Yes it is insanely to belive such doctrines of death!!. http://www.usatoday.com/news/attack/2001/09/28/guide.htm Perhaps not all religions are the same, however the same mind sect can be created by malicious leaders of any religion. "Waco" Rev Jim Jones, cults.
*Originally posted by Godless Yes it is insanely to belive such doctrines of death!!. Perhaps not all religions are the same, however the same mind sect can be created by malicious leaders of any religion. "Waco" Rev Jim Jones, cults. I agree with you on that. However, please note that in atheistic countries the death toll runs into the tens of millions, rather than thousands. Worse, it is usually the government killing its own citizens. Welcome to Earth. There is one way to handle it all, and his name is Jesus.
Tony1, I think you're confusing atheism with totalitarianism. In a democracy (especially one that values and institutionalizes individual rights and freedoms), purges are impossible no matter what the prevailing religion (or whether there even is a religion.)
*Originally posted by Bambi I think you're confusing atheism with totalitarianism.* Given that you are an atheist, I can see that you might think so based on the dictionary definitons of the words. Unfortunately, atheism essentially being the abdication of reason means that totalitarianism is not far behind. *In a democracy (especially one that values and institutionalizes individual rights and freedoms), purges are impossible no matter what the prevailing religion (or whether there even is a religion.) You mean impossible like they are in the People's Democratic Republic of China? Besides, you are completely underestimating the power of fear, especially when the majority of people are frightened.
Atheism the abdication of reason? LOL Nice argumentative technique there. So you simply propose that I cannot reason, and thereupon you don't have to listen to a single word I say. You know, I could do the same thing to you as well, and the outcome of such "debate" would be that the two of us end up staring each other down for all eternity. But sorry, I don't play that game. As far as totalitarianism, it doesn't seem to be far behind theocracy. As a matter of fact, in the middle east that is precisely what we observe -- theocratic totalitarianism. Same thing that we would have observed in the medieval Christian europe. There are many very good reasons why the framers of the U.S. constitution instituted the wall of separation between church and state. What do you think those reasons are? And if you accept that the PRC is democratic merely because they tell you so, then you haven't progressed very far from your religious studies. (hint: how many political parties are there in the PRC government?) Fear: the most effective tool when converting ignorant savages to Christianity. Also, the most effective form of ensuring adherence to scriptural law. I no way do I underestimate the power of fear, or what it is capable of when wide-spread and pervasive. It is part of the reason why I have a special aversion for all the Abrahamic religions.
Unfortunately Religion not atheism was, and still is the no.1 cause of war, conflict and human misery in the world today. Praise be, take care
*Originally posted by Bambi Atheism the abdication of reason? LOL Nice argumentative technique there. So you simply propose that I cannot reason, and thereupon you don't have to listen to a single word I say. * On the contrary, I read what you write and then propose that you can't reason. *You know, I could do the same thing to you as well, and the outcome of such "debate" would be that the two of us end up staring each other down for all eternity.* Aside from the eternity thing, if you did do that, I would still answer you. *As far as totalitarianism, it doesn't seem to be far behind theocracy. As a matter of fact, in the middle east that is precisely what we observe -- theocratic totalitarianism.* Theocracy is government by God. What we see in the middle east is religious totalitarianism. *There are many very good reasons why the framers of the U.S. constitution instituted the wall of separation between church and state. What do you think those reasons are?* I wouldn't know, since if you read the Constitution, you would see that there is no separation of church and state other than for the state to pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The separation of church and state is an atheistic fiction based on some letter written by Thomas Jefferson. *And if you accept that the PRC is democratic merely because they tell you so, then you haven't progressed very far from your religious studies.* You expect me to believe things merely because you tell me so. *Fear: the most effective tool when converting ignorant savages to Christianity.* Those "ignorant savages" normally convert because they experience fear as a normal course of their lives and they are tired of it. For examples of how people view fear as a normal part of their lives, simply read posts on this forum where atheists attempt to accuse Christians of fear. The pathetic thing is that when such attempts are made it actually reveals the pervasiveness of fear in the life of the poster who tries it. *It is part of the reason why I have a special aversion for all the Abrahamic religions. * You should really have some serious aversions to satanism, paganism, wicca and the vast majority of other religions too, then, because their adherents are swimming in fear. *Originally posted by Stretch Religion not atheism was, and still is the no.1 cause of war, conflict and human misery in the world today.* The atheistic countries like communist China are full of happy, joyous people who can't wait to leave their happy countries. North Korea is a great example of your statement. Most people in South Korea can't wait to move to North Korea. So much so that the North Koreans had to build a fence between the two to keep the South Koreans out. Similarly, East Germany and West Germany had to build a wall to keep the West Germans out. And, let's not forget the huge numbers of Westerners who defected to communist Russia. Why, there must have been twos or threes of them. Even in South Africa, there must be literally millions of people who can't wait to be able to emigrate to communist China. Are you nuts?
I understand your point!. However.. Quote; Tony1 ____________________________________________________ However, please note that in atheistic countries the death toll runs into the tens of millions, rather than thousands. Worse, it is usually the government killing its own citizens. ____________________________________________________ It is true what you say, but as usual you "fail" to see, that in these conuntries they've replaced one form of mysticism with another. [MYSTICISM: is the promotion of false or disonest notions that create problems where none exist. Contrary to popular belief, mysticism today seldom involves religion or the occult. For, religion and the occult are silly, dying forms of mysticism with fading powers to "hurt honest value producers". More generally, mysticism is the dishonesty that evolves from using rationalizations and non sequiturs to generate "mind-created realities". In turn, those "realities" create unnecessary problems and unnatural destructions. Unnecessary and unnatural because the human brain is *not* a reality-creating device, but is a reality-intergrating organ. In fact, reality-creating mysticism is the only perversion or diseas of human consciousness. Indeed, mysticism is the stupidness disease. For, mysticism destroys values wherever they exist. Thus, mysticism is suicide on all levels-on personal, local, national, and world levels. Frank R Wallace, Neo-Tech publishing] So let me explain this to your feeble comprehension; These goverments replaced religion for the state! the state is the new mysticism withing these countries. Belif in the state, is a failure of philosophy, which just as simply replaced god, for the collectiveness of totalitarian rule by the state, other than the totalitarian rule of the church!!. Welcome to Earth. "WELCOME TO REALITY!!!!" There is one way to handle it all, and his name is Jesus. [/B][/QUOTE]
Re: I understand your point!. However.. *Originally posted by Godless It is true what you say, but as usual you "fail" to see, that in these conuntries they've replaced one form of mysticism with another.* I didn't "fail" to see that. Didn't I point out that it is atheist countries with such problems? Atheism IS the promotion of false or dishonest notions that create problems where none exist. God is not a problem. Atheism promotes the false notion that he is a problem. Look at your own posts. You repeatedly try to make the point that God, or religion or something is a problem, when it isn't. *These goverments replaced religion for the state! the state is the new mysticism withing these countries.* Exactly. Since the state is atheistic, the new mysticism in those countries is atheism. *Belif in the state, is a failure of philosophy, which just as simply replaced god, for the collectiveness of totalitarian rule by the state, other than the totalitarian rule of the church!!. * What churches are you familiar with? It seems that you have found an unusual church I have never heard of before. *Atheism is based on reason & logic, unlike the "faith" doctrine which is based on subjective feelings, and the willfull rejection of reason!.* No faith is based on subjective feelings. You are perhaps thinking of emotionalism which is based on feelings. As for atheism being based on reason and logic, I might believe that if it weren't for atheists stating that they don't know anything. Mind you, I do believe atheists when they say that. I might also believe that atheists use reason and logic if they actually did. *No imposible such as the in the Republic of The United States of America, if you were to get your nose out of the bible you've might of comprehended this one Tony1.* I left that out deliberately because the ramifications of the WTC disaster haven't finished unfolding yet. Besides, it looks like you are unaware of McCarthyism. Blacklisting amounted to a financial purge which did occur in the US of A and recently, too. Luckily, McCarthy was right, but that doesn't guarantee that the next guy will be. (Think Gore. He's a new ager and new agers are notoriously intolerant of concepts that disagree with new age principles, say for example atheism)
Rodger the Dodger Tony1 Quote Stretch "Religion not atheism was, and still is the no.1 cause of war, conflict and human misery in the world today." Don`t dodge my statement. Give me the stats from the last 4500 years to prove me wrong. Even the last 100 years will do. Take care.
Land Power and Money are the number one causes of war. Religion is just used to falsely justify war on occassion. Not that you'll ever stop making the claim. Only when a minority is acussed (Islam) did the news openly state that the religion has nothing to do with the terrorist acts. Considering how many times we've been over this and how many times people keep saying it I don't think you have that kind of intergretity to stop propegating the lie. Ben
I'm reminded of a story ... I figure Tony1 won't care, since it took place at my Catholic high school, but something he wrote brought it to mind: My history teacher, during my senior year, once told a story about the day the Shah of Iran fell from power and the Ayatollah Khomeni's government recalled all Iranian nationals. Our school had one such student, a young woman, who on her last day of classes discussed the situation in Iran. When asked what would happen if the Shah was arrested by the Iranians, she responded: "He will get a fair trial and then he will be hung." Bambi Hit the target a little more squarely, maybe? I think you nailed it ... problem is, Tony1 has a long history at Sciforums demonstrating that he understands nothing of fear, and thus you might notice his defensive retreat into paranoia. Consider when you're debating with him that you're debating with a Christian who believes it his his duty of faith to distrust all people, who hears no call to conduct himself better than the pagans he despises, and who frequently states his confidence in his own salvation. Once upon a time, I accused him of being a provovateur, but I think the sad truth is that you're trying to debate with a man wholly blinded by his fears, and so attuned to them that they seem natural; he cannot recognize fear because he believes it to be negative and cannot countenance the idea that the basis of his beliefs are something he considers negative. Or so it would seem; his posting persona indicates these things, at least. Maybe he's an out-of-work actor .... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You were saying? *Originally posted by Stretch Don`t dodge my statement. Give me the stats from the last 4500 years to prove me wrong. Even the last 100 years will do.* In the last 100 years, we had the Boer Wars, WWI and WWII, the Korean "police action," the Vietnam thing, Russia vs. Afghanistan, the Gulf War, and a few dozen other skirmishes, battles, conflicts and whatnot. The Boer Wars didn't appear to be religious wars, but you might know better than I do. WWI was a communism vs capitalism thing where the communists the communists were fighting, and it was undefined where everyone else was fighting, other than in terms of maintaining political boundaries related to Germans wanting to take over the world, or at least Europe. WWII was quite similar in that Germans wanted "lebensraum" which isn't a religious thing, just something like "elbow room." Other countries didn't like being elbowed. Japan attacking the US seems unrelated to religion unless you figure that Japan thought the US was the Shinto equivalent of the Great Satan. In addition, it was nazis against fascists against communists against capitalists which doesn't sound like a religious thing. The Korean thing and Vietnam were communism vs capitalism, no religion there. Russia vs Afghanistan was communism vs whatever, since the Russians weren't attacking Afghans because of their mosques. The Gulf War was about oil. So what was your point again? *Originally posted by tiassa Hit the target a little more squarely, maybe?* She'd have to, because she missed it by a mile. *Tony1 has a long history at Sciforums demonstrating that he understands nothing of fear* Thanks. I was "afraid" that you would never see that. Fear is a distant memory for me, so you'll excuse me if I don't partake of your wallowing in fear and self-pity. *Once upon a time, I accused him of being a provovateur, but I think the sad truth is that you're trying to debate with a man wholly blinded by his fears, and so attuned to them that they seem natural; he cannot recognize fear because he believes it to be negative and cannot countenance the idea that the basis of his beliefs are something he considers negative.* What would I fear? You? The devil? Poverty? Illness? What people think of me? Death? Life? You're the one who lives and breathes fear to the point where you think everyone is the same. Well, everyone isn't the same. You live in a world where fear is so pervasive that you write entire posts talking about nothing but fear, where you rationalize your coming to terms with fear, your "knowledge" of what causes your fear, etc, yet the fear continues for you.
Tony, You probably have no idea how much irony is present in what you say. Some of those middle eastern people would say that what you see in the middle east is government by God, whereas what you see in the rest of the world is government by greed and filth. But that <b>is</b> the separation of church and state. Congress passes laws while the executive branch executes them. The executive branch cannot do anything that is not ordained by congressional law. Which means, if Congress cannot pass laws connected with religion, then the government as a whole cannot do anything connected with religion. You may object to "connected with" as being more broad than "establishment/prohibition" -- but I have yet to see a law that involves religion which cannot be construed either as promoting or as inhibiting a religion. Moreover, if you insist on calling atheism a religion, then the same standard applies to laws that might promote <i>or inhibit</i> atheism. Which means that the government cannot do anything religious whatsoever, meaning that the first amendment forces the government to be purely secular (i.e. neutral to any and all religions). Don't remember ever stating such an expectation. I merely point out where to look; the looking you would have to perform on your own. That must be why the little that's left of American Indians after their fears have been dispelled, are still clinging to the horrible traditions of their terrible ancestors. Well... you <b>do</b> fear that you won't be entitled to an afterlife unless you cling to your religion -- don't you? Isn't this fear your prime argument for conversion (including your own)?
*Originally posted by Bambi You probably have no idea how much irony is present in what you say.* You must think I have no idea what I'm writing. *Some of those middle eastern people would say that what you see in the middle east is government by God* They would be right only if they are right. If you agree with them, I'll consider them right. *But that <b>is</b> the separation of church and state. Congress passes laws while the executive branch executes them. The executive branch cannot do anything that is not ordained by congressional law. Which means, if Congress cannot pass laws connected with religion, then the government as a whole cannot do anything connected with religion.* You didn't read what it says. Congress can pass laws concerning religion, just not prohibiting free exercise thereof. Needless to say, large numbers of judges have been breaking that amendment for years. That is unconstitutional, isn't it? *but I have yet to see a law that involves religion which cannot be construed either as promoting or as inhibiting a religion. * According to the Constitution, passing laws promoting a religion is just fine. *Moreover, if you insist on calling atheism a religion, then the same standard applies to laws that might promote <i>or inhibit</i> atheism.* Read the first amendment again. *Which means that the government cannot do anything religious whatsoever, meaning that the first amendment forces the government to be purely secular (i.e. neutral to any and all religions).* The Constitution permits Congress to pass laws promoting religion. As for Christians desiring to have laws inhibiting atheism, don't worry. Atheism collapses on its own. There is no need to pass laws against it. *Don't remember ever stating such an expectation. I merely point out where to look; the looking you would have to perform on your own.* So, the statements you make between urls are just filler? *That must be why the little that's left of American Indians after their fears have been dispelled, are still clinging to the horrible traditions of their terrible ancestors.* See tiassa's posts on fear, to see why some people prefer fear. *Well... you <b>do</b> fear that you won't be entitled to an afterlife unless you cling to your religion -- don't you? Isn't this fear your prime argument for conversion (including your own)? * Well, there's a clever approach to the issue. If you understood the point, you would know that the loss of the "afterlife" is nothing to fear. After all, doesn't one ordinarily have to be alive to experience fear? Since it is nothing to fear, it can't be a factor in conversion. It's the old pleasure/pain principle. The vast majority of non-Christians think that Christians are avoiding pain. We're not. We are seeking pleasure. That is why atheism is so peculiar to Christians. Atheism is the avoidance of avoidance of pain, with no seeking of pleasure. Atheists apparently think that avoidance of pain is pleasure, and if it is, then avoidance of avoidance of pain is like a double whammy of pleasure. Or do you think lightly of his abundant kindness, patience, and forbearance, not realizing that his kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? (Romans 2:4, TCNT). Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. (Psalms 16:11, KJV). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the main difference between atheists and Christians is that Christians are happier than atheists.
Excellent! Tony, I haven't had this much fun in months! Quoting the relevant text from the first amendment: <b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...</b> I suppose it depends on how you choose to interpret the word "establishment" -- but somehow I find it very doubtful that the authors of the first amendment were too worried about the government creating an entire new religion. The only reasonable, to me, meaning of this word entails not just creation, but also promoting, sponsoring, financing or otherwise abetting a religion. And yes, that is within the dictionary definition of the word. You could argue that by "establishment" they meant making a religion into a state religion. However, promoting a religion is pretty much the same thing as officially making it into a state religion -- since with government sponsorship the religion has unfair advantage over others and is likely to eventually dominate in an overwhelming manner. So, sponsorship of a religion is also unconstitutional by all but the most unreasonable interpretation (the Supreme Court has agreed with that for quite a while now.) Of course, sponsoring a religion is exactly what the U.S. Congress has actually been doing with Christianity for centuries now. And yes, that is unconstitutional. Make no mistake about it (to quote the new U.S. national anthem) -- atheists are well-aware that ignorance is bliss. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Marx who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses" (not that I support Communism or anything.) However, once transcended ignorance can not be had back. Not that anyone who has gotten past it would ever want to return to it. There are different kinds of happiness. There is the flavor of what Christians claim to have. But it is a happiness of a prisoner who is satisfied with his prison. Then there is also the genuine happiness of being with a person whom you love and who is your match in every way. Much more difficult to attain, many never achieve it, yet most dream about it constantly. Then there is a happiness in taking to the road, leaving the stale old places and venturing forth into the unknown -- a happiness of knowing that you are still alive and that the world beckons. The pursuit of such happiness has always been fraught with danger and even death, but atheists rather tend to prefer it to a cushy cell. P.S. And no, by "death" I do not mean as opposed to eternal life. Atheists are usually way past such admonishments, since they see them for what they are (refer to the intro for the <a href="http://www.sciforums.com/t4072/s/thread.html">Religion vs. Though</a> thread). Like it or not, but a real atheist is not "convertible", no matter how much you strain yourself. The only thing that would convince an atheist in a religion is an actual face-to-face with the god(s), plus a tour of the universe from the god(s)'s perspective (the first question I'd ask, is "so...where are you from?")
Re: Excellent! *Originally posted by Bambi Quoting the relevant text from the first amendment: <b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...</b> I suppose it depends on how you choose to interpret the word "establishment" -- but somehow I find it very doubtful that the authors of the first amendment were too worried about the government creating an entire new religion.* I tend to agree, but maybe you should retire to a drinking establishment until you can establish a basis for your argument. *The only reasonable, to me, meaning of this word entails not just creation, but also promoting, sponsoring, financing or otherwise abetting a religion. And yes, that is within the dictionary definition of the word.* Not with the word "an" in front of it. *So, sponsorship of a religion is also unconstitutional by all but the most unreasonable interpretation (the Supreme Court has agreed with that for quite a while now.) Of course, sponsoring a religion is exactly what the U.S. Congress has actually been doing with Christianity for centuries now. And yes, that is unconstitutional.* From a legal perspective, I disagree with your view and with that of the Supreme Court, based solely on the collective inability to read. From a Christian perspective, I really couldn't care less, other than to say, that being an atheist, you should support state-sponsored Christianity for the simple reason that that is the only way atheists can destroy it. Every other way atheists can think of to stymie the spread of Christianity will cause it to grow. The reason for that appears to be the topsy-turvy way atheists think. *Make no mistake about it (to quote the new U.S. national anthem) -- atheists are well-aware that ignorance is bliss. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was Marx who said that "religion is the opiate of the masses" (not that I support Communism or anything.) * We all know how successful Marx' ideas are. BTW, where is the Soviet Union, anyway? *However, once transcended ignorance can not be had back. Not that anyone who has gotten past it would ever want to return to it.* The trick with venturing into this realm of philosophy is to be absolutely sure you can tell the difference between ignorance and transcended ignorance. The prefix "trans" is particularly tricky, since there is no inherent directionality implicit within its meaning. Thus, the hapless philosopher may find him/herself transcending the frying pan on his/her way to the fire. *There are different kinds of happiness. There is the flavor of what Christians claim to have. But it is a happiness of a prisoner who is satisfied with his prison.* Madalyn Murray O'Hair always looked happy in pictures. Of course, there is the same philosophical problem of making sure you know which side of the bars you're on. All Christians have always started on one side and ended up on the other. Atheists have only seen one side, even when they claim to have seen both, usually because of having moved along the bars rather than across. *Then there is also the genuine happiness of being with a person whom you love and who is your match in every way. Much more difficult to attain, many never achieve it, yet most dream about it constantly.* Pretty close to standard operating procedure for Christians. But atheists know little about that. *Then there is a happiness in taking to the road, leaving the stale old places and venturing forth into the unknown -- a happiness of knowing that you are still alive and that the world beckons. The pursuit of such happiness has always been fraught with danger and even death, but atheists rather tend to prefer it to a cushy cell.* Oddly enough, you may have a point there. Atheists do seem to experience that death sooner than Christians, and the danger much oftener. While we're on the subject of travel, I wasn't aware that there were many atheist missionaries, yet practically every Christian I know has travelled the world. *Like it or not, but a real atheist is not "convertible", no matter how much you strain yourself.* No strain. I do it for fun. The mental gymnastics atheists go through to deny that they are denying the existence of God, among other things, is truly funny. *The only thing that would convince an atheist in a religion is an actual face-to-face with the god(s),* Done. Scheduled time: about two seconds after the second resurrection. Price: your life. It may sound like I'm being facetious, but those are the actual terms, believe it or not. There is an early reservation option which is much cheaper, i.e. free, plus the departure time is earlier, i.e. the first resurrection. *plus a tour of the universe from the god(s)'s perspective (the first question I'd ask, is "so...where are you from?") * There will be a brief tour with two minor problems, not much time to talk, and the itinerary will be much shorter, i.e. a quick trip to the New Jerusalem garbage dump, one way only. Just my way of saying that you will be convinced, exactly as you wish.
To everyone!! I would love to stay in discuss all of this, but the time for me has come to sit out a spell. A tragic accident has occured to my girlfriends ex-husband, he was decapeted tis weekend, in an car accident i must stand by her & her children for moral support. Thankyou. Julio.
Re: To everyone!! Dear Julio, I am so sorry about your girlfriend's loss of ex-husband. I will be praying for God's comfort and healing for her and children in this time of loss. God be with you! Bev
