rather zero-sum nature of belief, will make some people angry.
Yes, we agree again on this. I would prefer the way Sailor Steve once put it both so simple and so convincing: I have no problem with anybody who does not raise problems to me. what colour somebody paints the walls inside his home in is not interesting for me. Just when he starts to trying to force me to sit there, or pushing it down my throat that I have to paint my own walls the same way, or when he tells me at every damn opportunity how great it looks, and that nothing looks better and that he cannot understand how others could paint their walls in different colours - that is when I start growling. This is where ridiculous, dumb, sheep, etc come into it. Telling religious types not to force their beliefs on others.

@ DeepIron - the link describes a statement of the elder Bush, George HW Bush.

[DeepIron]

@ DeepIron - the link describes a statement of the elder Bush, George HW Bush.:oops: Gads, this father/son thing again...;)

[Skybird]

I agree with August. This is a recurring theme in Skybird's posts concerning "religion" or "discussions of faith"... I think it's very hypocritical to deride a "religious" conviction then espouse one's own brand of "anti-religious" beliefs...

There also is a recurring theme with some others who claim the right to act according to their opinion and "faith" when letting everybody know time and again that they believe in God, that God is great, and how it functions that everything will be fine if only people would believe in God and bla and this and that and etc. you see, I do not start these debates anymore, since quite some time now. but I react to such postings, becaseu letting them go by unopposed and simply tolerate that somebody else makes imeprative statements and demands that he is left untoiuched and unopposed would maybe not violate his principles - but mine. And I do not see him having more rights to demand tolernace, than I have here.

Keep thy religion to thyself. What exactly is so difficult to understand in that? What is so unreasonable in that? and on the other hand: if somebody disrespects that, and claims the right to let everybody know about his shining religiosity, or gives the impression that his religion should be taken for granted and being excluded from the separation of state and church - how could you expect other people not to hold him responsible for saying so, and letting him know their own opinion on his opinions for which he claims to demand special status?

I do not consider myself "Ridiculous. Laughable. Dumb." because I admit that there are things I don't understand and prefer to put my faith in God.

Don't quote me out of context. I said that in direct reference to people who simply believe what their churches and priests have told them, and there are very very many of these. If you have not come to your religion simply because your parents told you to be like this and not like that, and if you have not come to your relgion not because a social habit of visiting church and listening to what the priests have told you since years, okay. This still leaves us in dispute on wether your conclusions ares reasonable, or not, but the point is - we must not debate your views, and simply can let it rest, no problem, as long as you do not try to impose them on others, directly, or indirectly. just where you would decide to show your views at every opportunity or try to convince others of them, I and people like me may reserve the right to object and hold you responsible for what you say, and fight you back, becasue we do not want to join your camp and do not want to see society being underminded by you ideology. Because were I have no right to demand you to follow my views of the world, you also have no right to demand the same in return for yourself.

Nor does it mean that I "blindly" accept Biblical teachings at face value. We are to "test and question" our faith constantly.

Well, fine, do that, you want to test and question, which pretty much is an empirical approach and thus a method of reason, and as long as this process is open and not predetermined in it's outcome by the dogma of your faith, I encourage and congratulate you on your chosen path. But relgion does not want you to exmaine and find out yourself: it wants you to submit to its dogma by believing what you are being told to believe. Your reasonable approach, and relgion, are excluding each other. You cant have both: believing and reason. So, only when you start asking "why is it that my faith is true?" and claim this predetermined way of fake-examination to be reason or faith, and where you come to conclusions that next you want to enforce on society, on policy-making etc, you and me would get communication problems.

I see disucssions in favour of this or that relgion's rights very much according to the polluter-pays-principle. If somebody pumps up the volume of his radio way too much, it is up to him to turn it down again. If somebdy does not force me to listen to why he believes this and that, I must not have any motivation to clearly tell him why I don't give a damn for his sermon and why I want him to stop.

In other words: God speaks so silent that you can hear him monly when using headphones anyway. And with using headphones, no neighbour will complain about the program you are listening to. Keep thy religion to thyself - it is that simple indeed. Pollute the whole block with your noise, and sooner or later deal with complainers with angry faces. they are not the problem then - you are the problem without which they would not be there.

[August]

Now that I think of it, the sheep comment should be a compliment. Lord is my shepherd, and all that.

As a general note, I don't think hypocrisy is relative, depending on how many times someone posts something. Sure, I doubt any regular poster has a definite, clear-cut record on thread after thread, but we should be able to deal with posts in a more dignified matter than "follow your own advice". Arguing that religion should be a private voluntary matter is rather different than telling someone to shut up.
I might be jumping on you, this thread had new posts marked in it, so I read them.

I think that in a thread about religion, you're going to get personal opinions. Some of which, due to the rather zero-sum nature of belief, will make some people angry.
Yes, we agree again on this. I would prefer the way Sailor Steve once put it both so simple and so convincing: I have no problem with anybody who does not raise problems to me. what colour somebody paints the walls inside his home in is not interesting for me. Just when he starts to trying to force me to sit there, or pushing it down my throat that I have to paint my own walls the same way, or when he tells me at every damn opportunity how great it looks, and that nothing looks better and that he cannot understand how others could paint their walls in different colours - that is when I start growling. This is where ridiculous, dumb, sheep, etc come into it. Telling religious types not to force their beliefs on others.

@ DeepIron - the link describes a statement of the elder Bush, George HW Bush.

So in other words you don't have a problem when he's intolerant. Ok gotcha.

[Skybird]

Now that I think of it, the sheep comment should be a compliment. Lord is my shepherd, and all that.

Ha! At least one man detected my sense of irony there! Exactly that reference was on my mind.

[August]

Now that I think of it, the sheep comment should be a compliment. Lord is my shepherd, and all that.
Ha! At least one man detected my sense of irony there! Exactly that reference was on my mind.

Yeah right. :roll:

[Tchocky]

So in other words you don't have a problem when he's intolerant. Ok gotcha.
Wow. No.
Like I said, recognising that religion is a personal matter is very different from telling someone to shut up.

[DeepIron]

Keep thy religion to thyself. What exactly is so difficult to understand in that?Because:

A. You are not a forum moderator and have no "grounds" to tell anyone this.
B. Your non-belief is no more relevent than my belief.
C. It's a "voluntary participation" discussion. If the subject bothers, offends or annoys you, simply don't participate.
D. Common courtesy.

Look, I've enjoyed reading a number of your other posts and respect your opinion(s). I've been labeled worse than "Ridiculous. Laughable. Dumb". So what? "Sticks and stones..."

But I don't appreciate being told to "shut up" because I have a different concept of faith and am willing to discuss it... I don't tell you to "keep your religion" to yourself just because I disagree with it...

Like I said, recognising that religion is a personal matter is very different from telling someone to shut up.Quite true. So, we ALL have to exercise some restraint and have some decorum when breaching these kind of topics when the need arises.

I respect Skybirds (or anyone else's for that matter) personal convictions EVEN IF I PERSONALLY DISAGREE. All I ask is that they respect mine...

[August]

Wow. No.
Like I said, recognising that religion is a personal matter is very different from telling someone to shut up.

And this isn't telling people to shut up?

"Keep thy religion to thyself"
"Pah. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself, everybody."

And that is only in one post. There are plenty of other examples as you well know.

[iambecomelife]

Keep thy religion to thyself - no matter what religion it is. what you believe or not is of no concern for anyone else than you. Keep it there.

Skybird try following your own advice.

Don't bother - he is beyond reason. When it comes to atheism and Anti-Americanism his missionary zeal is intense - note how he posts links to secularist sites. Yet whenever the subject of religion comes up he demands that believers keep their religion to themselves. As I've said before about Skybird, I feel sorry for someone who is so incapable of appreciating irony - the inconsistency is quite hilarious.

Many religions REQUIRE that adherents evangelize and bring new believers into the fold. So long as they do not use coercion or government backing to do so, it should be permitted. I can't understand some Atheists' demands that religions be kept private, but if they're so desperate to shut others up, what does that say about how confident they are in their cause?

His attempts to affirmatively disprove religion basically amount to nothing more than a modern secular religion - no matter how much it's denied. What's more, do atheists honestly think that applying blatant double standards & being disrespectful ("fundies", "sheep", etc) will attract the average religious or undecided person?

[Tchocky]

Consider the difference between discussions on this thread and discussions in the rest of the world.

It's nothing new to say that people should, in general, keep their religious convictions to themselves. It's a valid statement to make in a thread about religion, and doesn't stop anyone contributing.

To post in the thread and tell someone to shut up is different. It's an order rather than an argument.

[DeepIron]

Consider the difference between discussions on this thread and discussions in the rest of the world.
It's nothing new to say that people should, in general, keep their religious convictions to themselves. It's a valid statement to make in a thread about religion, and doesn't stop anyone contributing.No but it does set up tensions because even when meant "passively" people don't like to be told to "keep their opinions to themselves." Especially when it is integral to getting a point across or making a meaningful evaluation. This is a discussion forum and posts that seek to impose a "personal bias" surely don't contribute to the overall flow and exchange of ideas... IMHO.

To post in the thread and tell someone to shut up is different. It's an order rather than an argument.At the risk of sounding "overly sensitive" I've got to say, in the context of the rest of Skybirds post, I took it it more of a "shut up" command rather than a "keep your opinions to yourself" kind of statement...

[Tchocky]

I don't know how one can avoid personal bias in a thread about religion. At all.
Think of a discussion of different methods of phrenology. You'll always get guys coming in and saying that the whole basis for the discussion is flawed.

At the risk of sounding "overly sensitive" I've got to say, in the context of the rest of Skybirds post, I'd say it was more of a "shut up" command rather than a "keep your opinions to yourself" kind of statement...
I guess we differ here. :)

[iambecomelife]

IABL, I don't think it's about anti americanism, really (anti-"insert a nation's name" is really a "redneck" thing :) ).
I think we're touching a cultural difference between some european countries like Germany & France for example (who I think share about the same view regarding separation of religion & state) and the US. In theory there's separation of religion & state in the US too, but viewed from here, it's a joke. Can you imagine an atheist running for presidency ?

Anti-Americanism was not my main point - it was intended to illustrate Skybird's intellectual dishonesty. In the past he has posted numerous articles trying to convert posters to his geo-political viewpoints (perfectly legitimate IMO). Yet he insists that people with different opinions WRT certain topics (like religion) should keep them to themselves.
I'll be happy to comply, as soon as Skybird tells me who died and crowned him Führer of Subsim. A triple Sieg Heil to him. :roll:

[DeepIron]

Can you imagine an atheist running for presidency?:lol: In a strange way, maybe it wouldn't be so bad. I mean, GW Bush has been accused of having a "Messianic Complex" and THAT was thought to be a contributing aspect of his commitment to the War in Iraq. There are quite a number of Internet citations discussing this so I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader. Anyway, who knows? ;)

[Tchocky]

I remember seeing a survey, in which Atheist ranked bottom of a list of characteristics Americans would vote for.

In the present political climate, I was surprised that more Americans would be happier with a Muslim president than an Atheist one.

[DeepIron]

I don't know how one can avoid personal bias in a thread about religion. At all.IMO, you can't. It's too deeply personal not to. I think it's about "communicating" one's opinions is which the issue lays...

At the risk of sounding "overly sensitive" I've got to say, in the context of the rest of Skybirds post, I'd say it was more of a "shut up" command rather than a "keep your opinions to yourself" kind of statement... I guess we differ here. :)No worries, ...time to move on...:up:

[joegrundman]

I'll be happy to comply, as soon as Skybird tells me who died and crowned him Führer of Subsim. A triple Sieg Heil to him. :roll:

:-?

i think one of your toes is kind of crossing the line there IABL. It is just a forum. More than that, it's just the GT forum - and all any of you are doing is talking, even if it is nonsense.

[iambecomelife]

IABL, I don't think it's about anti americanism, really (anti-"insert a nation's name" is really a "redneck" thing :) ).
I think we're touching a cultural difference between some european countries like Germany & France for example (who I think share about the same view regarding separation of religion & state) and the US. In theory there's separation of religion & state in the US too, but viewed from here, it's a joke. Can you imagine an atheist running for presidency ?

And I certainly can imagine an atheist running for the presidency. Howard Dean was a successful presidential candidate, and although I don't believe he is atheist he freely admitted that he was not very religious. Even some conservatives were impressed with his candor. In general, if someone loses an election here it's usually because they failed to appeal to the electorate (although admittedly, religion definitely WILL influence many voters).

[iambecomelife]

I'll be happy to comply, as soon as Skybird tells me who died and crowned him Führer of Subsim. A triple Sieg Heil to him. :roll:

:-?

i think one of your toes is kind of crossing the line there IABL. It is just a forum. More than that, it's just the GT forum - and all any of you are doing is talking, even if it is nonsense.

You have a point. That was uncalled for, and in bad taste-especially since I was just talking about being respectful. Sorry, Skybird.

[Skybird]

A. You are not a forum moderator and have no "grounds" to tell anyone this.
To clear one thing once and for all: "keep thy religion to thyself" - a quote you can often find in literature regarding religious issues. An expression that in many variation can be found in statements of many differerent philosophies and relgions. It is no forum moderation, it means that what there is between you and your deity is affecting only the two of you. It is a direct reference to several hints by Jesus where he said you should look for god inside yourself, and that other voices in the temple of your soul must fall silent if you want to hear his voice. That you should not make a popular show of your beliefs. It also means that a personal issue like religion is not of the kind and nature that it make sense to try to impose it on others, and to make your own religious business known to as many as possible. It also means that your freedom ends where you start to violate the freedom of others., since your reglion has no right at all to consume the freedom of others for it'S own interests.

Or in plain English it means: "I do not care for your religion and do not want to hear about it, so leave me alone with it - Amen."

B. Your non-belief is no more relevent than my belief.
Nor is your belief any more precious than other people's views. As I said earlier: the polluter pays. I dd not start neither this thread, nor this dicussion. I did not took the initiative - I reacted, and if you read back the earlier pages, you will find quite some tame, indirect, careful replies from me as well, here and in many other threads. It depends on the situation and occasion, on the general atmosphere of a running disucssion - I adapt to these factors. But where you tell me I should hide my criticism of "your belief" (referring to your quote above) and shall not say that and why I find it negative and why I refuse it, you deny me the right that you claim for your self in the first. Needless to say that then you demand far too much.

C. It's a "voluntary participation" discussion. If the subject bothers, offends or annoys you, simply don't participate.
No it is not just a forum disucssion, it is an exchange of most basic views of the world, life, you name it. the influence and effects of the religious conservatism rising everywhere in the world, in Islam as well as in Christianity, in America as well as in europe, I see as a huge threat. and I see much bad and evil things having caused by religions and superstition already having been given far too much respect, far too long. If this reply to your opinion bothers, offends or annoys you, simply don't participate. you have no more right to be here, than I have. You have no right to demand me giving up freedom and space to move in order to allow oyu claiming more freedom, and more space to move for yourself. Here is where Fndam,entalists all too often start complaining about being discriminated and attacked, where in fact they try to attack and discriminate others who are not agreeing with their views. I refuse to give you according concessions. Concession like you indirectly demand may be in conformity with your religious interests - but I have no obligation to honour your relgion's interests, and doing so would be violating my own basic views, so you see the problem I have with giving you what you demand!?

Common courtesy.
Common courtesy would demand not to tell everybody passing your way of your most intimate details and your relgious sentiments and beliefs at every opportunity - expecting the other to either agree and respect them, or to hold still and not rejecting or questioning these. Not meaning you personally here.


Many religions REQUIRE that adherents evangelize and bring new believers into the fold.
Polluter-pays-principle. If a religion makes such aggressive demands, this does not mean that it is right, but is a strong hint that it is a powerpolitical club. It also shows that these powerpolitcs and uniform collectivism if not totalitarian control has completely replaced any spirituality that maybe, eventually, once may have been there. A religion demanding to missionize and evangelize will allways meet my detemrined opposition and most aggressive replies. It is ridiculous and is to be brandmarked as what it is: inhumane, anti-spiritual slavery. Becoming life? Not that way, my friend. All you get is a self-made battlefield by that.

[iambecomelife]

Well it's sure not about proving anything. But why atheist candidates failed to appeal electorate exactly ? Is it because of their political views only or just because they're not "good" christians ?

Atheism will undoubtably turn off some people. I would vote for an atheist candidate with whom I agreed politically, as opposed to a religious candidate with statist views. I want to elect a political leader, not a Pope. "Render unto Ceasar", and all that.

[iambecomelife]

Well, maybe some people consider militant atheism to be "pollution". Polluter pays, indeed.

[Konovalov]

My 2 cents here. I'll be boring and say that I can see both points of view here. For me the problem is mainly this. It is not what is being said but rather the volume and constant non-stop discussion on ones religion. Most of the time it has been on my faith, beliefs, and religion. However of recent it has been directed more so at Christianity and on this forum there appears to be a heck of a lot more Christians than there are Muslims hence the vocal outcry of complaints which have degenerated into animosity and at times personal attacks.

Do we have to hack apart each others religion or faith on a daily basis? I think not. We could all excercise a little self restraint. I'm sure most here would complain if all I posted here was page after page of extolling my religion and proselytizing. I could only imagine the outcry and with good reason. A little self-moderation would go a long way. :)

[Skybird]

My 2 cents here. I'll be boring and say that I can see both points of view here. For me the problem is mainly this. It is not what is being said but rather the volume and constant non-stop discussion on ones religion. Most of the time it has been on my faith, beliefs, and religion. However of recent it has been directed more so at Christianity and on this forum there appears to be a heck of a lot more Christians than there are Muslims hence the vocal outcry of complaints which have degenerated into animosity and at times personal attacks.

Do we have to hack apart each others religion or faith on a daily basis? I think not. We could all excercise a little self restraint. I'm sure most here would complain if all I posted here was page after page of extolling my religion and proselytizing. I could only imagine the outcry and with good reason. A little self-moderation would go a long way. :)
Yes, exactly. Another way to say "Keep thy religions to thyself". Where you do not bother others, others are not bothered by you.

[DeepIron]

<Having read Skybird's post but not quoting it here>

Ah, ok, I see... The gist is this: "If you openly profess to having a faith, everytime you post in a topic that addresses a "religion(ous) subject you're "evangelizing" or "missionizing"... and that one who professes faith cannot engage in a meaningful conversation without resorting to polemics or apologetics.

Yes, exactly. Another way to say "Keep thy religions to thyself". Where you do not bother others, others are not bothered by you.
Ok then, live long and prosper... <shakes dust from sandals and picks up pearls strewn across the ground> :lol:

[Skybird]

Ah, ok, I see... The gist is this: "If you profess having a faith, everytime you post in a topic that addresses a "religion(ous) subject you're "evangelizing" or "missionizing"...

No, you don't have a faith when behaving like that - you either have a hobby, or an obsession. ;)

[Foxtrot]

According to unconfirmed reports, Skybird decided to join Jesus Camp in future to allow Holy Ghost to fix his soul, and let baby Jesus to show him the path of salvation

Hallelujah...HALLELUJAH http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/2476/3y5gsxetz3.gif

[August]

To post in the thread and tell someone to shut up is different. It's an order rather than an argument.

Care to point out where i told Skybird to "shut up"? IIRC I told him to follow his own advice therefore if you consider that as telling someone to shut up then that's exactly what he was doing too. You can't have it both ways Tchocky.

[Tchocky]

Removing the context changes things, August. It changes a general principle into a direct statement pertaining to the thread.

[August]

Removing the context changes things, August. It changes a general principle into a direct statement pertaining to the thread.
I've been reading his anti-religion posts for years Tchocky. It was most definitely in context.

[DeepIron]

Ah, ok, I see... The gist is this: "If you profess having a faith, everytime you post in a topic that addresses a "religion(ous) subject you're "evangelizing" or "missionizing"...
No, you don't have a faith when behaving like that - you either have a hobby, or an obsession. ;)It appears to be a no-win argument... I can't explain my position as a thinking, intelligent "believer" without being thought of as "evangelizing"... Nor can I express my opinion as a simple disagreement based on my faith without, again, being "evangelizing"... Oh well... ;)

[Skybird]

According to unconfirmed reports, Skybird decided to join Jesus Camp in future to allow Holy Ghost to fix his soul, and let baby Jesus to show him the path of salvation

Hallelujah...HALLELUJAH http://img381.imageshack.us/img381/2476/3y5gsxetz3.gif
Oh. I confess all my sins - just spare me this doom... :lol:

[Skybird]

Ah, ok, I see... The gist is this: "If you profess having a faith, everytime you post in a topic that addresses a "religion(ous) subject you're "evangelizing" or "missionizing"...
No, you don't have a faith when behaving like that - you either have a hobby, or an obsession. ;)It appears to be a no-win argument... I can't explain my position as a thinking, intelligent "believer" without being thought of as "evangelizing"... Nor can I express my opinion as a simple disagreement based on my faith without, again, being "evangelizing"... Oh well... ;)I think I got it, rest assured. And no, I don't think I must have big problems with you. Missionizing is something different then what you do. I even could imagine that eventually if we would continue to debate, and if we would find a way to neutralize the differences in our symbols and use of words, we would find out that we agree on more ideas on spirituality than we disagree on. Ypour remark of "test and question" made a difference. where there is such a thought, there is hope! ;) :lol:

[Safe-Keeper]

I'll round off my participation in this discussion with this: http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

For those of you who find the need for someone beat on to fuel your persecution complex:-?.

[Platapus]

Safe-keeper,

Don't bring facts into an emotional rant thread please. It only confuses the participants. :lol:

[DeepIron]

For those of you who find the need for someone beat on to fuel your persecution complex...Well, thank God I'm not one of THOSE people... ;)

[iambecomelife]

I'll round off my participation in this discussion with this: http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

For those of you who find the need for someone beat on to fuel your persecution complex:-?.

The ACLU can go take a flying leap. Those people protect Christians like OJ protected Nicole. Of course they take up some cases for Christians to try and counteract their anti-Christian tone.

Atheists complaining = always legit.

Christians complaining = persecution complex.

[iambecomelife]

And another thing. Most of the examples of the ACLU "fighting for Christians" probably involve liberal Black congregations, or extremist "Fred Phelps Style" churches. If you're a mainline conservative church then, for the most part, the ACLU probably doesn't want anything to do with you.

[Safe-Keeper]

The ACLU can go take a flying leap. Those people protect Christians like OJ protected Nicole. Of course they take up some cases for Christians to try and counteract their anti-Christian tone.Oh? Does the KKK "take up some African cases" to counteract their racism? Does the GOP party "take up some liberal issues" to counteract its own Republican goals? Does PETA "take up some pro-animal suffering cases" to try to appear objective? Does Bill O'Reilly ever go on the air to sing the praises of atheism?

I've never yet heard of an organization try to counteract its own agenda.

Atheists complaining = always legit.

Christians complaining = persecution complex.Strawman. You sound like you want to hate the ACLU no matter what, reality be damned. Fine, but then don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

And another thing. Most of the examples of the ACLU "fighting for Christians" probably involve liberal Black congregations, or extremist "Fred Phelps Style" churches. If you're a mainline conservative church then, for the most part, the ACLU probably doesn't want anything to do with you."Probably". And you're "probably" not going to come up with a single source for this, no matter how many times we ask.

http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/100.gif

[iambecomelife]

Wow. I "hate the ACLU". Whereas Safe-Keeper refers to religous people as "fundies", etc because, dog-gone it, he's just full of atheist love! Let's hear it for Safe-Keeper. A benevolent ACLU missionary, come to cast pearls of wisdom to the Fundie swine. :up:

He's right, though - I am not going to do his homework for him. Suffice it to say he wouldn't be defending the ACLU if it didn't espouse primarily secularist (or at least anti-Christian) goals. Honestly, is he enamored of the ACLU because he thinks it will make religion in America STRONG?

I just checked an archive of ACLU stories for the month of April from Topix. What did I see?

-ACLU lawyers suing in two states to ban religious license plates in FL

-The ACLU sponsoring an almost identical initiative in IN

-ACLU lawyers suing to get rid of a portrait of Jesus from a courthouse in LA

-Secularists recruiting the ACLU to prevent a Christian theme park from being built (a final decision had not yet been made).

Very pro-Christian, yes? I am not arguing in favor of or against the ACLU's interventions. What I AM arguing against is the idea that they are on balance a force fighting FOR Christian's rights - apart from the odd Fred Phelps/Christian Identity types.

-There was another story involving the religious rights of MUSLIM prison inmates. Care to guess whether the ACLU was in favor of religion or opposed to it in that case? :rotfl:

[iambecomelife]

What's funny is that these issues need to be fought by a private association. Religious license plate ? You'd at least be fined for "non conform license plate". Portrait of Jesus in a courthouse ? :o ! Guess they never heard about the concept of "laïcité", which has no much to do with atheism and should be a given of the separation of religion & state. These examples are far from just "christians' rights", seriously.
The last one, uh, I have no words :lol:

I wonder what they're going to do next. If they get away with what they're doing at present they could easily:

-Advocate a ban on religious books & symbols in public housing (after all, the Government pays for it, and it could be construed as state sponsored religion)

-Require that citizens who receive public assistance not advocate Christianity (giving them welfare, public scholarships, and so on has the indirect effect of supporting Christianity with public money).

-But hey, look on the bright side - at least the Religion of Peace will get their taxpayer-funded footbaths! What did the ACLU's local director say in that case? That Muslim footbaths "are not inherently religious facilities".

http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2007/10/footbaths-at-th.html

Do you think this is upholding the "separation of Church and state"? Why or why not?

[iambecomelife]

Mind you, my post wasn't in defense of ACLU, I didn't even know that association before this thread. I was just saying how it is in France, seriously, how can you find normal to have a portrait of jesus in a courthouse ? For me it's sci-fi, and I'm not exagerating.

OK - I understand. In my opinion the picture is most likely a violation of the establishment clause and should not be there. (Wow! look what a big FUNDIE I am!) I don't have a problem with some of the things the ACLU does but I don't like being sold a bunch of nonsense about them being religiously & politically neutral.

[Platapus]

-But hey, look on the bright side - at least the Religion of Peace will get their taxpayer-funded footbaths! What did the ACLU's local director say in that case? That Muslim footbaths "are not inherently religious facilities".

Do you think this is upholding the "separation of Church and state"? Why or why not?


Does not seem any different from a college building a chapel.

To be honest, I have been bothered much more often on campus by christians pushing their agenda than any muslim pushing theirs. I can't remember the last time a muslim knocked on my door and interrupted me with their sales pitch. Probably because it never happened.

[iambecomelife]

-But hey, look on the bright side - at least the Religion of Peace will get their taxpayer-funded footbaths! What did the ACLU's local director say in that case? That Muslim footbaths "are not inherently religious facilities".

Do you think this is upholding the "separation of Church and state"? Why or why not?


Does not seem any different from a college building a chapel.

To be honest, I have been bothered much more often on campus by christians pushing their agenda than any muslim pushing theirs. I can't remember the last time a muslim knocked on my door and interrupted me with their sales pitch. Probably because it never happened.

That's not really what I'm trying to get at. What I'm saying is, when was the last time you heard an ACLU director saying that using state funds for religious facilities was OK?

And I take it you live in a majority Christian country. Therefore, most evangelists you encounter are likely to be Christian.

[Platapus]

The article you referenced did not mention where the funding came from. Do you have another source (one a little more credible than an "on the lighter side" article) that identifies the funding source?

One should not assume state funding.

[iambecomelife]

The article you referenced did not mention where the funding came from. Do you have another source (one a little more credible than an "on the lighter side" article) that identifies the funding source?

One should not assume state funding.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/08/aclu_and_public_funding_for_mu.html

I know for sure that they were to be publicly funded. It was mentioned in straight news articles about the controversy.

Disclosure - the American Thinker is conservative, but their article is based on a "mainstream" NYTimes story. There is a link available for subscribers to the Times.

[Platapus]

Very interesting story. If this information is accurate than this would be one of those issues I would disagree with concerning the ACLU. But that still does not demonstrate that the ACLU is not a good well meaning organization.

As I posted before, Sometimes I agree with the ACLU and sometimes I don't

Just because I don't agree with what they do, does not make it a bad organization.

I am still grateful they are there.

[silentrunner]

today's ethnical groups can't go back to a single couple without evolution.

I disagree all humans are a shade of brown really. I think the different ethnic groups come from thousands of years of living in the same place, before there were effective means of transportation were around. It is not evolution just adaption.

[joea]

It is not evolution just adaption.

Which is in fact....evolution. ;)

[Schroeder]

It is not evolution just adaption.
And what is adaption?;) Right evolution, a change to fit better into your environment.:yep:

[kurtz]

It is not evolution just adaption.
And what is adaption?;) Right evolution, a change to fit better into your environment.:yep:

no,no,no evolution works by you not producing viable offspring. For instance you live in northern latitudes so you'll need a pale skin to absord Vitamin D, you live towards the equator you need a dark skin to minimise skin cancers. If you stand in the sun you don't become a black man, what happens is (on a statistical scale) you die. The people with darker skins (statistically) live. Adaptation is pretty much a non happener, it's just survival of the fittest (to survive).

[Skybird]

You three speak all of the same thing.

Now add the (huge!) role of random mutations, and the non-linearity of the process, and you are complete.

[Schroeder]

@Skybird
Exactly.:yep:

[Fish]

I wonder is any of you catholic?

Evolution could have ended at the pre-human stage, it said, but thanks to "the free choice of God," humans emerged from their pre-human ancestors.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0802496.htm

[silentrunner]

I am Catholic, but I don't believe we just evolved from apes into humans because God wanted us to. I think it might have been something like that. But I don't think an ape just suddenly turned into a human.

[antikristuseke]

Humans are apes ;)
Allso, noone is sugesting apes suddenly turned into humans.

[Safe-Keeper]

Wow. I "hate the ACLU". Whereas Safe-Keeper refers to religous people as "fundies", etc because, dog-gone it, he's just full of atheist love! Let's hear it for Safe-Keeper. A benevolent ACLU missionary, come to cast pearls of wisdom to the Fundie swine. :up:

He's right, though - I am not going to do his homework for him. Suffice it to say he wouldn't be defending the ACLU if it didn't espouse primarily secularist (or at least anti-Christian) goals. Honestly, is he enamored of the ACLU because he thinks it will make religion in America STRONG?Wow. So many untruths and false interpretations, so few sentences.

First it's the ACLU who's after your religion, then it's me. Stop feeling so goddamned hated and get over yourself. I've got lots of Christian friends, and most of them are fantastic people. It's the paranoid generalizing ones I can't stand ("atheist love"? I suppose you also believe that all gays wear pink and partake in parades every spring, and that all feminists are physically violent man-hating lesbians).

[Fish]

I am Catholic, but I don't believe we just evolved from apes into humans because God wanted us to. I think it might have been something like that. But I don't think an ape just suddenly turned into a human.

Well, isn't the Pope Christ spokesman on earth?
As Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1968 when he was Father Joseph Ratzinger, God wanted to create a being that could know him and be able to turn to him, the article said.

[Platapus]

First of all, the evolutionists have it backward.

Humans did not evolve from the apes

Humans are evolving to the apes

What does a male gorilla do?

Sleeps 16 hours a day, Sleeps when he is tired, gets up when he is not tired
Grabs a handful of food when hungry
Grabs a female gorilla when feeling randy
Goes back to sleep


What does a male human do

Sleeps about 6 hours a night if lucky. Goes to bed when not tired, gets up when tired to go to work all week.
We don't eat when we are hungry because we are watching our weight and eating healthy.

We do this in the pathetic hope that one weekend we might

Sleep 16 hours a day
Grab a handful of food when hungry
Grab a female when feeling randy
Go back to sleep.

Looking at the two species, it is obvious which is the more "advanced".

It will take humans a long time to evolve to the apes :up:

[iambecomelife]

Wow. I "hate the ACLU". Whereas Safe-Keeper refers to religous people as "fundies", etc because, dog-gone it, he's just full of atheist love! Let's hear it for Safe-Keeper. A benevolent ACLU missionary, come to cast pearls of wisdom to the Fundie swine. :up:

He's right, though - I am not going to do his homework for him. Suffice it to say he wouldn't be defending the ACLU if it didn't espouse primarily secularist (or at least anti-Christian) goals. Honestly, is he enamored of the ACLU because he thinks it will make religion in America STRONG?Wow. So many untruths and false interpretations, so few sentences.

First it's the ACLU who's after your religion, then it's me. Stop feeling so goddamned hated and get over yourself. I've got lots of Christian friends, and most of them are fantastic people. It's the paranoid generalizing ones I can't stand ("atheist love"? I suppose you also believe that all gays wear pink and partake in parades every spring, and that all feminists are physically violent man-hating lesbians).

Now where have we heard this before? "But-but some of my best friends are Black/Jewish/Whatever!"

More strawmen. I have said NOTHING about my feelings on homosexuality or feminism. Good to know that Safe-Keeper feels free to ASSIGN beliefs to his debate opponents. Whereas if you look at my comment, Safekeeper DID in fact display disdain for Fundamentalist Christians by using the word "fundie".

An obvious sign of someone whose beliefs can't stand on the merits. If SK had BOTHERED to read my past posts he would have seen that I AGREED with the ACLU in the courthouse case, but that would take a modicum of self-control & nuance.

Typically, it's the other person who's "DISTORTING" Safe-Keeper's words. I used to think that accusing people of "Projection" was just a cheap pseudo-psychological cop-out.

Now I'm not so sure.

Oh, and I bet Safe-Keeper thinks all people in Wisconsin are drunk Packers fans wearing cheesehead hats. He's an evil WISCONSINIST!!!! Quick! Ban him!

See how easy that was? :rotfl: