Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not up on all religions but it definitely appears that way. Hearing things like "don't question god's word" or condescension beyond belief from all of the ones I'm familiar with here. Seems like hacidic jews (ever noticed that the word acid is in the middle of hacidic), hindi and pantheists are the worst offenders. It's the arrogance and self-righteousness of some religions that make all of it look bad. And yes, that is the rub....be in the world but not of it, says the bible. No critical thinking, rationality, logicism and good old reasoning and thinking on one's own.
"Think for yourself, or others will think for you, without thinking of you" - Thoreau
Miracles cannot be replicated, so what do you do with that phenomenon?
The "phenomenon" is why people attribute the unexplainable to "miracles."
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
I perceive that you see the ability to discern spirituality and divinity as something that requires effort, work and discipline.
Naturally, he's wrong.
The original spiritualists in early human societies communed with the Earth, not gods. The god-things came later. In other words, spirituality is innate or intrinsic.
We can contrast that with divinity which is extrinsic and not innate. Divinity is a quality imbued by a god-thing upon one of us lowly humans.
As an Atheist, I am spiritual, but there is no divinity in me since there are no god-things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elyn02
That's fine. However, I see an atheist saying "stop religion" as an opinion in the same way that a person believes that God has been removed from public spaces and should be put back in. It is freedom of speech.
I forgive you for being uninformed, misinformed, and ill-informed.
That is not Freedom of Speech.
The Bill of Rights were not part of the original Constitution yet they were crafted in exactly the same fashion, namely by committee.
Different areas of the Constitution were crafted by committees then assembled into a single document. To know the intent of anything in the Constitution, one need only read the what those men wrote.
For example, the "general Welfare" clause has been twisted and distorted. To know its meaning, we need only read the numerous meeting minutes of Morris' committee, the diaries and journals Morris and the other committee members kept, the letters the members of the committee wrote to each other, the letters they wrote to members of other committees, and the diary and journal entries made by other committee members after reading and responding to letters from members of Morris' committee.
Once you do that, the only conclusion one can draw is that "general Welfare" refers to the welfare of the federal government and in no way refers to the welfare of the several States, or the welfare of the people.
To be successful, the federal government must have the ability to carry out its duties which are defense of the country, engaging in diplomacy, entering into treaties, participating in foreign commerce, coining money, and managing the finances of the federal government and that is what "general Welfare" means.
Likewise, certain laws enacted by the 13 colonies-turned-countries were crafted by committees, and those laws which were universal among the 13 colonies-turned-countries were ameliorated into the Bill of Rights.
To know the meaning and intent, we need only read the meeting minutes, diary and journal entries, and letters those men wrote.
It also helps to walk in their shoes, for they had seen friends, acquaintances, others have their property confiscated, be fined, be imprisoned, and even tortured and executed for making a comment about a government or government official.
It is crystal clear the meaning and intent of the Freedom of Speech clause is to allow one to criticize or even praise government or a government official without fear of reprisal or retaliation.
Freedom of Speech does not control your comments on Wal-Mart or Amoco-British Petroleum or McDonald's. That actually derives from common law and provided you do not slander, libel, or defame you can say what you want, but it is not "protected" by the Free Speech clause.
We need to address the "system" that produced this person.
That is impossible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
As far as your point about Saddam's Iraq being secular, that appears to be debatable:
That is US government propaganda.
The US government told you that so you would like Iraq and be less inclined to question US Foreign Policy in the Middle East.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
You are not really being fair or honest, and that discourages my discussing this with you. I clearly did not say that only Islam is the only problem with religion in the world, and to the extent that I did say that, I gave my reasons for my thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
I've heard it argued that Christianity was at one point in a similar state, and then mostly matured out of it.
The only reason christianity is less of a problem is because Atheists masquerading as x-tians to avoid persecution by x-tians continually stripped the x-tian denominations of their power over several centuries.
"The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves. Hence the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people; so that they can be deposed, willing or unwilling according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The State must be godless; no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem."
That's poop Leo whining incessantly because not only does he have no say in picking US Presidents, he has no say in which candidates have a chance to be US Presidents.
I'm grateful Giribaldi and Victor Emanuel stripped the poops of their power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
Of course not all terrorists are Muslims... who in the heck said otherwise?
The problem is allowing governments to define "terrorists" and "terrorism" because as I and many others predicted, a "terrorist" is now defined as anyone who says mean things about government.
Even so, thank you for pointing out how ignorant some people really are.
Shi'a suicide bomber? Really?
Ignorant people don't understand that Shi'a is to the Imperial Roman Catholic Church as Sunni is to Protestantism.
The Shi'a have saints, relics, shrines, and suicide is a mortal sin that automatically bars one from entering Heaven.
The Sunni don't recognize saints, shun shrines and relics, and martyrdom by suicide gives instant access to Heaven.
Quote:
Originally Posted by primaltech
You bring up Christian denomination vs Christian denomination, needless violence and division in Ireland, and I fully agree- yeah, religion. Is bad. Religion's contribution to political disputes = never helpful, at all.
I'm guessing you never been through the Northern Ireland Training Course.
I went with the Green Jackets who were base in Celle just before they rotated to Northern Ireland for duty. The training course was the government's response to Bloody Sunday.
At the time, I was not aware that my Greek-Armenian ancestors came from Ireland so I had no opinion on the matter.
The conflict in Northern Ireland is not religious.
The Normans (my Greek-Armenian ancestors lived in Normandy) "conquered" (snicker) Ireland and then out-Irished the Irish.
The Normans Gaelicized their names and adopted wholesale Irish customs and culture.
I mention that because a lot of people engaged in genealogy are greatly confused. My name is Wallace/Walsh and I'm Irish!
Um, no, you're Welsh.
John de Walys. John of/from Wales. John Normanized his name, not because he was forced to do so rather because he wanted to do so. The name was Normanized differently depending on whether one was in the north or south of Ireland.
After the British conquered Ireland and stripped all the Irish and Normans of their titles, land, and wealth, the British forced everyone under penalty of death to Anglicize their names, and so it became Walsh or Wallace depending on how it was Gaelicized.
Just when the Irish thought they might be free of English suzerainty, the British bribed Brits to migrate to Northern Ireland in order to skew the referendum vote on British rule.
Notwithstanding the immoral and unethical act of skewing the vote, there is no logical reason for Britain to rule Northern Ireland and the British should do the honorable thing and withdraw just like the Romans withdrew from Normandy and Romania.
Northern Ireland is of no strategic or economic value -- not that those are justifications for ruling -- and if Northern Ireland ceases to exist Britain will not burn down, fall over, and sink into the North Sea.
At first glance, it might appear to be a religious conflict, but that is as silly as saying Panama and Iraq were religious conflicts because I'm an Atheist and happened to kill Panamanians and Iraqis.
True, Brits who happened to be Protestants did heavily discriminate against Irish how happened to be Catholics in damn near everything, but that had to do with British government policy and not religion. The British feared that Irish holding political offices in Northern Ireland would undermine British rule.
The US government told you that so you would like Iraq and be less inclined to question US Foreign Policy in the Middle East.
The only reason christianity is less of a problem is because Atheists masquerading as x-tians to avoid persecution by x-tians continually stripped the x-tian denominations of their power over several centuries.
"The principles of social science follow. Here naturalists teach that men have all the same rights and are perfectly equal in condition; that every man is naturally independent; that no one has a right to command others; that it is tyranny to keep men subject to any other authority than that which emanates from themselves. Hence the people are sovereign; those who rule have no authority but by the commission and concession of the people; so that they can be deposed, willing or unwilling according to the wishes of the people. The origin of all rights and civil duties is in the people or the State, which is ruled according to the new principles of liberty. The State must be godless; no reason why one religion ought to be preferred to another; all to be held in the same esteem."
That's poop Leo whining incessantly because not only does he have no say in picking US Presidents, he has no say in which candidates have a chance to be US Presidents.
I'm grateful Giribaldi and Victor Emanuel stripped the poops of their power.
The problem is allowing governments to define "terrorists" and "terrorism" because as I and many others predicted, a "terrorist" is now defined as anyone who says mean things about government.
Even so, thank you for pointing out how ignorant some people really are.
Shi'a suicide bomber? Really?
Ignorant people don't understand that Shi'a is to the Imperial Roman Catholic Church as Sunni is to Protestantism.
The Shi'a have saints, relics, shrines, and suicide is a mortal sin that automatically bars one from entering Heaven.
The Sunni don't recognize saints, shun shrines and relics, and martyrdom by suicide gives instant access to Heaven.
I'm guessing you never been through the Northern Ireland Training Course.
I went with the Green Jackets who were base in Celle just before they rotated to Northern Ireland for duty. The training course was the government's response to Bloody Sunday.
At the time, I was not aware that my Greek-Armenian ancestors came from Ireland so I had no opinion on the matter.
The conflict in Northern Ireland is not religious.
The Normans (my Greek-Armenian ancestors lived in Normandy) "conquered" (snicker) Ireland and then out-Irished the Irish.
The Normans Gaelicized their names and adopted wholesale Irish customs and culture.
I mention that because a lot of people engaged in genealogy are greatly confused. My name is Wallace/Walsh and I'm Irish!
Um, no, you're Welsh.
John de Walys. John of/from Wales. John Normanized his name, not because he was forced to do so rather because he wanted to do so. The name was Normanized differently depending on whether one was in the north or south of Ireland.
After the British conquered Ireland and stripped all the Irish and Normans of their titles, land, and wealth, the British forced everyone under penalty of death to Anglicize their names, and so it became Walsh or Wallace depending on how it was Gaelicized.
Just when the Irish thought they might be free of English suzerainty, the British bribed Brits to migrate to Northern Ireland in order to skew the referendum vote on British rule.
Notwithstanding the immoral and unethical act of skewing the vote, there is no logical reason for Britain to rule Northern Ireland and the British should do the honorable thing and withdraw just like the Romans withdrew from Normandy and Romania.
Northern Ireland is of no strategic or economic value -- not that those are justifications for ruling -- and if Northern Ireland ceases to exist Britain will not burn down, fall over, and sink into the North Sea.
At first glance, it might appear to be a religious conflict, but that is as silly as saying Panama and Iraq were religious conflicts because I'm an Atheist and happened to kill Panamanians and Iraqis.
True, Brits who happened to be Protestants did heavily discriminate against Irish how happened to be Catholics in damn near everything, but that had to do with British government policy and not religion. The British feared that Irish holding political offices in Northern Ireland would undermine British rule.
Great post, thank you. There is a lot of ignorance on these topics and issues that you have enumerated, and stupid statements are made based on it that endangers people’s lives.
I want it out of politics and government. People can practice their faith and there are many rich faith traditions in our country and on our planet. However, freedom of religion doesn't include the freedom to force others to obey a religious tradition they don't hold themselves.
I want it out of politics and government. People can practice their faith and there are many rich faith traditions in our country and on our planet. However, freedom of religion doesn't include the freedom to force others to obey a religious tradition they don't hold themselves.
Perhaps. What are they doing on a daily basis to you, that the regular right is not doing?
Okay fine...we'll combine them and make a blanket statement about all on the right. It's pretty clear on this site that some of our posters are part of that religious right.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
