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.
It might seem that way. But if people are spending so much time discussing it, then there might be something more sinister in the anti-religious aim.
This has been explained to you so often.
Creationism in schools.
Condoms in SA.
9/11.
Sunni / Shia conflicts.
Religious bigotry against homosexuals.
Freedom of religion / theocracies.
The list goes on.
Or do you consider fighting for a better world for all sinister?
I don't even care if people are religious in their own temples. In fact it bothers me more that religious indoctrination of kiddies goes on in the home, but all we can do is try to make the case for irreligion at least, to the parents. And, yes, no religion in law, politics or education seems something desirable.
One man who tried to raise his child as an atheist resulted in: Jerry Falwell.
I don't even care if people are religious in their own temples. In fact it bothers me more that religious indoctrination of kiddies goes on in the home, but all we can do is try to make the case for irreligion at least, to the parents. And, yes, no religion in law, politics or education seems something desirable.
I absolutely agree no religion in politics or education. But no matter what religion someone chooses to practice in their homes, we don’t belong in it - unless it’s a question of law.
Just who do you think is trying to eradicate that??Sit there and devote 12 hours to it if you want.
Just,please, don't even begin to think it should obigate, in any way, other people in public places not designated as religious ones.
What a silly thing to tell me to devote 12 hours to it. True, some people might find that helpful, but really, what is the point of suggesting something so extreme to the average person? In my case it's probably once or twice a week listening to some kind of religious broadcast. What I'm trying to say is that I require that sometimes because it puts my mind and soul in a place where other people, including atheists, would most like to see me.
But why on earth would you want to discourage people who might benefit from that, by not being expose to it? Especially if YOU are benefited by their changed behavior? Do you not realize that most people are more religious in nature? That most people might want to identify with the religion of their culture?
What a silly thing to tell me to devote 12 hours to it. True, some people might find that helpful, but really, what is the point of suggesting something so extreme to the average person? In my case it's probably once or twice a week listening to some kind of religious broadcast. What I'm trying to say is that I require that sometimes because it puts my mind and soul in a place where other people, including atheists, would most like to see me.
But why on earth would you want to discourage people who might benefit from that, by not being expose to it? Especially if YOU are benefited by their changed behavior? Do you not realize that most people are more religious in nature? That most people might want to identify with the religion of their culture?
That's how you interpreted the post I wrote?
That helps explain some things.
That's how you interpreted the post I wrote?
That helps explain some things.
The problem is that when you try to communicate in a way that uses extreme examples, you aren't going to get through to many people. Sure, I might understand what you meant to say, but I doubt most people will. You are going to become invisible to most people reading this if you can't communicate on a more down to earth level. Your message is only going to get through to people who probably already agree with you. Which suggests to me that it's probably not a valid point to begin with, even if I understood your point.
The problem is that when you try to communicate in a way that uses extreme examples, you aren't going to get through to many people. Sure, I might understand what you meant to say, but I doubt most people will. You are going to become invisible to most people reading this if you can't communicate on a more down to earth level. Your message is only going to get through to people who probably already agree with you. Which suggests to me that it's probably not a valid point to begin with, even if I understood your point.
I think I'll give up and concede to your, oh so superior, communication and comprehension skills.
One man who tried to raise his child as an atheist resulted in: Jerry Falwell.
One theist who tried to raise theirs as a Fundamentalist resulted in - Rachel Slick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
What a silly thing to tell me to devote 12 hours to it. True, some people might find that helpful, but really, what is the point of suggesting something so extreme to the average person? In my case it's probably once or twice a week listening to some kind of religious broadcast. What I'm trying to say is that I require that sometimes because it puts my mind and soul in a place where other people, including atheists, would most like to see me.
But why on earth would you want to discourage people who might benefit from that, by not being expose to it? Especially if YOU are benefited by their changed behavior? Do you not realize that most people are more religious in nature? That most people might want to identify with the religion of their culture?
We are happy that you are happy where you are. But that does not alter the fact that religion is (on the best evidence) wrong or not True, and there is too much influence on society by it. So we are trying to do something about that, and atheists (whether you believe it or not) will say that they were perhaps happy when they were believers, but they feel so much better for not believing.
The problem is that when you try to communicate in a way that uses extreme examples, you aren't going to get through to many people. Sure, I might understand what you meant to say, but I doubt most people will. You are going to become invisible to most people reading this if you can't communicate on a more down to earth level. Your message is only going to get through to people who probably already agree with you. Which suggests to me that it's probably not a valid point to begin with, even if I understood your point.
Not to worry. as Shakespeare put it:
"Thou canst not hit it, hit it, hit it. Thou canst not hit it, my good man."
"An I cannot, cannot, cannot; an I cannot, another can."
Not to worry. as Shakespeare put it:
"Thou canst not hit it, hit it, hit it. Thou canst not hit it, my good man."
"An I cannot, cannot, cannot; an I cannot, another can."
That's Shakespeare? Sounds like Gertrude Stein to me.
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.
