»90% of US Christians will always vote conservative«
|
|||
|
knn: 4thedefenderr: yes, that's right, they cant be allowed to have there religious beliefs. Sure they are allowed, but then it's a freakin' theocracy and that means for Europe: Ooops, we let the US do their thing too long alone... They become dangerous with all their WMDs, starting preemptive wars with terms such as "Infinite justice" and "Axis of Evil". how does allowing people to have their own beliefs make america a theocracy? you're basically saying "freedom = oppression" what the hell kind of sense does that make? and why the hell does allowing people to have their own religious beliefs make it dangerous and ready to nuke em all? last I checked, christianity big on the whole "right and wrong" thing. that isnt true for atheism. and if you think infinite justice was pre-emptive, I suggest you see a proctologist, because your head is clearly stuck up your ass. Quote: "Is Hollywood the only thing that unites us? Who are these religious fundamentalists?". hollywood unites the wacko fringe left, religion unites the masses. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, Iraq90% of US Christians will always vote conservative |
|
|||
 4thedefenderr: how does allowing people to have their own beliefs make america a theocracy? What? 4thedefenderr: you're basically saying "freedom = oppression" What? 4thedefenderr: last I checked, christianity big on the whole "right and wrong" thing. that isnt true for atheism. What? 4thedefenderr: and if you think infinite justice was pre-emptive, What? 4thedefenderr: religion unites the masses. What? 1) Offtopic 2) I never said what you claim that I said 3) Please login posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
 4the defenderr, What you have said has either missed the point or is completely false. America doesn't have freedom of religion. How many candidates in the election were saying Allah bless America? Candidates were judged on how well they conformed to distinctly Christian principles. Bush is very militaristic (in case you hadn't noticed) and it can't help but be felt by some of us 'wishy washy liberals' (if that's what a British conservative supporter who hates Blair's lefty socialism is to be called) that Bush seems to be moved by some kind of religious intolerance between his own religion and that of the majority of the middle-east (guess which religion that would be). Also atheists are not any less moral than religious people. Atheists don't start wars based on religion for example. Claiming that atheists have no reason to be moral is just to talk out of one's backside. Morality is a perfectly natural way of acting. Sure religion can bring a people together... against people of the other religions. There are many books on the links between religion and violence. Try "The Curse Of Cain" by Regina M. Schwartz. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: 4the defenderr,
What you have said has either missed the point or is completely false. America doesn't have freedom of religion. How many candidates in the election were saying Allah bless America? Candidates were judged on how well they conformed to distinctly Christian principles. that's because them majority of americans are christians and want a candidate who shares their values. that IS religious freedom in action. it's like a muslim or a buddist or an atheist cant run. they just don't stand a chance in a national election. because THE PEOPLE wont vote for them. it's no different than a nazi or a communist. they can run, but the people don't want them, so they will excercise their FREEDOM by voting for someone else. that's what freedom is all about. Quote: Bush is very militaristic (in case you hadn't noticed) debatable, but that's another topic. Quote: and it can't help but be felt by some of us 'wishy washy liberals' (if that's what a British conservative supporter who hates Blair's lefty socialism is to be called) that Bush seems to be moved by some kind of religious intolerance between his own religion and that of the majority of the middle-east (guess which religion that would be). 1. I never called you liberal, but on this issue you are siding with the (american) liberals. 2. atheists may not fight for religion, but they do fight for ideologies. communism and fascism are both atheistic ideologies that caused much bloodshed. 2. america is not at war with a religion. it is at war with terrorism. it is at war with tyranny. you might even say it is at war with a culture (or sub-culture anyway) but not with a religion. now, the terrorists tend to claim a religious motivation, but even that is questionable, as they don't seem to have any respect for their own religion, and because they are also strongly motivated by arab nationalism. there is religious intolerence motivating this fight, but it is the intolerence of the terrorists, and it is motivating them. Quote: Also atheists are not any less moral than religious people. Atheists don't start wars based on religion for example. Claiming that atheists have no reason to be moral is just to talk out of one's backside. Morality is a perfectly natural way of acting. the problem comes from defining what morality is, and why we should follow it. religious morality is quite clear. it is based on divine command. god says what is right and what is wrong, and you listen because it's your place in the universe to do so. atheistic morality is a bit trickier. there are many theories but none of them are very effective. let's take a look: subjectivism: "there is no right or wrong, just likes and dislikes." the problem here should be quite obvious. it throws out the very concept of morality. cultural relativism: "each culture makes it's own rules and it's people are obligated to follow them" the problems here are even more numerous. not only does it throw out any real rules of right and wrong, it also says that you must obey the rules of your culture, which means any change (such as abolishing slavery, or instituting equal rights) would be wrong. and even then, there is no logical basis for this system. why am I obligated to obey my culture? social contract: "morality is simply an unwritten arangement that allows for an orderly society" this one doesnt even bother to say what should be right and wrong. instead, it tries to explain where it comes from, what it's purpose is. the problem here is that it not only takes the anything goes attitude, but that actually provides an excuse to do even nastier things. it has no problem with slavery, or the holocaust, because those victims werent part of the social contract. utilitarianism: "whatever action results in the most happiness for the most people, while causing the least unhappiness for the fewest people is the right thing to do" here is the current heavy-weight champ of atheist moral theory. unfortunately, it too is absolutely filled with holes. the first is that it claims "the ends justify the means." of course, since everything will end eventually (everyone dies, the sun will explode, the universe will collapse in on itself or fade into nothingness) all means lead to the same ends, so why bother? and of course, there is the problem of "why happiness?" all they can say is "why not?" hell they cant even seem to define happiness. most utilitarians simply treat it as being simple pleasure (sex, drugs, chocolate) and don't think about more complex forms of happiness (love, contentment, etc.). and even worse, it says we must eliminate freedom, basic civil rights, etc. and it also says, what you don't know wont hurt you. if I have a spycam in your shower, not only is it not wrong (as long as you don't find out) but because it brings me pleasure it is RIGHT for me to spy on you. I could go on for hours, but I think you get the picture. the point is, religious ideas of morality are a legitimate difference between us religious types and atheists. (hence, much of the debate over religious values is quite relevant to the political process) Quote: Sure religion can bring a people together... against people of the other religions. There are many books on the links between religion and violence. Try "The Curse Of Cain" by Regina M. Schwartz. again, books do not make it true. the problem is not a problem of religion. it is a problem of humanity. humans fight each other. it's our nature. religion is rarely the reason we fight. rather, it is almost always an excuse. in the crusades, the muslim rulers kicked christians and jews out of "the holy land" and in doing so, cut off europe from valuable trade routes and severly insulted the europeans. the religious part gave them an excuse to rally the troops, kick some ass, do some looting, take some land, gain control of trade with africa and asia, and get a whole lot more in the way of taxes. it's the way the world works. people fight for many reasons. usually, it is because the other guy has something they want (land, power, riches, pride etc.) and for many, this is not a good enough reason. so an excuse is needed to appease their conciences. usually, the excuse is the very thing that seperates group A from group B. it could be race, religion, nationality, history, whatever. I guarentee you, if you take away religion, you will still see all kinds of violence. religion is not the problem. people are the problem. religion is just another easy scapegoat. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
>You seem to have Freedom mixed up with Democracy. If a minorities viewpoints are not adressed they have not been granted freedom. It's not just religious minorities either. Look at the problems for the disabled. They have had to work long and hard to simply get ramps for wheelchairs installed. No one cared about these things because most people did not have to deal with them, but now finally there are laws to cope with them. Democracy is not the same as freedom is my point here. >Morality is not about religion. Just look at the way Christ encouraged people to look to morality. He didn't give commands. He asked questions and let people work it out for themselves. Morality is a postive force for peaceful and productive living. Atheists can recognise morals just as easily as Christians. Just because philosophers cannot define what morality is, doesn't mean that Christians have an easy way out. You have forgotten about the Euthyphro problem: Socrates asks: Why is the good 'good'? Does God will it because it is good or is it good because God wills it? If it is good because God wills it, then that suggests that it was not good in itself, but only in terms of the command. If it is God wills it because it is good then we still need to work out why it is good. >Certainly a book does not make something true, but it can provide evidence. Besides you have given a clear example of religious violence yourself - The Crusades. Atheist philosophies may have caused bloodshed, but no more than the religious wars did. (Don't give me figures from the holocaust - the figures will obviously be larger because of the weapons involved. The religious wars of the past have been large-scale massacres, so in terms of the time period they were equally horrific.) >Another point where you have given a helpful example for me is where you mention that what America is at war with is not a religion, but a culture (or sub-culture). The problem is that Islam IS a culture, as is Christianity. When the people feel their culture and all its values are being broken down they can sometimes react violently. What you consider to be secular is actually part of our culture, and as such it holds aspects of Christianity in its structure (Just like Christmas and Easter contain aspects of the old pagan cultures). >Religion has good and bad aspects. So does atheism. Your attempts to suggest that Christianity will unite a people in the name of goodness is naive and stupid. It unites people with a sense of group self-righteousness against the heathens elsewhere. Religion should not even be coming into these fragile political issues, but Bush invites the chaos that follows from such intermingling of ideas. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: How many candidates in the election were saying Allah bless America? That's a bit of an unfair remark since you had to compare "Allah bless America" with "Jehovah bless America" or "Manitu bless America" posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
4thedefenderr: atheists may not fight for religion, but they do fight for ideologies. 1) Not necessarily. They may fight for "general freedom". 2) Democracy is an ideology, too. You could even call "capitalism" or "free markets" an ideology, too 4thedefenderr: america is not at war with a religion. it is at war with terrorism. Good to know, that you believe what Bush claims. 4thedefenderr: there is religious intolerence motivating this fight, but it is the intolerence of the terrorists, and it is motivating them. Them, them, them. Smoke them out in the name of the Lord! 4thedefenderr: the first is that it claims "the ends justify the means." of course, since everything will end eventually (everyone dies, the sun will explode, the universe will collapse in on itself or fade into nothingness) all means lead to the same ends, so why bother? You know what? THAT is exactly Bush talk. He as a Christian knows that the end is near thus everything he does (debts, wars, hate) is built on the premise: It won't really matter: He is on a last-days-mission. 4thedefenderr: and even worse, it says we must eliminate freedom, basic civil rights, etc. and it also says, what you don't know wont hurt you. Hey, you are citing Bush here, right? 4thedefenderr: religion is just another easy scapegoat. You are weakening the power of religion here. Moreover you try to fade away a link between religion and brutality. Buddhists never started religion wars. Starting wars is something typical for old testament religions: Jews/Christians/Muslims. And no wonder: Their god is a brutal god who overwhelms with power and terror. Who wipes out the population of whole planets. And he talks to Bush... posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: Socrates asks: Why is the good 'good'? Does God will it because it is good or is it good because God wills it? What is the difference between "war" and terror"? And between "war on terror" and "terror on war"? I tell you what: The winner decides the difference. IMO → What is the difference between war,terrorism,assassinations? posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: >You seem to have Freedom mixed up with Democracy. If a minorities viewpoints are not adressed they have not been granted freedom. It's not just religious minorities either. Look at the problems for the disabled. They have had to work long and hard to simply get ramps for wheelchairs installed. No one cared about these things because most people did not have to deal with them, but now finally there are laws to cope with them. freedom is people being allowed to think and say and do as they please. if the people are religious, and choose to base they're votes on religious beliefs, that is there right. what is the alternative? Quote: Democracy is not the same as freedom is my point here. but we are talking about the interaction of freedom and democracy. people in this DEMOCRACY excercise their FREEDOM in acting on their beliefs. because of their numbers, they have a huge effect on the country, because that's how deomcracy works. it doesnt matter which group it is, they would all have this effect. Quote: >Morality is not about religion. Just look at the way Christ encouraged people to look to morality. He didn't give commands. He asked questions and let people work it out for themselves. Morality is a postive force for peaceful and productive living. Atheists can recognise morals just as easily as Christians. but that doesnt really say anything. what is the right thing to do, and why am I obligated to do it? if you are going to argue something is right or wrong, you must be able to answer this question. Quote: Just because philosophers cannot define what morality is, doesn't mean that Christians have an easy way out. You have forgotten about the Euthyphro problem:
Socrates asks: Why is the good 'good'? Does God will it because it is good or is it good because God wills it? If it is good because God wills it, then that suggests that it was not good in itself, but only in terms of the command. If it is God wills it because it is good then we still need to work out why it is good. I have not forgotten, I just chose not to bring it up because it is a faulty arguement. socrates was confronting a very different religion. the same argument does not apply to christianity. the christian god is the designer of all things. he knows everything, and therefore would be the only one in a real position to say what right and wrong really are. so if he comes up with right and wrong, then it only makes sense that they would fit his plans. and if he is somehow seperate from these pre-existing rules of right and wrong, then he is still the guy who will know exactly what they are. in essence, who else is in a position to say what we should and shouldnt do? are you gonna say that you are smarter than an all-knowing being? Quote: >Certainly a book does not make something true, but it can provide evidence. Besides you have given a clear example of religious violence yourself - The Crusades. Atheist philosophies may have caused bloodshed, but no more than the religious wars did. (Don't give me figures from the holocaust - the figures will obviously be larger because of the weapons involved. The religious wars of the past have been large-scale massacres, so in terms of the time period they were equally horrific.) but the point is, wars (supposedly) based on religion (often exagerated themselves, because many atheists claim all wars in ancient times were religious, when in fact they were more about the expansion of power) and wars based on secular ideologies are both wars. let me put it like this: there was a very outspoken professor at harvard who was arguing that they needed to ban jews because "jews cheat." when someone pointed out to him that other students cheat too, he replied "don't change the subject, we're talking about the jews!" do you see the absurdity? a major sign of bigotry is blaming a group of people for a problem that is systematic. to blame religion for war is to blame belief, principles and world view for war. whether those beliefs and principles are religious or secular makes little difference. Quote: >Another point where you have given a helpful example for me is where you mention that what America is at war with is not a religion, but a culture (or sub-culture). The problem is that Islam IS a culture, as is Christianity. When the people feel their culture and all its values are being broken down they can sometimes react violently. What you consider to be secular is actually part of our culture, and as such it holds aspects of Christianity in its structure (Just like Christmas and Easter contain aspects of the old pagan cultures). but the secular thugs are attempting to destroy the religious aspects of our culture (which is one of if not the most important and prominent features of our culture) and that's why teachers have to be stopped from showing kids the declaration of independance. it is absurd and highly unethical. people should be allowed to believe and worship as they please, and this war on religion in america is the exact opposite of such freedom. those who seek to impose secularism on our culture are no different than those who would seek to impose an oppressive theocracy. Quote: >Religion has good and bad aspects. So does atheism. Your attempts to suggest that Christianity will unite a people in the name of goodness is naive and stupid. It unites people with a sense of group self-righteousness against the heathens elsewhere. Religion should not even be coming into these fragile political issues, but Bush invites the chaos that follows from such intermingling of ideas. you are the one who is being naive (and quite frankly stupid) by suggesting that religion is what turns people into brutal hate filled psychos. people do that on their own. that's why religious people in one party hate religiou speople in another party, and atheists in one party hate atheists in another party. it's human nature. let's face it, people suck! oh I know, no one likes hearing it, but lets face it, who causes the big problems of the world? war, poverty, crime, hate, abuse, hippies, their all creations of man. hell, if atheists are right, then religion is just a creation of man too, and that means they get the blame for any problems their too. you see, that's the biggest mistake in the world. people get so full of themselves that they cant see how pathetic they really are. it happens in all aspects of society. yes, you can point a finger at the church, but that misses the point entirely. the religion (the core system of teachings and beliefs) is absolutely against this idiotic, hypocritical, egotistical hubris you see in some churches (and many other places as well. it ain't just religion, it's pervasive) that's why jesus was always beating up on the pharisees. they were no different than the hypocrits today who take that high horse and claim to be better than all those sinners out there. it's one of the most important aspects of the religion. we are all imperfect. that's why we need salvation. to blame the religion for the actions of certain churches and religious people is to ignore this important part of the religion (just as they must ignore it to do what they are doing) it is no different then blaming all atheists for the holocaust. an extreme example, but then again, no more extreme then blaming religion for war. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: 4thedefenderr: atheists may not fight for religion, but they do fight for ideologies. 1) Not necessarily. They may fight for "general freedom". 2) Democracy is an ideology, too. You could even call "capitalism" or "free markets" an ideology, too thanks for demonstrating another point for me. if I fight a war for god, does that make god bad? if people fight for freedom and justice, does that make freedom and justice bad? Quote: 4thedefenderr: america is not at war with a religion. it is at war with terrorism. Good to know, that you believe what Bush claims. well, you who so often demands proof, where is your proof that this is a war to destroy islam. do you think islam is incapable of surviving in a free democracy? Quote: 4thedefenderr: there is religious intolerence motivating this fight, but it is the intolerence of the terrorists, and it is motivating them. Them, them, them. Smoke them out in the name of the Lord! there you go again. I have said nothing of the sort. if the only way you can back up your beliefs about me and my religion is to make things up, then I suggest you reassess those beliefs. Quote: 4thedefenderr: the first is that it claims "the ends justify the means." of course, since everything will end eventually (everyone dies, the sun will explode, the universe will collapse in on itself or fade into nothingness) all means lead to the same ends, so why bother? You know what? THAT is exactly Bush talk. He as a Christian knows that the end is near thus everything he does (debts, wars, hate) is built on the premise: It won't really matter: He is on a last-days-mission. not even close. bush has never claimed anything of the sort. it's just the character assassins and the propogandists who want to paint him as an offensive stereotype for their own political purposes. it's pure BULLSHIT! the debts are half economic trouble (inherited from clinton, mutliplied by 911, and just now going away) and half spending on big important things (you may disagree with the war, but once the decision is made, it must be funded properly. and lets not forget the dept of homeland security, inteligence reform, and the compromises that had to be made with democrats to get a lot of important things done) and it will not take long to deal with them. lets not even get started on the war. that's been discussed to death. however, it doesnt really make sense for him to go to war for all the reasons the left claims he went to war for, if he does it because the end is near. if that were the case, wouldnt he just sit back, relax and wait for the end? I see a lot of hate around the president, but it isnt coming from him and his allies. it comes from his critics and his enemies. that is where you will see unprecidented levels of hate. I don't claim the guys on my side are perfect, but they are nothing like the blindly hate driven people on the left would paint them as. Quote: 4thedefenderr: and even worse, it says we must eliminate freedom, basic civil rights, etc. and it also says, what you don't know wont hurt you. Hey, you are citing Bush here, right? the only ones trying to eliminate freedom are the thugs on the left. but hey, what does that matter to you. you'd be just as happy listening to the lies and slander from the hatemongers, never bothering to examine the man they so loathe. Quote: 4thedefenderr: religion is just another easy scapegoat. You are weakening the power of religion here. Moreover you try to fade away a link between religion and brutality. Buddhists never started religion wars. Starting wars is something typical for old testament religions: Jews/Christians/Muslims. now we start seeing the real nature of the secularists. they hate christianity and judaism. other religions get a pass, but it is the ones that are closer to home that take all the flak. they focus all this blind hate and toxic rhetoric at these religions and more or less ignore the others. why is that? isnt that inconsistant with what they claim to be all about? actually, war is something that happens in every area of the world, regardless of culture or religion. how the hell do you explain wars in india, where for centuries the only religions available were supposed to be about pacifism. either these religions do it too, or it's just the secularists who are doing all the killing. religious or secular, all societies go to war. to blame the religions for war is the hight of bigotry. Quote: And no wonder: Their god is a brutal god who overwhelms with power and terror. Who wipes out the population of whole planets. And he talks to Bush... another atheist with an 8-year-olds understanding of christianity. try looking into the religion, rather than just repeating the same crap spewed by other like minded individuals. posted by 4thedefender |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
I think we have made it quite clear in this conversation that someone's beliefs in God is irrelevant to how nice a person they are. Therefore we should dismiss the belief in God as irrelevant and move on... posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
Die you fuckign republicans, Allah will avenge from above yo sick white trash stupid honky motherfuckers. Burn in hell you white devils! posted by KillerofConservatives |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 Quote: Die you fuckign republicans, Allah will avenge from above yo sick white trash stupid honky motherfuckers. Burn in hell you white devils! wow talk about ignorant...i guess ignorance works on either end of the spectrum huh? posted by Agent Zero |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: I think we have made it quite clear in this conversation that someone's beliefs in God is irrelevant to how nice a person they are. Therefore we should dismiss the belief in God as irrelevant and move on... what it means is that we are all humans, and with that comes the failings and weaknesses of the human race. whatever your religious beliefs are, you must still deal with your own human nature. however belief in god is not irrelevant. it is quite relevant. when one looks at mother teresa and osama bin laden, it would be idiocy to ignore the influence of religion. what I am saying is that we must always keep it in perspective. your belief system, religious or otherwise, is a primary factor in how you live your life. when one truly believes in an ideology, and lives by it, then that will be reflected in every aspect of their life. of course, we don't always act in accordance to our professed beliefs. there can be many reasons as to why, but in the end, i doesnt matter all that much. if a man ignores his beliefs, then we cannot accurately judge his beliefs based on his actions. in addition, we must also look at the whole picture. why is it atheists always seem to forget about the long history of religious charity? even today, the best, most effective charities are religious. those who actually follow the teachings of jesus are kind, generous and honest people who seek to help others whenever they can. they are still human, and will still make mistakes, but they do their best, and that's more than most people will ever do. if you want to attack a religion, then attack the religion itself, not those who follow it. to blame a religion for the actions of it's followers, when those actions violate the core principles of the religion, would be like blaming the police for crime, and doctors for disease. posted by fourthedefender |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
KillerofConservatives: Die you fuckign republicans, Allah will avenge from above yo sick white trash stupid honky motherfuckers. Burn in hell you white devils! can you feel the love here people? why do feel such hatred for those you disagree with? you are only hurting yourself. let go of your hate and anger, and find some thing better to fill your heart. posted by fourthedefender |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 23:36 php B.B. |