Atheism a creed that needs the same religious protections of Christianity and Islam:
- Thread starter Goober
- Start date
I know a good lawyer. When I break a mirror, she can get me down to 1 year and community service instead of the standard 7 years of bad luck.
Not bad, but with a little luck and a female judge, I could get you six months of small misfortunes, or even 30 days of minor inconveniences.
In front of the Judgement Seat, I bet I could get your "roast in Hell for all eternity" down to 60 days of sautee in Heck.
Nonsense. Both Stalin and Mao were in positions wherein religion was rife within their respective gvts when they assumed power. In order to silence the church (various), the only way was to eradicate this presence from gvt... You can be sure that they didn't politely ask them to leave...
Talk all you like that those actions were motivated more by the interest in the secularization and centralization of power - the only way that was accomplished was via a premeditated program of executing any representatives and influences of religion in the halls of power
Precisely. It was a simple power struggle. Peel away the flag-waving BS and the holy BS, and the churches and the governments want one thing and one thing only. And they don't care how they get it.
Well put
In the end, that's exactly what it boils-down to.
Whether it's using the religious-based 'Us vs Them' rhetoric or doing it 'For The People', it all comes down to the same result..... Lots and lots of bloodshed
I'm always amused by the people who babble about "the sanctity of human life." Human life is the cheapest commodity on the planet. Dirt is gold by comparison.
Nice try, but worshipping "The Onus" just runs you head first into Maslow's " Brick Wall of Reasoning".
Why do professed atheists use cute generalities in debate? Denying that the religious impulse exists is simply denying reality.
All kinds of impulses exist. Don't mean the things they're impulses toward exist. Atheists don't deny folks have a desire to have some control over their environments that's so deep they'll come up with any kind of delusion to satisfy it.Nice try, but worshipping "The Onus" just runs you head first into Maslow's " Brick Wall of Reasoning".
Why do professed atheists use cute generalities in debate? Denying that the religious impulse exists is simply denying reality.
May I suggest reading Abraham Maslow, who answered that more elegantly than I can? Or Koestlers' Classic 'Yogi and the Commissar ' debates in "the sleepwalkers'
The Sleepwalkers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Oh, not this old bit again.
Feel free to join the meat of the conversation instead of trying to pick apart the insignificant details (especially since there are plenty of atheist groups that spell out what an atheist belief set consists of... as LG always used to encourage, Google The Brights).
The meat of the matter is, someone was stating that atheists should have to prove the non-existence of god in order to call themselves atheists. I said no one should have to 'defend' their belief system (lack of a belief system if it sits easier in your gut), unless they are trying to make someone else agree with them.
There is an argument to be make for " Christian Primitive' as the high point of the Church. However, Atheism as a fundamental cornerstone of the 'new social order' kinda died with the "law of spikelet's'.
Not one- But the major religions with the differences - similarities should be taught in all schools.
Paul Tillich, thegreat Lutheran theologian
www.religion-online.org
Explores the "double man" fallacy in depth.
The idea that one can remain a pure internal ,private Christian, whilesupporting the most heinous of orders as a secular man debased GermanChristianity from Bismarck'sKulturkampt to 1945..
The 'double man' fallacy shold , IMHO, be taught in classes.
They're wrong too and I'm surprised you'd accept their authority, but okay then, if what atheist means isn't part of the meat of the conversation in a thread titled as this one is, and you along with the Brights--of whom you seem to disapprove-- and all those other atheist groups you refer to are going to insist it means all of something that it's really just one component of, and not even a necessary one, while refusing to say what you think it means when asked, there is no common ground on which to have a conversation.
What makes you think I disapprove of the brights or any other atheist organization exactly?
See, that's the rub of it. When I say that atheists shouldn't have to justify themselves, define themselves, or answer to people as to what they think and believe, by the following forward of that logic, why should I have to define atheism to say atheists have the right to define themselves?