OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,963
- Points
- 1,140
Technoviking said:Yes. Very tolerant and open-minded. Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality.
Not tolerant at all.
Good point.
Technoviking said:Yes. Very tolerant and open-minded. Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality.
Not tolerant at all.
Technoviking said:It sounds very intolerant to me. It's not that he doesn't want religion imposed on him. He wants it banished from his sight. Imagine if someone were to say that they wanted something they didn't like banished from public view. Something that is the cause du jour, such as homosexuality. "As long as you don't try and teach it to my children, absolutely. As long as you keep it to yourself I don't mind..."
Now TV, while I seem destined to point out logical inconsistencies, we both know that "religion" and "homosexuality" are not linguistically interchangeable in that argument.Technoviking said:Yes. Very tolerant and open-minded. Now reread it, but replace the word "religion" with homosexuality.
Not tolerant at all.
Journeyman said:Now TV, while I seem destined to point out logical inconsistencies, we both know that "religion" and "homosexuality" are not linguistically interchangeable in that argument.
I'm sorry, I was talking with TV. I'm familiar with his intellectual capability.cupper said:Same can be said for Homosexuality and Penis.
And buy replacing penis with homosexuality, aren't you leaving out a significant portion of the LGBT community? :dunno:
Journeyman said:I'm sorry, I was talking with TV. I'm familiar with his intellectual capability.
By trying to transpose penis and homosexuality, linguistically, you're .......nevermind...stick to pre-conceived notions :
It shouldn't come as a shock, really. Atheism and Theism are, by definition, intolerant of each other. Their ideas are incompatible and cannot be combined into a philosophical hybrid. That being said, there's no reason for people to act rudely towards each other regardless of the others belief or lack thereof. But, if one hasn't thought deeply enough to realize that religion and atheism are incompatible beliefs, I hold little hope for one's future.ballz said:...my only point in posting is to point out the hypocrisy and intolerance of all these religions towards atheism.
Oooo... pretty sure there are things like facts that disagree with you on that one. Terribly aware of the history of the persecution of Christianity (and other religions) under Soviet Communism are you? Personally know a lot of folks who had family members killed for no other reason than believing in a deity, do you? Just out of curiosity, what do you think all these martyrs were killed for?...no atheist was motivated by atheism to do bad deeds...
Are you sure we're talking about the same guy? I'm talking about Bill Mahr, the guy who made the "Religulous" movie where he made all the exact same errors in logic as the people he was criticizing. His little monologue at the end where he encourages people to become activists to ban and outlaw religion puts him, pretty solidly to my mind, in the anti-theist camp.Maher isn't even atheist, he's a rationalist.
If you're talking about places like Saudi Arabia, I'm right with you on that one. However, I'm not aware of any laws in Canada that are uniquely tied to religions, unless you're errantly assuming that things like charitable tax-exempt statuses and such are religiously motivated. They're not. They date from before the Government got into the social safety net business. At the time, if you were broke, had no income, needed food, shelter, etc., the place you went to for help was a Church, Synagogue or Temple of some sort. The social safety net was grass-roots and generally run by the various religious groups. Sometime later, some politicians got it in their head that they could do all this so much better, so they created welfare, EI and universal health care, etc. And all the welfare fraud examples that we can think of show exactly how good the politicians have been at it.Dawkins and Hitchens wanting to "abolish" religion is actually that they just want to abolish things like laws being tied to religion...
One's beliefs affects one's actions on a daily basis, regardless of whether one is aware of it or not. This would be akin to attempting to stamp out breathing....they just don't want people's beliefs affecting what they do in their daily life.
And, in Canada at least, they have it.They want the separation of church and state
Like, that there is no God? lol! But seriously, it's important to note that science does not have any data that necessitates the existence of a deity, and, at the same time, it equally has exactly no data that rules it out. The existence of God is beyond the scope of science, and frankly, science does not speak to that subject without grievious manipulation. The idea that atheism is more scientific is a fallacy. This little detail, of course, does not make theism any more scientific either. Science is 100% neutral on the existence of God, and attempting to make it seem any other way is deceitful....they don't want kids being taught in school at an early age to believe something that has no evidence to support it.
Ummm... not quite. Galileo was never jailed for heliocentrism, and he most certainly did not discover the world is spherical. That is a modern myth. The Greeks knew the earth was a sphere as early as the 6th Century BC. Galileo was put under house arrest for publicly insulting the Pope. That is the actual historic fact. Galileo was not the first person to suggest heliocentrism - that honour goes to a fellow by the name of Copernicus, who, by the way, remained a Priest in good standing with Rome his entire life. In fact, a good number of Renaissance scientists were all sorts of clergy, too. Galileo certainly improved Copernicus' ideas, but he did not discover heliocentrism.They also believe that religion holds back humanity from finding answers, and they're right, the Catholic church only just recently admitted that it was wrong for putting Galileo in jail for discovering the world is round and that it orbits the sun.
ivan the tolerable said:Terribly aware of the history of the persecution of Christianity (and other religions) under Soviet Communism are you?
recceguy said:
recceguy said:Bullshit. I don't give two flying potatoes what you believe or what your soul needs to sleep at night. I won't judge you. You don't judge me.
milnews.ca said:My poor attempt at humour - rationalist.
cupper said:Not sure that this would be the best example to use for your argument.
Yes, the Soviet Union was officially atheist (although there was limited allowance of the orthodox faith to be practiced through state sanctioned churches)...
...this was just a justification for the policy or religious persecution. The real driver was that the Communist Party could not allow the masses to follow beliefs which were beyond their control, and thus a possible avenue of subversive dialog from outside forces.
Michael O'Leary said:And who here is arguing that they should be?
Where have I, or anyone in the thread, supported that view?
And what exact post of mine are you referring to? You may want to take a breath and have a long thought about:ballz said:Just wondering if you are still asking these questions and if you have read Ivan's post about how atheists have earned what that study suggests. :