Originally posted by Xexima You're retarded. Atheism is the denying of a god, and your logic fails either way. Atheism has NEVER caused a war, ever. Although there have been tons of wars caused by various religions trying to press their views on each other.
How puerile, ignorance and namecalling? Atheism has never tried to exterminate a people for their beliefs either, right?
Originally posted by JoHosephat Originally posted by Xexima You're retarded. Atheism is the denying of a god, and your logic fails either way. Atheism has NEVER caused a war, ever. Although there have been tons of wars caused by various religions trying to press their views on each other.
How puerile, ignorance and namecalling? Atheism has never tried to exterminate a people for their beliefs either, right? Name one time, and I'll name 100 times that a religion has exterminated people for their beliefs. And your logic is retarded.
Name one time, and I'll name 100 times that a religion has exterminated people for their beliefs. And your logic is retarded.
The point is, it's stupid to call out religion while Atheistic regimes killed many, many, many millions of people. Religious people have been specifically targeted under various atheistic regimes. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin....It's stupid to point fingers at an entire group, which ever side you're on.
And, it's silly to ignore secular wars. Wars that would have taken place regardless of religion or the lack thereof. Wars over borders, resources, etc.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by Xexima
Name one time, and I'll name 100 times that a religion has exterminated people for their beliefs. And your logic is retarded.
The point is, it's stupid to call out religion while Atheistic regimes killed many, many, many millions of people. Religious people have been specifically targeted under various atheistic regimes. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin....It's stupid to point fingers at an entire group, which ever side you're on.
And, it's silly to ignore secular wars. Wars that would have taken place regardless of religion or the lack thereof. Wars over borders, resources, etc.
There is a difference between a secular war and an atheistic war. There has never in history been a war fought that was directly sponsored by atheism, where there have been countless religious sponsored wars.
Originally posted by Xexima LMAO, as does everyone else on earth. Everyone seems to think that they know the absolute right, but this is funny coming from a religious person.
And I understand your need to go against anything associated with religion. But sometimes it's uncalled for.
And sometimes it is called for, like in the OP post...
I dont think you got me... I thought it was funny that you guys think that you are right about morals because atheists are always saying that religious people always think their right and that they think ONLY their way is right...
It's hillarious to see that you're the same way......
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
There is a difference between a secular war and an atheistic war. There has never in history been a war fought that was directly sponsored by atheism, where there have been countless religious sponsored wars.
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of. In fact, I'd say many "religious wars" and atrocities would have happened regardless. "Converting the natives" was often the nicest face to put on many of these act. When ultimately land, resources, and human labor were the true goals. Secular reasons.
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by Xexima LMAO, as does everyone else on earth. Everyone seems to think that they know the absolute right, but this is funny coming from a religious person.
And I understand your need to go against anything associated with religion. But sometimes it's uncalled for.
And sometimes it is called for, like in the OP post...
I dont think you got me... I thought it was funny that you guys think that you are right about morals because atheists are always saying that religious people always think their right and that they think ONLY their way is right...
It's hillarious to see that you're the same way...... I don't think anyone is "right" about morals. I believe morals are morals. My argument is that society would be no more chaotic than it already is if religion never existed in the first place.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by modjoe86
There is a difference between a secular war and an atheistic war. There has never in history been a war fought that was directly sponsored by atheism, where there have been countless religious sponsored wars.
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of.
Well, there seems to be a disproportionate number of wars fought under God's banner then those fought under an Anti-God banner. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have spoken in an absolute with the whole "never been an atheistic war" thing. That doesn't change the fact that there have been a lot more wars fought to spread religion then those fought to stop it.
There is a difference between a secular war and an atheistic war. There has never in history been a war fought that was directly sponsored by atheism, where there have been countless religious sponsored wars.
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of.
Well, there seems to be a disproportionate number of wars fought under God's banner then those fought under an Anti-God banner. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have spoken in an absolute with the whole "never been an atheistic war" thing. That doesn't change the fact that there have been a lot more wars fought to spread religion then those fought to stop it.
Well, I'm not sure atheists have ever been close to a proportionate part of the human population throught history. Heck, they're not even close today, or so it seems to me. So, it's kind of hard to draw comparisons by the number of wars. I'm not stating that as fact, but just from casual history lessons, it seems to be the case.
And, I still maintain that many "religious" atrocities and wars used religion to put it's nicest face on the situation. Basically, they probably would have happened for secular reasons such as land, borders, slaves, resources, etc.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by modjoe86 Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by modjoe86
There is a difference between a secular war and an atheistic war. There has never in history been a war fought that was directly sponsored by atheism, where there have been countless religious sponsored wars.
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of.
Well, there seems to be a disproportionate number of wars fought under God's banner then those fought under an Anti-God banner. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have spoken in an absolute with the whole "never been an atheistic war" thing. That doesn't change the fact that there have been a lot more wars fought to spread religion then those fought to stop it.
Well, I'm not sure atheists have ever been close to a proportionate part of the human population throught history. Heck, they're not even close today, or so it seems to me. So, it's kind of hard to draw comparisons by the number of wars. I'm not stating that as fact, but just from casual history lessons, it seems to be the case.
And, I still maintain that many "religious" atrocities and wars used religion to put it's nicest face on the situation. Basically, they probably would have happened for secular reasons such as land, borders, slaves, resources, etc.
Approximately 1.1 billion people on earth are nonreligious/agnostic/atheist. That is roughly 16%... so yeah, they are actually a pretty large percentage. I don't know about "were" though. Of course over hundreds of years, things and people change.
Originally posted by modjoe86 I don't think anyone is "right" about morals. I believe morals are morals. My argument is that society would be no more chaotic than it already is if religion never existed in the first place.
And I'm sure you can then in turn agree that the world wouldn't be any less chaotic if religion didn't exist either... right?
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Now for the actual topic. As a religious person, no, religion shouldn't control the law. Though, I respect and believe in, the idea that we are endowed with inalienable rights. And, religion should be protected from the state. Including faith based groups. Such as the boy scouts, for examples.
Approximately 1.1 billion people on earth are nonreligious/agnostic/atheist. That is roughly 16%... so yeah, they are actually a pretty large percentage. I don't know about "were" though. Of course over hundreds of years, things and people change.
I'm not really comfortable using a number that groups nonreligious/agnostic with atheists. It seems to me the discussion was specific to a atheist vs. religious violence, type of debate. I'm not sure why agnostic is lumped together with atheist, anymoreso than agnostic with religious. Believing in God(s) is drastically different than outright denying the possibility of such an existence. However, I find as much of a difference in outright denying the possibility, with allowing for the possibility. They're all fundamentally different positions, in my eyes.
And, I don't know that I'd call 16% large. That's 84% of the population that is religious. Don't see how an effective "proportionate" comparison could be made.
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by modjoe86 I don't think anyone is "right" about morals. I believe morals are morals. My argument is that society would be no more chaotic than it already is if religion never existed in the first place.
And I'm sure you can then in turn agree that the world wouldn't be any less chaotic if religion didn't exist either... right? Right.
What I personally want to see from my fellow christians in regards to the LAW. If it's a 'victimless crime", don't go casting the first stone. Disagree with it all you want, I do on many such matters. But, "victimless crimes" to me are the jurisdiction of God, not of this world's police. It's only when another infringes on someone's rights that we should then practice our jurisdiction, to correct or punish.
Originally posted by lardmouth What I personally want to see from my fellow christians in regards to the LAW. If it's a 'victimless crime", don't go casting the first stone. Disagree with it all you want, I do on many such matters. But, "victimless crimes" to me are the jurisdiction of God, not of this world's police. It's only when another infringes on someone's rights that we should then practice our jurisdiction, to correct or punish.
Are you saying that if someone dies then there isn't a victim?
Or are you saying that when someone commits assisted suicide that no one is hurt?
Both are wrong.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by lardmouth Now for the actual topic. As a religious person, no, religion shouldn't control the law. Though, I respect and believe in, the idea that we are endowed with inalienable rights. And, religion should be protected from the state. Including faith based groups. Such as the boy scouts, for examples.
Why should the state protect religions? And who do they need protection from? Because we Atheists are such a large, powerful, and hateful group?
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Originally posted by lardmouth What I personally want to see from my fellow christians in regards to the LAW. If it's a 'victimless crime", don't go casting the first stone. Disagree with it all you want, I do on many such matters. But, "victimless crimes" to me are the jurisdiction of God, not of this world's police. It's only when another infringes on someone's rights that we should then practice our jurisdiction, to correct or punish.
Are you saying that if someone dies then there isn't a victim?
Or are you saying that when someone commits assisted suicide that no one is hurt?
Both are wrong.
Not sure you what you mean by the first question.
Assisted suicide is stupid. Suicide is taking one's own life. Assisting is taking someone's life. Noone should take anyone's life, outside of proctecting one's own life or anothers.
Originally posted by lardmouth What I personally want to see from my fellow christians in regards to the LAW. If it's a 'victimless crime", don't go casting the first stone. Disagree with it all you want, I do on many such matters. But, "victimless crimes" to me are the jurisdiction of God, not of this world's police. It's only when another infringes on someone's rights that we should then practice our jurisdiction, to correct or punish.
Why should the state protect religions? And who do they need protection from? Because we Atheists are such a large, powerful, and hateful group?
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Why shouldn't the right to practice a religion be protected?
Nor should they Boy Scouts be denied the use of land or funding that non-religious groups are allowed to use. Of course, I don't believe the federal government should have federal funding to give out. Or, that it should hold land outside of that needed to carry out national defense and other constitutionally endowed responsibilites.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by Xexima
Why should the state protect religions? And who do they need protection from? Because we Atheists are such a large, powerful, and hateful group?
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Why shouldn't the right to practice a religion be protected?
Nor should they Boy Scouts be denied the use of land or funding that non-religious groups are allowed to use. Or course, I don't believe the federal government should have federal funding to give out. Or, that it should hold land outside of that needed to carry out national defense and other constitutionally endowed responsibilites.
Whoa.. I think we both misunderstood each other. The right to practice any religion of course should be protected. And religious organizations should get the same amount of funding as any other group. I just don't think they should be specifically sponsored by the government. I do, though, think that there needs to be a complete wall between religion and state in policy making. The "religion" they should use needs to be the constitution.
Why should the state protect religions? And who do they need protection from? Because we Atheists are such a large, powerful, and hateful group?
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Why shouldn't the right to practice a religion be protected?
Nor should they Boy Scouts be denied the use of land or funding that non-religious groups are allowed to use. Or course, I don't believe the federal government should have federal funding to give out. Or, that it should hold land outside of that needed to carry out national defense and other constitutionally endowed responsibilites.
Whoa.. I think we both misunderstood each other. The right to practice any religion of course should be protected. And religious organizations should get the same amount of funding as any other group. I just don't think they should be specifically sponsored by the government. I do, though, think that there needs to be a complete wall between religion and state in policy making. The "religion" they should use needs to be the constitution.
Originally posted by lardmouth Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by lardmouth What I personally want to see from my fellow christians in regards to the LAW. If it's a 'victimless crime", don't go casting the first stone. Disagree with it all you want, I do on many such matters. But, "victimless crimes" to me are the jurisdiction of God, not of this world's police. It's only when another infringes on someone's rights that we should then practice our jurisdiction, to correct or punish.
Are you saying that if someone dies then there isn't a victim?
Or are you saying that when someone commits assisted suicide that no one is hurt?
Both are wrong.
Not sure you what you mean by the first question.
Assisted suicide is stupid. Suicide is taking one's own life. Assisting is taking someone's life. Noone should take anyone's life, outside of proctecting one's own life or anothers.
Hmmm I think i'm confused then... Maybe you're saying the same thing as me..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Comments
Name one time, and I'll name 100 times that a religion has exterminated people for their beliefs. And your logic is retarded.
The point is, it's stupid to call out religion while Atheistic regimes killed many, many, many millions of people. Religious people have been specifically targeted under various atheistic regimes. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin....It's stupid to point fingers at an entire group, which ever side you're on.
And, it's silly to ignore secular wars. Wars that would have taken place regardless of religion or the lack thereof. Wars over borders, resources, etc.
The point is, it's stupid to call out religion while Atheistic regimes killed many, many, many millions of people. Religious people have been specifically targeted under various atheistic regimes. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin....It's stupid to point fingers at an entire group, which ever side you're on.
And, it's silly to ignore secular wars. Wars that would have taken place regardless of religion or the lack thereof. Wars over borders, resources, etc.
There is a difference between a secular war and an atheistic war. There has never in history been a war fought that was directly sponsored by atheism, where there have been countless religious sponsored wars.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
I dont think you got me... I thought it was funny that you guys think that you are right about morals because atheists are always saying that religious people always think their right and that they think ONLY their way is right...
It's hillarious to see that you're the same way......
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of. In fact, I'd say many "religious wars" and atrocities would have happened regardless. "Converting the natives" was often the nicest face to put on many of these act. When ultimately land, resources, and human labor were the true goals. Secular reasons.
I dont think you got me... I thought it was funny that you guys think that you are right about morals because atheists are always saying that religious people always think their right and that they think ONLY their way is right...
It's hillarious to see that you're the same way......
I don't think anyone is "right" about morals. I believe morals are morals. My argument is that society would be no more chaotic than it already is if religion never existed in the first place.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of.
Well, there seems to be a disproportionate number of wars fought under God's banner then those fought under an Anti-God banner. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have spoken in an absolute with the whole "never been an atheistic war" thing. That doesn't change the fact that there have been a lot more wars fought to spread religion then those fought to stop it.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of.
Well, there seems to be a disproportionate number of wars fought under God's banner then those fought under an Anti-God banner. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have spoken in an absolute with the whole "never been an atheistic war" thing. That doesn't change the fact that there have been a lot more wars fought to spread religion then those fought to stop it.
Well, I'm not sure atheists have ever been close to a proportionate part of the human population throught history. Heck, they're not even close today, or so it seems to me. So, it's kind of hard to draw comparisons by the number of wars. I'm not stating that as fact, but just from casual history lessons, it seems to be the case.
And, I still maintain that many "religious" atrocities and wars used religion to put it's nicest face on the situation. Basically, they probably would have happened for secular reasons such as land, borders, slaves, resources, etc.
Oh? What about wars fought by atheistic ideologies? Such as communist forces? The Khmer rouge directly targted the religious, for example.
I realize there is a difference between an atheistic war and a secular war, btw. However, it illustrates that wars are fought regardless of a God, or lack of.
Well, there seems to be a disproportionate number of wars fought under God's banner then those fought under an Anti-God banner. I'm sorry, I shouldn't have spoken in an absolute with the whole "never been an atheistic war" thing. That doesn't change the fact that there have been a lot more wars fought to spread religion then those fought to stop it.
Well, I'm not sure atheists have ever been close to a proportionate part of the human population throught history. Heck, they're not even close today, or so it seems to me. So, it's kind of hard to draw comparisons by the number of wars. I'm not stating that as fact, but just from casual history lessons, it seems to be the case.
And, I still maintain that many "religious" atrocities and wars used religion to put it's nicest face on the situation. Basically, they probably would have happened for secular reasons such as land, borders, slaves, resources, etc.
Approximately 1.1 billion people on earth are nonreligious/agnostic/atheist. That is roughly 16%... so yeah, they are actually a pretty large percentage. I don't know about "were" though. Of course over hundreds of years, things and people change.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
I'm not really comfortable using a number that groups nonreligious/agnostic with atheists. It seems to me the discussion was specific to a atheist vs. religious violence, type of debate. I'm not sure why agnostic is lumped together with atheist, anymoreso than agnostic with religious. Believing in God(s) is drastically different than outright denying the possibility of such an existence. However, I find as much of a difference in outright denying the possibility, with allowing for the possibility. They're all fundamentally different positions, in my eyes.
And, I don't know that I'd call 16% large. That's 84% of the population that is religious. Don't see how an effective "proportionate" comparison could be made.
Right.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
Or are you saying that when someone commits assisted suicide that no one is hurt?
Both are wrong.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Or are you saying that when someone commits assisted suicide that no one is hurt?
Both are wrong.
Not sure you what you mean by the first question.
Assisted suicide is stupid. Suicide is taking one's own life. Assisting is taking someone's life. Noone should take anyone's life, outside of proctecting one's own life or anothers.
live and let live FTW
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Why shouldn't the right to practice a religion be protected?
Nor should they Boy Scouts be denied the use of land or funding that non-religious groups are allowed to use. Of course, I don't believe the federal government should have federal funding to give out. Or, that it should hold land outside of that needed to carry out national defense and other constitutionally endowed responsibilites.
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Why shouldn't the right to practice a religion be protected?
Nor should they Boy Scouts be denied the use of land or funding that non-religious groups are allowed to use. Or course, I don't believe the federal government should have federal funding to give out. Or, that it should hold land outside of that needed to carry out national defense and other constitutionally endowed responsibilites.
Whoa.. I think we both misunderstood each other. The right to practice any religion of course should be protected. And religious organizations should get the same amount of funding as any other group. I just don't think they should be specifically sponsored by the government. I do, though, think that there needs to be a complete wall between religion and state in policy making. The "religion" they should use needs to be the constitution.
The state should give no more protection or funding to religious groups than they do to any other sort of group.
Why shouldn't the right to practice a religion be protected?
Nor should they Boy Scouts be denied the use of land or funding that non-religious groups are allowed to use. Or course, I don't believe the federal government should have federal funding to give out. Or, that it should hold land outside of that needed to carry out national defense and other constitutionally endowed responsibilites.
Whoa.. I think we both misunderstood each other. The right to practice any religion of course should be protected. And religious organizations should get the same amount of funding as any other group. I just don't think they should be specifically sponsored by the government. I do, though, think that there needs to be a complete wall between religion and state in policy making. The "religion" they should use needs to be the constitution.
Ah, then we're pretty much in agreement.
Or are you saying that when someone commits assisted suicide that no one is hurt?
Both are wrong.
Not sure you what you mean by the first question.
Assisted suicide is stupid. Suicide is taking one's own life. Assisting is taking someone's life. Noone should take anyone's life, outside of proctecting one's own life or anothers.
Hmmm I think i'm confused then... Maybe you're saying the same thing as me..
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>