Elton John: Ban religion completely [Archive]

View Full Version : Elton John: Ban religion completely

haplesshobo

11-14-2006, 04:02 AM

Elton John told a London newspaper that organized religion should be banned because it promotes homophobia and turns some people into "hateful lemmings."

"I would ban religion completely, even though there are some wonderful things about it," the British singer said in an interview that ran Sunday in a gay-themed issue of the magazine of the Observer newspaper.

"Religion has always tried to turn hatred toward gay people. It turns people into hateful lemmings, and it is not really compassionate."

The singer said he admired the teachings of Jesus Christ but disliked religious bodies.

Golden Monkey

11-14-2006, 05:54 AM

I heard Penn Jillette talking about this and he said something like if there is any really hateful animal you don't have to worry about it's a "hateful lemming".

It's the hateful bears that would be a problem. :biggrin:

..........I guess you had to hear him say it.

http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/lemmings.htm

SunWuKong

11-14-2006, 08:33 AM

i wonder what he thinks of the Dali Lama then.

BigLew

11-14-2006, 03:45 PM

It's about as broad a statement as saying that we should just rid the world of all stupid people.

Martino

11-14-2006, 03:49 PM

It's about as broad a statement as saying that we should just rid the world of all stupid people.

Or people with unconvincing wigs ...

eos

11-14-2006, 04:13 PM

nobody's really stupid. they're just misinformed.

unless you're talking about low iq people. that really can't be helped.

Faithless

11-14-2006, 06:27 PM

I used to worship Elton John like jesus, but then my pimples cleared up years later and he said something in Taiwan (http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=18919) that struck me as rude.

Now, he's just a Johnny-come-lately on this issue. :frown:

capacitor276

11-14-2006, 07:35 PM

What Elton John doesn't seem to realize is that there are officially atheistic nations (China comes to mind) that are just as homophobic as religious nations.

Of course, he wouldn't get so much press for being smart about what he said, now would he?

BigLew

11-14-2006, 09:39 PM

nobody's really stupid. they're just misinformed.

unless you're talking about low iq people. that really can't be helped.

I disagree, MOST people are stupid.

didu

11-14-2006, 09:49 PM

i wonder what he thinks of the Dali Lama then.

what's' so special about dalai lama?

DragonKnight

11-14-2006, 10:23 PM

i wonder what he thinks of the Dali Lama then.
A bald lemming with glasses?

didu

11-14-2006, 10:58 PM

^^ please don't insult the lemmings.

CBC guy

11-16-2006, 06:38 AM

Sigh... does anyone really take Elton seriously anymore?

How about Mother Theresa then? Or St. Francis of Assisi? Should we ban their ideas too?
(I was going to add the Dalai Lama but someone said that already, so yeah)

Or how about the officially atheistic nations (Former USSR, China, N. Korea, etc) which are as guilty of homophobia if not more so than "religious" states?

Flow to Live

11-16-2006, 09:35 AM

Martino

11-16-2006, 10:08 AM

I agree with Elton John. We should band religion because it causes too much trouble in this world. Christians, Islam, and Jewish say that they have the same God and they all have great teachings; however, they fight like crazy. If you look at the earlier century then you'll will see how much blood was shed in the process of converting people in the name of God. Sure, Buddhism and Hinduism are good religion, but in order to make this work, we have to eliminiate all religion.

And how would you go about this task of eliminating all religions? Mass brainwashing or gas chambers? Don't say 'education', because people of the highest IQ's can also have a faith God/gods/demi-gods.

Maybe someday people will arrive at the position that there isn't a god, but you can't 'persuade' them unless their conviction is already shaken by self-doubt. As far as I know, no one disproved the existence of the Norse gods, but they fell from favour, along with several thousand other faiths. Maybe in a few thousand years ...

People believe in the supernatural too, and UFOs, the Yeti and Rosie O'Donnell. None of these examples might actually exist (apart from the Yeti, obviously) but there's not a lot you can do to change the mind of the already convinced.

Yeahman

11-16-2006, 02:00 PM

Flow to Live

11-16-2006, 02:16 PM

To Martino: I agree with you. The elminiation of religion seems like an impossible idea. I just think that we should at least strive to reduce the ethnocentrism that exist around the concept of religion. Every religion preaches good values on how people should live, and I seen the beauty that exist in Islam, Judiusm and Christianity, but I feel that humans are incapable with living with these type of things. This is like trying to achieve utopia because humans, at this place and time, will probably not achieve it.

monkeygone2

11-16-2006, 07:56 PM

The problem isn't the Bible and the Quran.
It's the people who twist and exploit religion for their own purpose.

BigLew

11-16-2006, 10:45 PM

Yes let's look at the mass murderers of the past century; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Bela Kun. All non-religious. Throw the Rwandan genocide in there too. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history and most of it was caused by the non-religious.

Hilter was a Christian.

Flow to Live

11-16-2006, 11:30 PM

^^^and he hated the Jews.

Golden Monkey

11-17-2006, 12:52 AM

Hilter was a Christian.

No he wasn't. He rejected Christianity as a corrupt semitic religion that was ruining the German people's will to power. Much like the Japanese fascists rejected Buddhism as foreign and favored Shinto ancestor worship.

BigLew

11-17-2006, 02:43 PM

Yeahman

11-17-2006, 06:32 PM

^ I think I said that Hitler was non-religious. Not that he never met Christians.

BigLew

11-17-2006, 06:37 PM

^ I think I said that Hitler was non-religious. Not that he never met Christians.

This is the oath of hitler's army.

I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.

A hitler quote from Mein Kampf:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

A Speech given by hitler.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

But good for you for only looking at the pictures. clap clap clap clap clap you win again

Yeahman

11-17-2006, 09:28 PM

This is the oath of hitler's army.

I swear by God this sacred oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to Adolf Hitler, the Führer of the German Reich and people, supreme commander of the armed forces, and that I shall at all times be ready, as a brave soldier, to give my life for this oath.
This is the oath of America's Congress:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Does that mean the Constitution is religious?

A hitler quote from Mein Kampf:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

A Speech given by hitler.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."
Another quote:
“You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"

Hitler did not go to church. He subscribed to, what he called, "Positive Christianity." As your quote alludes to, Hitler rejects the redemptive suffering and death of Christ and believes that Christ died, instead, fighting the Jews.

So Hitler religious? We still don't know. All we know is that he wasn't a traditional Christian.

BigLew

11-18-2006, 12:02 AM

None of what you say matters I just proved he wasn't a fuckin' atheist like and he used religion as a motivator in his regime. You can spin it any way you want fact still remains.

Just like your asinine backing of anit-abortion through religion which I have proved is a contradiction through the Christian bible. No matter how many silly contradictions you come up with, the fact still remains, you can hack it down as much as you want, it still remains, I've proved according to your bible god is not pro-life.

You can change your words as many times as you want, I can ad more pictures and more speeches and quotes from Hitler's own autobiography but I don't need to.

I can keep quotin the same shit over and over and over. The fact will never change. Hitler may not have been YOUR ideal Christian but the fact remains he was and he didn't separate it in his "quest".

I can spin bullshit too and be just like you and go as far as to say he got the idea of genocide from the bible, and you very well know i'll quote the good book and show where God promotes genocide in the bible. And you will just do as you always do try to twist shit around to fit your beliefs because your mind is weak and can't accept the truth.

Your theories against my facts. From now on my rebuttals to your tirade will be nothing but quotes of FACTS.

Keep going though my quoting facts will last as long as your bullshit.

BigLew

11-18-2006, 10:20 AM

^Ok I'll leave that drunken ass post but reply again differently since I am sober now.

Yes let's look at the mass murderers of the past century; Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Kim Il Sung, Bela Kun. All non-religious.

Hitler was religious. Even if it is not your personal idea of what a Christian should be, he still was. Period. That was what was originally stated and that is what was rebutted.

Mein Kampf contains Hitler's autobiography. Mean his own words, he was religious.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5e/Ac.meinkampf.jpg/200px-Ac.meinkampf.jpg

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator..."

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else has no right to be in politics, but should become a reformer, if he has what it takes!"

"In nearly all the matters in which the Pan-German movement was wanting, the attitude of the Christian Social Party was correct and well-planned."

"The anti-Semitism of the new movement of the Christian Social Party was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge"

"Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image."

CBC guy

11-18-2006, 07:22 PM

Ok, so its reductio ad hitlerum now?

http://www.answers.com/topic/reductio-ad-hitlerum

Yes the Nazi party used Christian symbolism in its rituals and it tried to use them to fight against the "Godless Russian Communist Slavs". (Who, incidentally, allowed Orthodox Christian Chaplains into the Red Army at this time, but does that mean Stalin was Christian? NOOOO)

Hitler called himself a 'Christian", sure, but if you know ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING about Christianity AT ALL you will know Hitler was NOT a true Christian, because, believe it or not, there are creeds and standards in that religion as well as any other.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

Like what yelloman said, if any Christian believes that Jesus came to fight the Jews, then you CANNOT by any means call them Christian.

If Hitler was such a good Christian, why did he order that Swastikas replace all crosses in German churches? If he was such a good Christian, why did Dietrich Bonhoeffer sacrifice so much to oppose his regime? ( Bonhoeffer was committed a German Christian, a pastor in fact, who risked all to oppose Hitler's version of "Christianity" and lost his life doing so.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer

http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

Just the Hitler youth song should be enough to show Hitler's true feelings about Christianity, which he continuously rambled as being weak and timid.
So according to this article Hitler was a nominal Catholic BECAUSE 90% of Austrians (You DO know Hitler was Austrian right?) were in fact at least nominally Catholic. How strong was hitler's faith? BTW the author is not a very strong Christian either as he admitted.

OR, if you wish, you can believe this source. The url alone is enough to show how "unbiased" it is.
http://www.evilbible.com/hitler_was_christian.htm

note the quote at the very, very bottom of that url. It shows that while it is true that Hitler remained a member of the Catholic Church to his death, he did not have a deep attachment to it. So even this website admits that, yet it just prints a bunch of speeches about Hitler "supporting" Christianity.

http://www.answers.com/topic/nazism

This seems like a relatively open, unbiased source, and it says that while hitler did use Christian symbolism he was against those who preached love and forgiveness (key parts of Christian doctrine, just FYI) and he mixed those Christian symbols with pre-Christian pagan symbols and other esoteric things. Himmler FYI was highly interested in the occult.

Yeahman

11-18-2006, 09:18 PM

It shows that while it is true that Hitler remained a member of the Catholic Church to his death, he did not have a deep attachment to it.
I think that's an understatement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler
Adolf Hitler was brought up in his family's religion by his Roman Catholic parents, but as a school boy he began to reject the Church and Catholicism. After he had left home, he never attended Mass or received the Sacraments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_beliefs#Hitler_and_Chri stianity.27s_future
Hitler already had plans for the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the church was supposed to "eat from the hands of the government." As a first step Hitler wanted to force German Catholics to abolish priestly celibacy and accept a nationalisation of all church property, as had happened in France in 1905. After the "Final Victory" of National Socialism, all monastic orders and religious congregations were to be dissolved, and even the smallest influence of the Catholic Church upon the education was to be forbidden.
...
The aim was slowly to dismantle the institutions of the Catholic Church and fit the institution itself into a new National Socialist German state religion

BigLew

11-19-2006, 02:28 AM

Hitler called himself a 'Christian", sure, but if you know ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING about Christianity AT ALL you will know Hitler was NOT a true Christian, because, believe it or not, there are creeds and standards in that religion as well as any other.

Seeing how my dad is Lutheran minister, uh yeah, probably alot more than you.

Like what yelloman said, if any Christian believes that Jesus came to fight the Jews, then you CANNOT by any means call them Christian.

Yeah I can, just like I can call KKK fuckers who lynch colored people and burn crosses Christians.

If Hitler was such a good Christian, why did he order that Swastikas replace all crosses in German churches?

When did I ever say he is a good Christian?

If he was such a good Christian, why did Dietrich Bonhoeffer sacrifice so much to oppose his regime? ( Bonhoeffer was committed a German Christian, a pastor in fact, who risked all to oppose Hitler's version of "Christianity" and lost his life doing so.)

Gee Christians opposing Christians, now that never happens.

So according to this article Hitler was a nominal Catholic BECAUSE 90% of Austrians (You DO know Hitler was Austrian right?) were in fact at least nominally Catholic.

Yep just like I now DO know your a fucking moron.

How strong was hitler's faith? BTW the author is not a very strong Christian either as he admitted.

Don't like to read do you, guess that goes along with the whole moron thing. His level of faith does not make him an aetheist WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL POINT OF THE ARGUMENT.

those who preached love and forgiveness (key parts of Christian doctrine, just FYI)

Oh yeah just like racism, slavery and genocide. To bad I have read the bible alot more than you have or else you'd know about those too. Oh but those things aren't in the book of common prayer, and it's not as if the bible is important to Christianity is it.

BigLew

11-19-2006, 02:30 AM

I think that's an understatement.

I like how you wait to make a response after someone else has piped up. So now you can be CBC's nut riding yes monkey. Siiiiiiiiissssyyyyy. LOL

yoMAMA

11-19-2006, 02:37 PM

Throw the Rwandan genocide in there too. The 20th century was the bloodiest century in human history and most of it was caused by the non-religious.

funny you mentioned that, because the roman catholic church in rwanda has been actively involved in the rwandan genocide (there have been several priest/nuns indicted and sentenced by the international criminal court for their participation in the genocide).

some examples:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15653352/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4225366.stm

Yeahman

11-19-2006, 10:07 PM

The Church was actively involved? Many Catholics were involved in all sorts of ways. Some did the actual killing. Some were killed for trying to stop the killing.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n15_v111/ai_15239225
U.S. Jesuits were in mourning for 19 Rwandan priests and church workers killed April 7 at the Jesuit-operated Christ Spiritual Center in Kigali. The center may have been targeted; like other religious institutions, it had offered refuge for those seeking asylum from recent violence and turmoil, and several of those staying at the center had been active in human rights work.

BigLew

11-19-2006, 10:11 PM

The Church was actively involved? Many Catholics were involved in all sorts of ways. Some did the actual killing. Some were killed for trying to stop the killing.

Looks like you just answered you own question.

snailpoo

11-19-2006, 10:52 PM

Looks like you just answered you own question.

Interesting. So a few people who happen to be Catholics are involved, and oooo, the Church has some nefarious plans.

When a few atheists are involved, are all athiests accused?

Hrmph.

Edit: I mean this post as a little bit of sarcasm to point out that you're relying upon association fallacy, but after reading the thread, I'm not sure you may not know what that means.

didu

11-20-2006, 02:43 AM

Interesting. So a few people who happen to be Catholics are involved, and oooo, the Church has some nefarious plans.

I guess that depends on who these "a few people" were. I mean, a few people in the US government decided to invade Iraq, now America is at war with Iraq.

When a few atheists are involved, are all athiests accused?

The difference is that there isn't an atheist organisation that goes around preaching love and compassion and at the same time murdering people who don't agree with them. There are plenty of arshole atheists out there, but at least they'd spare you the religious hypocricy.

but after reading the thread, I'm not sure you may not know what that means.

I cannot know that you cannot know what I cannot know, you know? :biggrin:

Yeahman

11-20-2006, 03:19 AM

I guess that depends on who these "a few people" were. I mean, a few people in the US government decided to invade Iraq, now America is at war with Iraq.
The few people made it the official position of the nation. Even if the Bush himself went out and killed people, would that mean that America, the nation, was involved in the murders? The actions of even the pope, does not necessarily define the Church's position.

didu

11-20-2006, 03:37 AM

The few people made it the official position of the nation. Even if the Bush himself went out and killed people, would that mean that America, the nation, was involved in the murders?

Well pretty much. Americans pride themselves for being the citizens of a democratic nation. In other words, they are responsible for electing their own leaders and keeping them in check. So if the leaders of America intentionally commit a crime with the power given to them by the people of America, that means the people of America have messed up.

Furthermore, if the American people fail to punish their leaders for their mistakes and instead continue to support their leaders despite the mistakes, then I think it's fair to say that the American people have messed up even more.

If you are going to tell me how not everyone voted for the leaders of America, don't bother. The fact is that the American people are responsible for their own political systems, and they should also be responsible for the faults of their own political systems.

If you gave a 6-year old kid a flamethrower and he ended up burning down a bunch of houses, it would be natural for you to bear some of the blames too.

The actions of even the pope, does not necessarily define the Church's position.

Rubbish. The pope is the head of the catholic church, who else can define the position of the church better than he can? Oh wait, were you implying that god or jesus might come down to earth for some divine intervention?

Yeahman

11-20-2006, 04:00 AM

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Priests and nuns are put in power by their superiors. So let's apply your arguments with that in mind.

Well pretty much. Americans pride themselves for being the citizens of a democratic nation. In other words, they are responsible for electing their own leaders and keeping them in check. So if the leaders of America intentionally commit a crime with the power given to them by the people of America, that means the people of America have messed up.
It can be said that, in hindsight, the people made a mistake. It can't be said that the people were "actively involved" in the crimes.

Furthermore, if the American people fail to punish their leaders for their mistakes and instead continue to support their leaders despite the mistakes, then I think it's fair to say that the American people have messed up even more.
Yes, once the people find out and they are in a position to remove the offender from power, they have an obligation to do so.

If you are going to tell me how not everyone voted for the leaders of America, don't bother. The fact is that the American people are responsible for their own political systems, and they should also be responsible for the faults of their own political systems.
So are all the citizens of the 16th District of Florida responsible for Mark Foley's actions?

If you gave a 6-year old kid a flamethrower and he ended up burning down a bunch of houses, it would be natural for you to bear some of the blames too.
What an elaborate strawman! What if you didn't give him a flamethrower and he's 35 years old and he's not your kid but a brother? Should you still bear some of the blame if he burns down a bunch of houses?

Rubbish. The pope is the head of the catholic church, who else can define the position of the church better than he can? Oh wait, were you implying that god or jesus might come down to earth for some divine intervention?
I said that the pope's ACTIONS don't necessary define the Church's position. Even his personal opinions don't define the Church's position. The Church's position is defined by official declarations. It's similar in our government. If Bush kills his wife, it doesn't become the official policy of the US that killing your wife is OK.

didu

11-20-2006, 04:37 AM

The Catholic Church is not a democracy. Priests and nuns are put in power by their superiors. So let's apply your arguments with that in mind.

Last time I checked, the Catholic Church did not hunt down every single person who quit the church. So the catholics are perfectly free to quit the church in protest and demand changes to be brought to the church. If the church was a responsible organisation, it would certainly make the necessary changes to lure back the church goers -- if it doesn't, it doesn't deserve the support anyway. It's just like refusing to buy a particular brand of shoes because of the sucky quality.

It can be said that, in hindsight, the people made a mistake. It can't be said that the people were "actively involved" in the crimes.

You've never heard of "guilty of negligence"? People should pay for the mistakes that they are responsible for. It's just like that it is illegal for the pubs to sell alcohol to people who are already intoxicated.

Yes, once the people find out and they are in a position to remove the offender from power, they have an obligation to do so.

Except that they often "forget" about that obligation.

So are all the citizens of the 16th District of Florida responsible for Mark Foley's actions?

Don't know what you are talking about.

What an elaborate strawman! What if you didn't give him a flamethrower and he's 35 years old and he's not your kid but a brother? Should you still bear some of the blame if he burns down a bunch of houses?

Questions would definitely need be asked if you were gonna give someone a flamethrower -- irrespective of who you gave it to or how old they were. If you knew your 35 year old bro had a history of mental illness and still gave him a flamethrower on your own free will -- it would be fair to say that you would still be responsible for the demage he was to cause.

I said that the pope's ACTIONS don't necessary define the Church's position. Even his personal opinions don't define the Church's position. The Church's position is defined by official declarations. It's similar in our government.

Are you trying to tell me that the pope doesn't have any significant say in the official position of the catholic church, or someone whose personal opinions differ significantly from the policies of the church could ever be made the pope? Don't be absurd.

If Bush kills his wife, it doesn't become the official policy of the US that killing your wife is OK.

If Bush murdered his wife and still remained the president of the US through demorcatic means, then I guess it wouldn't be a stretch of the truth to say that wife-murdering was indeed the official policy of the US.

On the other hand, Bush has caused the deaths of many innocent Iraqies through his unnecessary war and he's still in power, in fact, his popularity surged in the early days of the war. The Iraqi war was also legalized in America -- I guess that's as official as it gets.

Hiroshi2

11-20-2006, 02:54 PM

This is the kind of left-wing bullshit that makes me unsympathetic to a lot of "liberal" issues, standpoints, and ideologies.

Yeah. Ban religion. It's that simple, right? Atheists and agnostics are not capable of hatred, are they? Only people who believe in God are, right?

I mean, I understand his frustration. It's a shame that people of faith spew hate and yet still claim to follow whatever religious figure they follow. But seriously....................how exactly would you ban religion, first of all? And second of all, even if you could, what about the people who are just full of hate, period. They hate God, hate people, hell they hate life. Lot of folks are like that.

And back to the first point - even in Communist countries such as China where atheism is the official "religion", faith communities of many different religions still exist. Many Chinese are Christian, Buddhist, or even Muslims despite what the government over there may say.

Banning religion and ordering people not to practice any kind of organized religion is just as bad as forcing people to adopt or convert to a particular religion. So far, the United States has the best working example with a constitution that guarantees freedom of religion (but not freedom FROM religion). Sure, you can be atheist. Sure you can be Christian, Jew, or Muslim. But as long as your religious rights don't infringe on somebody else's legal rights, you're OK (theoretically). Theocries usually don't work, and neither do countries where religion is banned. The solution is in the middle (as it often is).

Dumb ass Elton John. That statement sounded more like an irrational, emotional outburst from a 15-year-old girl than a well thought out, logical, educated opinion on political theory and how nations should be governed and what nations should do regarding religious issues.

BigLew

11-20-2006, 02:58 PM

BigLew

11-20-2006, 03:00 PM

BigLew

11-20-2006, 03:02 PM

Dumb ass Elton John. That statement sounded more like an irrational, emotional outburst from a 15-year-old girl than a well thought out, logical, educated opinion on political theory and how nations should be governed and what nations should do regarding religious issues.

And I completely agree. Like I said earlier, he might as well have said let's get rid of all stupid people.

And let's get something straight to all. The main reason we are Christians, my brothers and sisters of color is because of imperialism/colonization or slavery. That's how the religion was spread. Any attitude of christianity is nothing but good ol' fashion igrorance or straight up ignoring common sense.

SunWuKong

11-20-2006, 03:06 PM

it's more than a little questionable if an official did something wrong and he or she retains the position he was given, especially if the organisation in question is not a democracy.

as an American citizen with a vote, i do feel partially responsible that so many people died in Iraq, especially since my tax dollars are paying for it. my only personal consolation is that i didn't vote for Bush.

yoMAMA

11-20-2006, 03:27 PM

Yeahman

11-20-2006, 03:51 PM

it's more than a little questionable if an official did something wrong and he or she retains the position he was given, especially if the organisation in question is not a democracy.
Nobody is arguing against that. But didu is defending the idea that if a priest somewhere in the world does something wrong the Church as a whole is "actively involved" in that wrong.

as an American citizen with a vote, i do feel partially responsible that so many people died in Iraq, especially since my tax dollars are paying for it. my only personal consolation is that i didn't vote for Bush.
This is where the democracy part may be relevant. Would you feel responsible if we had an absolute monarchy? Were Germany Jews responsible for the actions of Hitler even if they played no part in putting him in power and actually opposed it?

And that's assuming we're making an analogy to the pope committing a wrong. What if it's just a priest or nun? Is the bishop of Brooklyn responsible for the actions of a priest in Rwanda? An analogy to the US government would go something like: Is Senator Clinton responsible for the actions of Senator McCain's aide?

Are you trying to tell me that the pope doesn't have any significant say in the official position of the catholic church, or someone whose personal opinions differ significantly from the policies of the church could ever be made the pope? Don't be absurd.
ACTIONS. Read and reread it.

If Bush murdered his wife and still remained the president of the US through demorcatic means, then I guess it wouldn't be a stretch of the truth to say that wife-murdering was indeed the official policy of the US.
It would be a stretch. Is lying-under-oath the official policy of the US? Is what Clinton did, official US policy? Are all Americans guilty of perjury? Do you feel responsible for his actions?

BigLew

11-20-2006, 04:32 PM

Is the bishop of Brooklyn responsible for the actions of a priest in Rwanda?

Weak. One doesn't control the other.

However if that bishop was running a fucked up branch diocese and the vatican did nothing about it is the vatican to blame? Fuck yes.

didu

11-20-2006, 07:33 PM

Nobody is arguing against that. But didu is defending the idea that if a priest somewhere in the world does something wrong the Church as a whole is "actively involved" in that wrong.

Again, it depends on who that priest is and whether he receives just punishment from those high above. A high level priest such as the pope or a lack of proper punishment would both indicate the Church's involvement.

ACTIONS. Read and reread it.

Looks like you don't know what you are talking about.

It would be a stretch. Is lying-under-oath the official policy of the US? Is what Clinton did, official US policy? Are all Americans guilty of perjury? Do you feel responsible for his actions?

It depends on what you mean by "official policy". Clinton had sex with someone other than his wife, lied about it and still managed to be the president of the US, I guess that means the representatives of the American people thought what he did was OK. So I wouldn't be surprised if another president did what Clinton did and also remained in the office. Would you then agree that was the official policy of the US?

Yeahman

11-20-2006, 08:09 PM

Again, it depends on who that priest is and whether he receives just punishment from those high above. A high level priest such as the pope or a lack of proper punishment would both indicate the Church's involvement.
The issue is priests and nuns. They are at the low end of the hierarchy. I would agree with you (as far as Church involvement is concerned. Not with official policy) if it was the pope or even the national conference of Rwandan bishops. But priests are subordinate to their bishops who are appointed by the regional conference of bishops who serve at the pleasure of the pope. No orders came down the hierarchy to justify a statement that the entire Catholic Church, or the entire Church in Rwanada, was involved.

It depends on what you mean by "official policy". Clinton had sex with someone other than his wife, lied about it and still managed to be the president of the US, I guess that means the representatives of the American people thought what he did was OK. So I wouldn't be surprised if another president did what Clinton did and also remained in the office. Would you then agree that was the official policy of the US?
No. By "official policy" we're talking about the public laws of a governing authority. Failure to enforce does not change the law. Would it be more correct to say that permitting perjury is the official policy of the US or that perjury is against official policy but that it has not always been enforce? I think most people would pick with the later.

To bring it back around, if the pope murders or allows murder without officially changing Catholic teaching on the matter, that does not mean that the official policy of the Church is to allow murder. It means that the official policy of the Church is against murder but that the pope has ignored it.

Now if it is so widespread that the law is COMPLETLY ignored, then it may be considered de facto official policy. But isolated incidents which the rest of the governing authority condemns does not make it a de facto official policy.

snailpoo

11-20-2006, 08:37 PM

Interesting. So a few people who happen to be Catholics are involved, and oooo, the Church has some nefarious plans.

When a few atheists are involved, are all athiests accused?
Apparently so that's what the implication was.

= association fallacy

The difference is that there isn't an atheist organisation that goes around preaching love and compassion and at the same time murdering people who don't agree with them. There are plenty of arshole atheists out there, but at least they'd spare you the religious hypocricy.

Let's ignore the hypocrisy inherent in being intolerant of religion for the religious intollerance of a few, that is, of course, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist. No? Then let us move on.

Let's also ignore the double standard in holding one group responsible when individuals fail to live up to the admittedly impossible ideals of perfection while giving a free pass to another group because they don't even try. Please note: before you attempt to say that INDIVIDUAL atheists might try for moral ideals, you are attempting to categorize the GROUP by the actions of a select few INDIVIDUALS, therefore, since atheists AS A GROUP lack an organized moral code, you're stuck with this little hypocrisy in your standards.

But even that isn't the worst part of your argument.

No, you're attempting to hold the entire grouop of people for the rogue actions of a few INDIVIDUALS. In doing so, you're ignoring actual directives, actual teachings, actual dogma, actual actions of the VAST MAJORITY of these nuns and priests to save people from genocide, and the actual numbers of nuns and priests who DIED trying to save their flock.

No, you're STEREOTYPING the PROTECTED CLASS by the actions of a few individuals of the PROTECTED CLASS, and THAT, on a progressive forum such as this where we're supposed to be aware of and fight against unfair STEREOTYPES of the PROTECTED CLASSES is the worst of the hypocrisy.

BigLew

11-20-2006, 09:18 PM

In doing so, you're ignoring actual directives, actual teachings, actual dogma

Like what's written in the Holy Bible? You have heard of it right?
It's that little book that Christianity is based off of?

Should I start with parts about genocide?

didu

11-20-2006, 11:11 PM

Let's ignore the hypocrisy inherent in being intolerant of religion for the religious intollerance of a few,

You've completely missed the point. Most atheists are perfectly tolerant to religion and religious people. What we are intolerant of is the hypocricy that's often associated with religion and religious people.

that is, of course, unless you can prove that God doesn't exist. No? Then let us move on.

Can you prove that God does exist? No? Move along then.

Let's also ignore the double standard in holding one group responsible when individuals fail to live up to the admittedly impossible ideals of perfection while giving a free pass to another group because they don't even try.

What exactly do you call "individuals fail to live up to the admittedly impossible ideals of perfection"? Is it too much to ask a preist not to fuck little kiddies while preaching love, compassion and family values? Is it too much to ask a national leader who claims to be a born-again Christian not to invade other countries and kill thousands of innocent people? Is it too much to ask a God-king+Spiritual leader of the supposedly most peaceful religion on earth not to keep serfs? What about the Italian Mafia? Aren't they all supposed to be Catholics? What about all the suicide bombers? Aren't they all supposed to be devoted Muslims?

By definition, atheists don't follow religions, but that doesn't mean they don't know what decent human values are. A decent atheist does not need the fear of some imaginary gods to make him do good deeds.

Please note: before you attempt to say that INDIVIDUAL atheists might try for moral ideals, you are attempting to categorize the GROUP by the actions of a select few INDIVIDUALS, therefore, since atheists AS A GROUP lack an organized moral code, you're stuck with this little hypocrisy in your standards.

The problem with your argument is that you think the INDIVIDUALS have no representation of the GROUP. It's like saying that the president of the US does not represent the American people in anyway; or the preists, nuns or popes do not represent the Christianity organisations in anyway. This is purely rubbish. Individuals are given power by the group they represent, therefore their actions, and the reactions to their actions from their respective groups represent the attitude of their groups.

No, you're attempting to hold the entire grouop of people for the rogue actions of a few INDIVIDUALS.

A few POWERFUL, REPRESENTATIVE INDIVIDUALS! It's just like how the rest of the world hold America responsible for the war in Iraq. It's just like how the rest of the world held South Africa responsible for their racial segregation. If you freely allow and support an evil person to be in charge of your group, you are partially responsible for his evil deeds.

In doing so, you're ignoring actual directives, actual teachings, actual dogma, actual actions of the VAST MAJORITY of these nuns and priests to save people from genocide, and the actual numbers of nuns and priests who DIED trying to save their flock.

Teachings and words are meaningless without actions -- take a few minutes, and let that sink in.

Don't start with the nuns and prists save people from genocide crap. You don't want to play the numbers game here. If you tally the number of people killed because of religious reasons against the number of people saved by religions, you might find it would indeed be a good idea to ban religion altogether -- not that I'm advocating the banning of religions.

Oh, don't even bother argue that there are more people killed by atheists than religious people -- this argument doesn't fly because religion is something that people invented, it's an additional reason for people to kill each other.

You also need to remember that good and evil don't always cancel each other. It's like saying a man who murdered 3 people should be set free because he saved another 3 people from death. Sure you can argue the evil of religion does not mean there is no good in religion -- but that's not the point. The point is that whether human beings really need religion which probably has done more damage to human society than good.

No, you're STEREOTYPING the PROTECTED CLASS by the actions of a few individuals of the PROTECTED CLASS, and THAT, on a progressive forum such as this where we're supposed to be aware of and fight against unfair STEREOTYPES of the PROTECTED CLASSES is the worst of the hypocrisy.

What protected class? Who are these individuals? Is it unfair to ask people to be responsible for their actions? Is it unfair to ask people speak out against evil deeds done by their own leaders? Is it unfair to criticise the people who do not practise what they preach?

What stereotypes did I use? Did I ever say every catholics was evil? I said catholics in general were responsible for the evils done by their church because they had not done enough within their power to hold their church accountable. Is this wrong?

BigLew

11-21-2006, 12:28 AM

No, you're STEREOTYPING the PROTECTED CLASS by the actions of a few individuals of the PROTECTED CLASS, and THAT, on a progressive forum such as this where we're supposed to be aware of and fight against unfair STEREOTYPES of the PROTECTED CLASSES is the worst of the hypocrisy.

Stereotypes of the protected class, hyprocisy!?

You know what, I didn't comment on this before because it was so insanely stupid, it took awhile to process. My conclusion is that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about either.

Also excessive, random use of CAPS in your POSTS doesn't get your POINT across better . This is especially true if your comments are as FUCKING STUPID as the one QUOTED. It just makes it seem like your screaming STUPID SHIT at the TOP of your LUNGS, which in turn makes it seem even more FUCKING STUPID then it originally was BY ITSELF.

Also when you use weak shit like, "we should agree with your dumbass opinions because this is a progressive forum" you're blowing shit out of your ass at a rate too great for you to flush in four tries.

didu

11-21-2006, 07:57 AM

But priests are subordinate to their bishops who are appointed by the regional conference of bishops who serve at the pleasure of the pope. No orders came down the hierarchy to justify a statement that the entire Catholic Church, or the entire Church in Rwanada, was involved.

Again, that depends on the scale of the error. If a single priest or nun commits a genocide, that can be called an individual action. But if a hundred priests or nuns commit genocide, that's a problem for the entire church.

No. By "official policy" we're talking about the public laws of a governing authority. Failure to enforce does not change the law. Would it be more correct to say that permitting perjury is the official policy of the US or that perjury is against official policy but that it has not always been enforce? I think most people would pick with the later.

The word "policy" does not imply law at all. It just means "a course of action adopted and pursued by a government, ruler, political party". There is no law to enforce.

To bring it back around, if the pope murders or allows murder without officially changing Catholic teaching on the matter, that does not mean that the official policy of the Church is to allow murder. It means that the official policy of the Church is against murder but that the pope has ignored it.

How does the pope allow murder in the first place? What if he goes public and says christians should take up their weapons and wipe the muslims off the face of the planet? What if the pope reinterprets the Catholic teaching to suit his sadistic agendas? Who has higher authority than the pope to set the policies of the church? Who's going to be there to challenge the commands of the pope? Who has more authority to challenge the pope's interpretation of the Catholic teachings? What if the pope doesn't practise what he preaches?

Teachings are just words. Words have no powers by themselves, people have powers. Words are written by people and therefore can be rewritten by people. The catholic church was in league with the Nazis during WW2, I don't think they saw much conflict between murdering Jews and their catholic teachings.

Now if it is so widespread that the law is COMPLETLY ignored, then it may be considered de facto official policy. But isolated incidents which the rest of the governing authority condemns does not make it a de facto official policy.

How many is isolated? 10? 100? 1000? It's common sense that religious people don't always practise what they preach. The church has had a long history of cover-ups for sex or other scandals -- not to mention the number of wars it waged.

snailpoo

11-21-2006, 08:40 PM

Like what's written in the Holy Bible? You have heard of it right?
It's that little book that Christianity is based off of?

Should I start with parts about genocide?

Yes, please do. Of course I'm going to assume that you're intelligent enough to realize Christians follow the teachings of Christ, teachings that have reinterpreted the Old Testament.

Of course, given your inability to comprehend the term "protected class," I hope your ability to quote the Bible is lightyears ahead of your ability to read American law.

http://www.ehponline.org/docs/2005/113-2/crybaby.jpg

Coming from someone embraces utilizing an association fallacy in their logic, I'll take your comment about argumentative ability as a compliment.

Otherwise, try informing yourself about what constitutes a "protected class," and when you actually have a coherent and substantive argument, come back and try again.

Actually, try passing a remedial logic course first. Then try to come up with a coherent and substantive argument.

You've completely missed the point. Most atheists are perfectly tolerant to religion and religious people. What we are intolerant of is the hypocricy that's often associated with religion and religious people.

Can you prove that God does exist? No? Move along then.

Have I? Have you read this thread? The intollerance here for religion is astounding. And the amusing thing is not only the hypocrisy in stereotpying a protected class, the amusing thing is that atheism is JUST AS UNPROVEN as any religion.

What exactly do you call "individuals fail to live up to the admittedly impossible ideals of perfection"? Is it too much to ask a preist not to fuck little kiddies while preaching love, compassion and family values? Is it too much to ask a national leader who claims to be a born-again Christian not to invade other countries and kill thousands of innocent people? Is it too much to ask a God-king+Spiritual leader of the supposedly most peaceful religion on earth not to keep serfs? What about the Italian Mafia? Aren't they all supposed to be Catholics? What about all the suicide bombers? Aren't they all supposed to be devoted Muslims?

Again the hypocrisy. No human is perfect. Yet you hold religious people to a higher standard for TRYING and failing. Religion isn't about being perfect. Religion is about TRYING. But concept and your fundamental ignorance of that concept isn't even the issue here.

Your hypocrisy lies in your double standard. You give atheists a free pass while you STEREOTPYE religion based upon the actions a few.

What you forget, here, on this PROGRESSIVE FORUM, is that should anyone do the same with Asians, we would all be up in arms over it. Religion is a protected class, just as race, and for every supposed individual who slipped up that happens to be religious, you can find a equivalent, say, Asian, who made the same type of slip up. And do you know where this gets you? You claim that ultimately the fault is that one member of the protected class didn't do enough for another rogue member of the protected class from acting up. Please tell me how you stopped William Hung.

Are you not hypocritical for complaining about stereotyping one entire protected class for the actions of a few WHILE you yourself actively stereotype another entire protected class for the actions of a few?

The problem with your argument is that you think the INDIVIDUALS have no representation of the GROUP. It's like saying that the president of the US does not represent the American people in anyway; or the preists, nuns or popes do not represent the Christianity organisations in anyway. This is purely rubbish. Individuals are given power by the group they represent, therefore their actions, and the reactions to their actions from their respective groups represent the attitude of their groups.

Interesting. If you're American,I didn't know you were a Bush supporter. If you're whatever other nationality, I'm sure I could find some leader to inappropriately associate random objectionable atributes to you.

It's amazing how each time this type of argument comes up, it's always subject to an association fallacy. And, in case this fails to register with you why association fallacies are wrong, does William Hung represent our singing abilities?

A few POWERFUL, REPRESENTATIVE INDIVIDUALS! It's just like how the rest of the world hold America responsible for the war in Iraq. It's just like how the rest of the world held South Africa responsible for their racial segregation. If you freely allow and support an evil person to be in charge of your group, you are partially responsible for his evil deeds.

Now you've included an ad hominem error into your argument.

Don't start with the nuns and prists save people from genocide crap. You don't want to play the numbers game here.
No, you cited the examples of the nun accused of abetting Genocide and completely ignore the numbers of clergy who died trying to save people.

Oh, don't even bother argue that there are more people killed by atheists than religious people -- this argument doesn't fly because religion is something that people invented, it's an additional reason for people to kill each other.

Sigh. Debate is like chess. When you casually dismissed my earlier question that atheism is unproven by stating that religion is unproven, guess what you did?

You don't get the benefit of this argument until you prove otherwise. Sadly, atheism has a reason for atheists to kill non-atheists. Should we ban atheism too?

What protected class? Who are these individuals? Is it unfair to ask people to be responsible for their actions? Is it unfair to ask people speak out against evil deeds done by their own leaders? Is it unfair to criticise the people who do not practise what they preach?

And how much of the anti-religion drivel posted in this thread was limited to this purpose?

What stereotypes did I use? Did I ever say every catholics was evil? I said catholics in general were responsible for the evils done by their church because they had not done enough within their power to hold their church accountable. Is this wrong?

Now here's where your logic fails yet again. If I'm a Catholic in America, what CAN I POSSIBLY DO to prevent that nun from kicking those people out of the hospital in Darfur? In fact, what could ANY Catholic, including the Pope, do to prevent that nun from acting upon her own?

Again, your double standard fails you. Atheists you give a free pass to, but somehow religions must be able to account for each and every one of their members regardless of whether or not the actions of that member reflects the tenants or commands of the religion.

BigLew

11-21-2006, 10:16 PM

Yes, please do. Of course I'm going to assume that you're intelligent enough to realize Christians follow the teachings of Christ, teachings that have reinterpreted the Old Testament.

This is just a sorry excuse. This continues to be the dumbest argument there ever will be.

All the killing and rape of innocent women and children in the Old testament is justified because, Jesus reinterpreted it? Tell me moron. How do you justify and reinterpret killing of children? Or is that your idea of progressive.

If this was such a progressive forum we wouldn't have nitwits like you on it.

snailpoo

11-21-2006, 10:38 PM

Failing on the logic, and failing on the, oh legal issues, you're stuck with this, your supposed strong suit:

This is just a sorry excuse. This continues to be the dumbest argument there ever will be.

For someone who claimed to be a pastor's son, you really haven't been paying attention.

29Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30come down from the cross and save yourself!" Mark 14

:rolleyes:

What is the temple for the Jews, Big Lew? Being a pastor's son, you must know the answer. What is at the heart of the temple that is the Jewish equivalent of the Catholic communion? What represents God to the Jews the way bread represents God for the Catholics? No clue? Not even for a pastor's son? Ah yes, the Torah. The five books from which you were going to quote from.

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'[b] 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'[c] 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." Matt 22.

If this was such a progressive forum we wouldn't have nitwits like you on it.

It's quite amusing how you've actually nothing substantive to say, so you resort to nothing but childish name calling.

Again, do a little research into "protected class," actually learn logic, try to cobble a real argument, and then come back and try again.

BigLew

11-21-2006, 10:41 PM

BigLew

11-21-2006, 10:45 PM

I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

Last time you checked were you Jewish?

snailpoo

11-21-2006, 10:51 PM

I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel (Matthew 15:24).

Last time you checked were you Jewish?

Are you actually this dense?

Are you seriously this intellectually dishonest to, in addition to every single logical fallacy you commit, to take a quote out of context and not finish the story?

Tell me, pastor's son, did Jesus turn that gentile woman away at the end of the parable, or did you just commit yet another intellectual sin?

Seriously, are you actually trying to look stupid? Screwing up your logic with an association fallacy is one thing. Blatantly taking a quote like that out of context is quite another.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Hey fuckwit tell me agaiin how do you justify that? In any way shape or form.

For someone who claimed to be a pastor's son, you really haven't been paying attention.

29Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30come down from the cross and save yourself!" Mark 14

:rolleyes:

What is the temple for the Jews, Big Lew? Being a pastor's son, you must know the answer. What is at the heart of the temple that is the Jewish equivalent of the Catholic communion? What represents God to the Jews the way bread represents God for the Catholics? No clue? Not even for a pastor's son? Ah yes, the Torah. The five books from which you were going to quote from.
...

It's quite amusing how you've actually nothing substantive to say, so you resort to nothing but childish name calling.

Again, do a little research into "protected class," actually learn logic, try to cobble a real argument, and then come back and try again.

BigLew

11-21-2006, 10:54 PM

DragonKnight

11-21-2006, 10:57 PM

So, are ya'lls gonna get into a real fucking fight or what?

BigLew

11-21-2006, 10:59 PM

Let's put this into very easy terms without specific labels.

Hey I'm sick I need help. (minority)

I'm a doctor only here for (majority) people.

Please help, I'm begging you! (minority)

It's not fair to (majority) people to waste my skills on you, it's like wasting time saving a dog when I can be saving a (majority) person. (majority)

Help me out, I admit I'm a dog, but throw me a bone (minority).

Well spoken here is some medicine! (majority).

BigLew

11-21-2006, 11:00 PM

So, are ya'lls gonna get into a real fucking fight or what?

I'm not even all that into it it's just funny seeing this little fucker squirm.

snailpoo

11-21-2006, 11:10 PM

He called her people dog's you fucking moron. Do you know what that's called? Racism. And you my friend just justified racism. Real progressive cat you are.

Mark 15:22-28

A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, "Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is suffering terribly from demon-possession."

Jesus did not answer a word.

So his disciples came to him and urged him, "Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us."

He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel."

The woman came and knelt before him. "Lord, help me!" she said.

He replied, "It is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."

"Yes, Lord," she said, "but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table."

Then Jesus answered, "Woman, you have great faith!"

HAH.

It's been a long day, so thank-you for the chuckle. Seriously, it's quite amusing how badly you're stretching to save your craptastic argument.

IF you really are taking this the way you are taking this... care to explain... ALL of Acts? Romans? Corintians? Ephesians? Thessalonians?

Maybe you'd care to explain Paul?

Or maybe you'd care to explain why Peter ended up in Rome?

:biggrin:

I'm not even all that into it it's just funny seeing this little fucker squirm.

I seriously don't know which is more amusing, your pathetic attempts at an intelligent argument, or the fact that you're unaware of how pathetic your attempts at an intelligent argument are. :biggrin:

BigLew

11-21-2006, 11:16 PM

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Hey fuckwit tell me agaiin how do you justify that? In any way shape or form.

^I'm waiting....

And all that other blah blah bullshit. Yeah so there are alot of contradictions in the bible, I already know. Jesus says alot of contradicting shit, and all the good shit he says contradict his racist statements.. I guess that's how you choose your friends too then. Among the intelligent people I know, if someone is full of contradictions, they are deemed as "full of shit" and they generally don't fuck with them, but I guess you can make the exception for Jesus. Good for you.

snailpoo

11-21-2006, 11:24 PM

^I'm waiting....
I should have known literacy wasn't your strong suit.

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Hey fuckwit tell me agaiin how do you justify that? In any way shape or form.

For someone who claimed to be a pastor's son, you really haven't been paying attention.

29Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, "So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, 30come down from the cross and save yourself!" Mark 14

:rolleyes:

What is the temple for the Jews, Big Lew? Being a pastor's son, you must know the answer. What is at the heart of the temple that is the Jewish equivalent of the Catholic communion? What represents God to the Jews the way bread represents God for the Catholics? No clue? Not even for a pastor's son? Ah yes, the Torah. The five books from which you were going to quote from.

...

It's quite amusing how you've actually nothing substantive to say, so you resort to nothing but childish name calling.

Again, do a little research into "protected class," actually learn logic, try to cobble a real argument, and then come back and try again.

The THIRD time is the charm... or do I have to post it yet again?

^
And all that other blah blah bullshit. Yeah so there are alot of contradictions in the bible, I already know. Jesus says alot of contradicting shit, and all the good shit he says contradict his racist statements.. I guess that's how you choose your friends too then. Among the intelligent people I know, if someone is full of contradictions, they are deemed as "full of shit" and they generally don't fuck with them, but I guess you can make the exception for Jesus. Good for you.

Given your inability to read and your inability to put quotes in context, your ability in determing contradictions... eh... suck ass.

However, given your own contradictions borne of your remedial logic, your statements here are... quite amusing.

The only thing more amusing here would be if you attempted to pick up your pathetic attempt to argue "protected class." I guess you do have enough intelligence to punt on, well, some of the things you're abjectly clueless about.

BigLew

11-21-2006, 11:32 PM

You still haven't answered the question ass clown.

Originally Posted by BigLew
"Thus saith the LORD of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." (I Samuel 15:2-3)

Hey fuckwit tell me agaiin how do you justify that? In any way shape or form.

It's late, but before I hit the sac.

you're unaware of how pathetic your attempts at an intelligent argument are.

^ You're the only one here that thinks this is actually a topic for intelligent discussion. I knew the whole topic was ridiculous from the get.

Also, be a goddamn man. Just call me a fucking idiot instead of trying to be all fancy with your insults. See, you and I are both calling eachother fucking morons but you don't have the crotch knuckles to say it out right.

Good night pole puncher you'll have to play with yourself for the rest of the night.

snailpoo

11-21-2006, 11:50 PM

You still haven't answered the question ass clown.

Yeesh. Forget the remedial logic class. Forget researching "protected class."

Read it again slowly. Spell it out. Look up any words you don't understand. Maybe you'll understand it the fourth time around.

Just call me a fucking idiot instead of trying to be all fancy with your insults. See, you and I are both calling eachother fucking morons but you don't have the crotch knuckles to say it out right.

:biggrin:

That's the difference between you and me.

You call me a fucking idiot Yay. You can reguritate grade school cutdowns. Good for you. That must have taken quite the effort.

I may call you a fucking idiot, whatever, but I do show you exactly how you fell off the shortbus (and umm... you've either dropped your helmet or your drool bucket).

Ask some of the intelligent people you supposedly hang out with whether substance matters more than inane insults.

didu

11-22-2006, 12:46 AM

Have I? Have you read this thread? The intollerance here for religion is astounding. And the amusing thing is not only the hypocrisy in stereotpying a protected class, the amusing thing is that atheism is JUST AS UNPROVEN as any religion.

I don't know whether you've read this thread but you've completely missed the point. I've said this before and I will say it again: most atheists are perfectly tolerant of religions, what they are totally intolerant of is the religious people who don't practise what they preach.

You don't need to prove atheism because the concept of god, supernatuarl powers, heavens and hell are just human imaginations. Atheism is self evident, it's just like I don't need to prove I'm not a god.

Again the hypocrisy. No human is perfect. Yet you hold religious people to a higher standard for TRYING and failing. Religion isn't about being perfect. Religion is about TRYING. But concept and your fundamental ignorance of that concept isn't even the issue here.

I'm holding religous people to a higher standard because they keep telling me that's the standard they live up to and that's the standard they want me to live up to. This is why I regard them as liars when I see that they don't practise what they preach. Being a scumbag is low, but being a lieing scumbag is even lower.

You don't need a follow religion to try to be a good person. You don't need to believe in god or fear the eternity of hell to do good deeds. I choose to rely on myself and my fellow human beings instead of god.

Your hypocrisy lies in your double standard. You give atheists a free pass while you STEREOTPYE religion based upon the actions a few.

I give atheists a free pass? What free pass? My standard for everyone is the same: practise what you preach. The atheists don't preach, therefore their actions don't contradict with what they tell you.

And no, I'm not stereotyping religions, I've merely listed all the wars and scandles that involve religion and religious people, and they are far far more than a few.

[b]What you forget, here, on this PROGRESSIVE FORUM, is that should anyone do the same with Asians, we would all be up in arms over it.

What does this forum being progressive have anything to do with what's being argued here? What's "the same" with Asians?

Religion is a protected class, just as race,

What utter rubbish! The leaders of pretty much every single western country are religous. Ahteists get bashed constantly by religious people for being godless. If you had to divide the world into 2 groups based on whether people are religious, I'd say the atheists are in the minority both in population and political power. No, religion is not a protected class -- just like white people are not a protected class in America.

and for every supposed individual who slipped up that happens to be religious, you can find a equivalent, say, Asian, who made the same type of slip up.

What slip up? Religions give a certain selected group of people, such as priests, nuns and popes, power which they would never have without being associated with religions. Power comes with corruption, and the greater the power, the greater the corruption, hence the greater the damage. A Joe Blow Asian is not going to be able to start a crusade which the Christian church started multiple times.

And do you know where this gets you? You claim that ultimately the fault is that one member of the protected class didn't do enough for another rogue member of the protected class from acting up.

You don't seem to have a clue what I've been talking about. I'm talking about religious people should practise what they preach and be responsible for their actions.

Please tell me how you stopped William Hung.

William Hung is not a leader of the Asian people, he decided to embarass himself in front of the national TV of America, he does not represent the Asian people in any way -- any rational person could see that.

Are you not hypocritical for complaining about stereotyping one entire protected class for the actions of a few WHILE you yourself actively stereotype another entire protected class for the actions of a few?

You don't seem to have an argument here.

Interesting. If you're American,I didn't know you were a Bush supporter.

I'm Australian, and I don't support Bush.

If you're whatever other nationality, I'm sure I could find some leader to inappropriately associate random objectionable atributes to you.

Oh yes you can. Australia also took part in the war in Iraq, and I'm ashamed of it, and I'm willing to accept part of the blame for it.

It's amazing how each time this type of argument comes up, it's always subject to an association fallacy. And, in case this fails to register with you why association fallacies are wrong, does William Hung represent our singing abilities?

This has got nothing to do with association fallacy. The point is to make sure people are honest and responsible for their actions. William Hung is not a leader of the Asian people in any way, he doesn't represent anyone but himself. Why would anyone rational associate his singing ability to mine? Comparing William Hung with the president of the US or the pope is a rather illogical.

Now you've included an ad hominem error into your argument.

I don't think you understand what an "ad hominem" error is. What are my contention, premise and co-premise?

No, you cited the examples of the nun accused of abetting Genocide and completely ignore the numbers of clergy who died trying to save people.

Good doesn't always cancel out the evil. Do I need to list the number of people killed for religous reasons?

Sigh. Debate is like chess. When you casually dismissed my earlier question that atheism is unproven by stating that religion is unproven, guess what you did?

See my previous comments on whether atheism needs proving.

You don't get the benefit of this argument until you prove otherwise.

What's your argument?

Sadly, atheism has a reason for atheists to kill non-atheists. Should we ban atheism too?

Atheism kills non-atheists? Gee, what's the atheist equivalent of the crusades?

And how much of the anti-religion drivel posted in this thread was limited to this purpose?

Pretty much everything from me.

Now here's where your logic fails yet again. If I'm a Catholic in America, what CAN I POSSIBLY DO to prevent that nun from kicking those people out of the hospital in Darfur? In fact, what could ANY Catholic, including the Pope, do to prevent that nun from acting upon her own?

Demand the head of that fucking nun and her superiors on a silver plate. If your demands are not met, quit the fucking church in protest.

Again, your double standard fails you. Atheists you give a free pass to, but somehow religions must be able to account for each and every one of their members regardless of whether or not the actions of that member reflects the tenants or commands of the religion.

Gee what can I say? If you insist you are better than I am, I will hold you to your standard and call you out when you mess up. Don't promise anything that you cannot deliver.

rice cracker

11-22-2006, 07:26 AM

Time To Relax K

snailpoo

11-22-2006, 07:43 AM

Again, you fail to see the point.

You are holding a group, a protected group, liable for the actions of a few, the horrible problem being that you are attempting to stereotype all religion and all religious people together.

Now you attempt to confuse the issue by saying that there are religious people in power all over the world, but 1. that's, again, an ad hominem error in your logic, 2. irrelevant due to the fact that there are differing religions, 3. further proof of your use of an association fallacy.

I don't know whether you've read this thread but you've completely missed the point. I've said this before and I will say it again: most atheists are perfectly tolerant of religions, what they are totally intolerant of is the religious people who don't practise what they preach.
You attempt to excuse your stereotyping by saying that we should hold people to the standards to which they claim. Tell me again, which religion claims that they are perfect? Which priest, which nun, which monk, which rabbi, which lama, which imam claims perfection? Do not every single one of them claim to try, try and fail, and have to rely upon God(s) for forgiveness/nirvana/salvation/paradise/atonement?

Seriously. Find me ANY Christian who preaches that they are perfect.

You don't need to prove atheism because the concept of god, supernatuarl powers, heavens and hell are just human imaginations. Atheism is self evident, it's just like I don't need to prove I'm not a god.
And this is more of the hypocrisy I constantly see in threads like this.

Atheists get all riled up because religious people claim God to exists but can't prove it, so what do atheists do? Atheists ASSERT that God doesn't exist.

You saying so doesn't make it true.

I give atheists a free pass? What free pass? My standard for everyone is the same: practise what you preach. The atheists don't preach, therefore their actions don't contradict with what they tell you.
Again, your problem is that religions like Christianity don't preach perfection. In fact, they preach that perfection is IMPOSSIBLE. They preach that people should TRY.

What does this forum being progressive have anything to do with what's being argued here? What's "the same" with Asians?
Again, what is sad is that you use this wrong justification for your horrible logic and your awful stereotyping. Look at what you are doing. Replace religion with any protected class. Say, Asian.

And no, I'm not stereotyping religions, I've merely listed all the wars and scandles that involve religion and religious people, and they are far far more than a few.

"And no, I'm not stereotyping Asians, I've merely listed all the wars and scandles that involve Asians, and they are far more than a few."

Objectionable? Objectionable while you attempt to hold all Asians responsible for the actions of a few... just like what you're doing for religious people?

What you apparently don't see is how YOU are stereotyping religious people in the same way that people stereotype any protected class, and YOU are using the same flimsy and false justifications for your bias.

What utter rubbish! The leaders of pretty much every single western country are religous. Ahteists get bashed constantly by religious people for being godless. If you had to divide the world into 2 groups based on whether people are religious, I'd say the atheists are in the minority both in population and political power. No, religion is not a protected class -- just like white people are not a protected class in America.

Ah, so if people are in the majority, it's ok to discriminate against them? Discrimination and stereotyping is ok, as long as the individual you hurt is part of the majority? Or maybe you're saying that discrimination against a group is ok if they discriminated against you first? Weren't you the one harping on practicing what you preach?

What slip up? Religions give a certain selected group of people, such as priests, nuns and popes, power which they would never have without being associated with religions. Power comes with corruption, and the greater the power, the greater the corruption, hence the greater the damage. A Joe Blow Asian is not going to be able to start a crusade which the Christian church started multiple times.

[Insert numerous Asian wars, massacres, genocides here]

Now to again illustrate the fault in your logic: Because some Asians were put in power by other Asians and because that Asian slaughtered millions of people a thousand years ago, Asians are reprehensible.

That's basically what you said in your paragraph (substituting Religious person for Asian).

And do you know where this gets you? You claim that ultimately the fault is that one member of the protected class didn't do enough for another rogue member of the protected class from acting up.
You don't seem to have a clue what I've been talking about. I'm talking about religious people should practise what they preach and be responsible for their actions.
I don't?

Reread your original quote:

The problem with your argument is that you think the INDIVIDUALS have no representation of the GROUP. It's like saying that the president of the US does not represent the American people in anyway; or the preists, nuns or popes do not represent the Christianity organisations in anyway. This is purely rubbish. Individuals are given power by the group they represent, therefore their actions, and the reactions to their actions from their respective groups represent the attitude of their groups.

Now this is where your logic gets you into trouble:

I'm Australian, and I don't support Bush.
Tough cookies. By your logic, you are responsible for John Howard, and since John Howard supports Bush and supported invading Iraq, you, as an INDIVIDUAL represented by Howard are ALSO guilty of supporting the Iraq war.

Wait. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite by your attempts to hold people up to a higher standard and all?

See where faulty logic gets you?

Now, while you admit this, what have you done about it? You claim:

Demand the head of that fucking nun and her superiors on a silver plate. If your demands are not met, quit the fucking church in protest.
According to you, religious people should vote with their feet. Why are you still in Australia? What have you done besides pay lipservice to your guilt?

This has got nothing to do with association fallacy. The point is to make sure people are honest and responsible for their actions. William Hung is not a leader of the Asian people in any way, he doesn't represent anyone but himself. Why would anyone rational associate his singing ability to mine? Comparing William Hung with the president of the US or the pope is a rather illogical.
The problem is that you go much futher down the food chain. How much LOWER down from pope is a nun? Are you guilty when an Australian soldier murders someone? Remember, its that nun in that hospital you were harping about.

What power is given a nun? If a nun gave me a direct order do I have to obey? And since you're lumping all religions together, if I am protestant, what power does a Catholic nun have over me? Yet, you're blaming all religions in your highlight of that nun.

William Hung is the perfect example here. Hung has just as much power and representation over another Asian as that nun has over a Jew.

I don't think you understand what an "ad hominem" error is. What are my contention, premise and co-premise?
Because Bush is bad for invading Iraq, and because Bush is religious, religion must be bad.

The proof of your error in logic is that Bush is NOT a religious leader. He is a SECULAR leader that happens to be religious.

Atheism kills non-atheists? Gee, what's the atheist equivalent of the crusades?
Stalin's progroms.

Which leads us back to:

Gee what can I say? If you insist you are better than I am, I will hold you to your standard and call you out when you mess up. Don't promise anything that you cannot deliver.

Where yet again I ask you, when's the last time a living Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Bhuddist, a whatever claimed to you that they were perfect and that they didn't need atonement for any sins?

Here's where your flimsy justification for your awful stereotyping falls flat.

Napoleon Chynamite

11-22-2006, 11:56 AM

I've said this before and I will say it again: most atheists are perfectly tolerant of religions, what they are totally intolerant of is the religious people who don't practise what they preach.

Just the ones that don't post on this forum right? I'd say that the amount of atheists tolerant of religions is about as high as the amount of religious people tolerant of atheists from what I've seen, and what you wrote just afterward, ironically, is what a lot of intolerant atheists say that basically contradicts anything you just said about tolerance.

You don't need to prove atheism because the concept of god, supernatuarl powers, heavens and hell are just human imaginations. Atheism is self evident, it's just like I don't need to prove I'm not a god.

How nice. Nothing like a bit of condescension in the middle of one's pot of "tolerance." That's how a lot of people think, they'll tolerate the religious as long as they don't stand in the way of one's political beliefs or actions. Either that or they'll proclaim to be all-accepting and then call religious people to be naive victims and sheep of religious tenets which are merely "figments of human imagination" behind their backs.

And btw, to prove atheism would be to prove the absence of God, which not even the greatest philosophers are able to do. It is not self-evident. It's funny to note that many of my super liberal friends believe that to be sure of the absence of God is just as stupid as to believe in the existence of one.

rice cracker

11-22-2006, 12:05 PM

Haha, that's what "tolerance" is, honey. I'll tolerate whatever crazy you got (my opinion, of course) to your face, but behind your back, whoo boy, me and my friends are yukking it up.

That's why I hate that word.

deez nuts

11-22-2006, 12:42 PM

this thread delivers

BigLew

11-22-2006, 02:17 PM

Yeesh. Forget the remedial logic class. Forget researching "protected class."

Read it again slowly. Spell it out. Look up any words you don't understand. Maybe you'll understand it the fourth time around.

:biggrin:

That's the difference between you and me.

You call me a fucking idiot Yay. You can reguritate grade school cutdowns. Good for you. That must have taken quite the effort.

I may call you a fucking idiot, whatever, but I do show you exactly how you fell off the shortbus (and umm... you've either dropped your helmet or your drool bucket).

Ask some of the intelligent people you supposedly hang out with whether substance matters more than inane insults.

Basically with a big grin you are saying killing suckling infants is a-okay.

Also, your momma.

snailpoo

11-22-2006, 05:14 PM

Basically with a big grin you are saying killing suckling infants is a-okay.

Also, your momma.

http://www.wegotcards.com/cards/rude/holi/idiot.GIF

Have a good holiday.

BigLew

11-22-2006, 05:48 PM

Dude that wasn't even a good flame pic.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v148/biglew/fb24eb55.jpg

Also god wants you to obey him and smash childrens heads and rape women,in remembrance this turkey day.

Isaiah 13:15-16
Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword. Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.

deez nuts

11-22-2006, 07:10 PM

oooh pictures now. nice.

didu

11-22-2006, 08:15 PM

Again, you fail to see the point.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat a lie, it's still a lie.

You are holding a group, a protected group, liable for the actions of a few, the horrible problem being that you are attempting to stereotype all religion and all religious people together.

What is a protected group? According to wikipedia, the term "protected class" as you so often used is "a term used in United States anti-discrimination law. The term describes groups of people who are protected from discrimination and harassment."

This term has absolutely no relevance in this discussion here. I'm not advocating the discrimination or the banning of religions. I'm only saying that religious people should:

(1) Take responsibility for their actions -- this applies to people who are religious and live in democratic countries.
(2) Be honest and practise what they preach.

It's a fact that religions have been responsibile for a large number of scandles and human atrocities. It's a fact that in many of these scandles and atrocities, the representatives of the religions have not been adequately punished. It's a fact that a religion cannot practically exist without supporters. It's also a fact that in religous people have not done enough to demanded adequate punishement for their representatives that commit crimes.

Now you attempt to confuse the issue by saying that there are religious people in power all over the world, but 1. that's, again, an ad hominem error in your logic, 2. irrelevant due to the fact that there are differing religions, 3. further proof of your use of an association fallacy.

Don't use the term "ad hominem error", you don't know what it means. You were the one who brought out the term "protected class" to argue that religions in general are being discriminated against. I've just stated the fact that in general religious people actually are in the majority in both population and political power which pretty much renders your "protected class" argument irrlevant to this discussion.

You attempt to excuse your stereotyping by saying that we should hold people to the standards to which they claim. Tell me again, which religion claims that they are perfect? Which priest, which nun, which monk, which rabbi, which lama, which imam claims perfection? Do not every single one of them claim to try, try and fail, and have to rely upon God(s) for forgiveness/nirvana/salvation/paradise/atonement?

I see you carefully avoided quoting my examples of "holding people up to their standards." Do you honest believe that atheists actually demand the religious people to be perfect? That's just beyond ridiculous.

There is a supernatural aspect to every single religion. The standards of every single religion are supposedly set by their respective gods. The religious people are supposed to live by these standards because that's what their gods want. No religion is stupid enough to claim or demand its followers to be perfect -- because that's only possible for their gods.

Atheists are rational people, and they will not hold other people to impossible standards. The perfect standard is not the point here. The point here is that the religous people sometimes will tell you that they are trying to live by their perfect standard to your face, but when you turn around, they would purposefully do something that's completely against their preaching. This is called double standard or hypocrisy.

Seriously. Find me ANY Christian who preaches that they are perfect.

I can find you a large number of christians who started wars, screwed little kiddies and committed murder and rape.

And this is more of the hypocrisy I constantly see in threads like this.

Atheists get all riled up because religious people claim God to exists but can't prove it, so what do atheists do? Atheists ASSERT that God doesn't exist.

This is where you are totally wrong. Atheists are rational people. We accept rational and scientific proof. If you could show us the irrefutable proof of the existence of God or supernaturalness, we'd all happily become religious.

I don't know what assertion you are talking about. The atheists's thinking process is just "if I have not seen the conclusive evidence of the existence of something, I will believe it doesn't exist." You call this an assertion. I call this scientific method.

We don't get riled up because religous people cannot prove the existence of god -- because we know god doesn't exist and the inability of the religious people to prove otherwise actually strengthens our theory. What's the point of getting riled up about it?

You saying so doesn't make it true.

Actually it does.

Again, your problem is that religions like Christianity don't preach perfection. In fact, they preach that perfection is IMPOSSIBLE. They preach that people should TRY.

You don't seem to understand the difference between trying to do the impossible, and protending to try but not trying at all. We atheists don't have a problem with the former, we have a problem with th latter.

Again, what is sad is that you use this wrong justification for your horrible logic and your awful stereotyping. Look at what you are doing. Replace religion with any protected class. Say, Asian.

"And no, I'm not stereotyping Asians, I've merely listed all the wars and scandles that involve Asians, and they are far more than a few."

Objectionable? Objectionable while you attempt to hold all Asians responsible for the actions of a few... just like what you're doing for religious people?

What you apparently don't see is how YOU are stereotyping religious people in the same way that people stereotype any protected class, and YOU are using the same flimsy and false justifications for your bias.

Calling my logic horrible by making a completely illogical statement doesn't help proving your point. Criticising a religion because of the crimes committed by its representatives and the inaction of its followers is totally different than discriminating a race due to the acts of an ordinary, random individual of that race. An ordinary US citizen who has no political representation commits a murder, the rest of the world just holds him responsible. The president of the US declares a war on Iraq, the rest of the world holds America responsible. That's my argument.

Ah, so if people are in the majority, it's ok to discriminate against them? Discrimination and stereotyping is ok, as long as the individual you hurt is part of the majority? Or maybe you're saying that discrimination against a group is ok if they discriminated against you first? Weren't you the one harping on practicing what you preach?

What discrimination? Have I said I wanted all religions banned? I just want religous people to practise what they preach and take responsbilities for their actions and the actions of their representatives. You were the one who brought up the "protected class" rubbish to prove religious people are being persecuted by atheists. I quashed your argument by showing that religous people actually have more power than the atheists. Now you are accusing me somehow of discriminating religious people?

[Insert numerous Asian wars, massacres, genocides here]

Now to again illustrate the fault in your logic: Because some Asians were put in power by other Asians and because that Asian slaughtered millions of people a thousand years ago, Asians are reprehensible.

That's basically what you said in your paragraph (substituting Religious person for Asian).

Were these Asians preaching love and compassion when they slaughted each other? I don't seem to remember that. The Mongols and Manchurians invaded the the Song and Ming dynasties and slaughtered millions of Hans because they wanted the Han's land -- that's what they said they wanted and that's what they did. There was no preaching of love and compassion, no doing-god's-work hypocrisy there. The world has never been a perfect place. Resources have always been limited. People of all races have always fight with each other due to need and greed and will continue to do so. Compare these wars among Asians with the crusades, they were just wars of greed, yet the Churches sugarcoated it as doing gods work. Would the crusades have happened without the religious motivation?

Now this is where your logic gets you into trouble:

Tough cookies. By your logic, you are responsible for John Howard, and since John Howard supports Bush and supported invading Iraq, you, as an INDIVIDUAL represented by Howard are ALSO guilty of supporting the Iraq war.

A person is a part of a group, when the group makes a collective decision, the group is responsible. The rest of the world can hold Australia responsible for the war. The Australian people hold the John Howard responsible for the war, and John Howard is still allowed to be the PM of Australia even with his huge failure through democratic means, then collectively the Australian people are responsible for supporting the war. Is this logic so hard for you to understand?

Wait. Doesn't that make you a hypocrite by your attempts to hold people up to a higher standard and all?

Whose standard is it? Is it wrong to hold you to your own standard? What do you think my standard is?

See where faulty logic gets you?

Gee, you have the nerve to call my logic faulty?

Now, while you admit this, what have you done about it? You claim:

According to you, religious people should vote with their feet. Why are you still in Australia? What have you done besides pay lipservice to your guilt?

What have I done to oppose the war? Well, I've voted against Howard's government. I've talked to as many people I can to convince them to oppose the war and I will not stop until Howard loses the election and Australia withdraws its troops. Since the Australian society is based on law and order, I don't think starting a guerilla warfare against the government will help my argument. So, yes, I've just been talking to people, but at least I'm trying. Do you have a better solution?

The problem is that you go much futher down the food chain. How much LOWER down from pope is a nun? Are you guilty when an Australian soldier murders someone? Remember, its that nun in that hospital you were harping about.

If an Australian soldier commits a murder, he and his superiors should be punished. If they are not punished, then there is a problem with the Australian government. If I continue to support the government even when there is a problem with them. Then I've got a problem. Is that so hard to understand?

What power is given a nun? If a nun gave me a direct order do I have to obey? And since you're lumping all religions together, if I am protestant, what power does a Catholic nun have over me? Yet, you're blaming all religions in your highlight of that nun.

Are protestant that innocent? What about those Anglican church priests who screwed little kiddies when their superiors covered it up? If you are gonna accuse me of lumping all the religions together, I may as well just look at the crimes committed by all the religions.

William Hung is the perfect example here. Hung has just as much power and representation over another Asian as that nun has over a Jew.

No he doesn't it. William Hung doesn't represent anyone but himself. Other Asians have no expectations of him and therefore have no trust in him. A nun -- no matter how lowly she is, is a representative of the church, the church is supposed to have standards, therefore by making a woman nun, religious people would assume a certain standard therefore trust that nun. That's the difference.

Because Bush is bad for invading Iraq, and because Bush is religious, religion must be bad.

The proof of your error in logic is that Bush is NOT a religious leader. He is a SECULAR leader that happens to be religious.

That's your logic, not mine. My logic is: Bush invaded Iraq in the name of democracy and safety of the world, he lied about it and brough no democracy to Iraq and made the world less safe, therefore he cannot be trusted and must be punished. Another example of my logic: Religious people waged the wars in the pretence of gods and religions, the wars were bad, therefore there is a problem with religions and religous people.

Stalin's progroms.

Which leads us back to:

Where yet again I ask you, when's the last time a living Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Bhuddist, a whatever claimed to you that they were perfect and that they didn't need atonement for any sins?

Here's where your flimsy justification for your awful stereotyping falls flat.

Your problem is that you keep accusing me of holding people to impossible standards -- that's not what I'm doing. I'm just asking people to do what they say they will do, and call them out when they are not even trying.

didu

11-22-2006, 08:28 PM

Just the ones that don't post on this forum right? I'd say that the amount of atheists tolerant of religions is about as high as the amount of religious people tolerant of atheists from what I've seen, and what you wrote just afterward, ironically, is what a lot of intolerant atheists say that basically contradicts anything you just said about tolerance.

I don't know what gives you that idea. Have I said anywhere that I want all religions banned?

How nice. Nothing like a bit of condescension in the middle of one's pot of "tolerance." That's how a lot of people think, they'll tolerate the religious as long as they don't stand in the way of one's political beliefs or actions. Either that or they'll proclaim to be all-accepting and then call religious people to be naive victims and sheep of religious tenets which are merely "figments of human imagination" behind their backs.

Fact: most governments support the idea of the separation of church and state. Religions have no place in politics. I believe people have the right to believe whatver they want to believe and I respect that right. I do not judge people by what they say, I judge them by what they do -- just like how I expect other people to judge me.

Religous people have long looked down on atheists and called them godless and wished them rot in hell. If you don't have a problem with this, you shouldn't have a problem with what atheists think of religous people.

If I can, I prefer to tell people their faults to their faces and carry an honest discussion. If a religous person starts a conversation about a religion with me, I will tell them what I think to their face.

And btw, to prove atheism would be to prove the absence of God, which not even the greatest philosophers are able to do. It is not self-evident. It's funny to note that many of my super liberal friends believe that to be sure of the absence of God is just as stupid as to believe in the existence of one.

It is in general very hard to prove that something doesn't exist. That's why in most cases people have to prove the existence, instead of the other way around. Most legal systems have the notion of "innocent until proven guilty" -- you don't believe something is there until you can actually prove it is there. Otherwise, you can just say there is a tooth fairy and challenge me to prove otherwise ...

didu

11-22-2006, 08:51 PM