All of this christian bashing is so ignorant and stupid.

[T_Money]

Here's a lovely quote from madnek or something:


"Because I don't think Christianity is about love. I think it's as far from that as can be. If the marine had run up to the sniper, ripped his arms off, and spent three weeks torturing him, would you have had the same emotional reaction? How about if he did it to the guy's whole family, while he watched, just to punish him? Now we're getting close to Christianity."

Really? It seems to me you haven't really done [censored] to find out what christianity is about. Oh wait, you're pulling this example from the Old testament. Hmm, yup refer back to your lack of research. Oh wait it musta been the crusades. Because I mean, there's no way some perverse men decided to twist and falsify "god's" word into something it wasn't in an attempt to get more worldly power. I mean, every christian ever was a perfect saint, and in fact, every christian ever claims this to be so.

Here's a question for you. Do you hate muslims like you hate christians (and please don't say you don't hate christians. If you don't hate someone who you consider to be the equivolent of a torturer who tortures and kills a man's family in front of him and then tortures and kills the man, then frankly, you're pathetic). Last time I checked, most "intellectuals" were making sure that the public understood that these "radicals" were not indicitive of the muslim community.

But ahh, christianity has shown itself to be violent and evil throughout history, therefore it must be stopped. So I guess if some evolutionists started blowing up churches it would be stupid for christians to "hate" evolution based on the action of a few radicals. But if like 60% of evolutionists started doing it, then they would be justified in hating evolution (notice I said evolution and not the evolutionist who did these terrible things). But whatever, carry on.

[Duals21]

If the people fond of bashing Christianity in this forum are at all influenced by Dawkins, Harris, etc. I would say they def. feel the same way about Muslims.

[Magic_Man]

Two comments:

1) It annoys me when people equate "evolutionist" with "atheist." There are plenty of ways to incorporate evolution into religous beliefs.

2) There is no way to (mis)interpret evolution to mean "you must blow up churches." However, there apparently is a way to (mis)interpret islam into "you must kill all infidels." Evolution does not tell us to act in any particular manner. Religion specifically dictates the proper way to live life, which in some cases can include killing nonbelievers. Even if fundamentalist Christians aren't doing it directly, they are doing it indirectly by stifling important cancer research. And taking away people's happiness by opposing gay marriage, banning online gambling, putting kids in jail for oral sex...the list goes on and on. A simple belief in evolution does none of these things.

[T_Money]

[ QUOTE ]
Two comments:

1) It annoys me when people equate "evolutionist" with "atheist." There are plenty of ways to incorporate evolution into religous beliefs.

2) There is no way to (mis)interpret evolution to mean "you must blow up churches." However, there apparently is a way to (mis)interpret islam into "you must kill all infidels." Evolution does not tell us to act in any particular manner. Religion specifically dictates the proper way to live life, which in some cases can include killing nonbelievers. Even if fundamentalist Christians aren't doing it directly, they are doing it indirectly by stifling important cancer research. And taking away people's happiness by opposing gay marriage, banning online gambling, putting kids in jail for oral sex...the list goes on and on. A simple belief in evolution does none of these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

First, the evolution was just an example and didn't really have anything to do with athiesm, christianity or anything, just something that I'm sure almost all nonbelieving people agree with (evolution that is). Secondly, you're right, there is no part of evolution that says to blow up churches. That's the point. However there definitely exist people who may decide that, for the "indirect ways" you mentioned above, churches are impeding progress and there is no other alternative than to blow them up and they will then claim that they did it to help evolution.

BTW, your also wrong on your comments about oral sex jailings and banning online gambling, etc. How you can blame christianity for that is ridiculous. Our government is supposed to be for the people by the people. ie, the voters who elected Frist, and the voters who elected the other people who voted for all the other bills you mention are to blame. Maybe they were elected simply because they were christian, but our government is set up to (and I know this is simplifying it too much) make the majority opinion law. You should have a beef w/ the govt and society, not christianity on those issues.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
but our government is set up to (and I know this is simplifying it too much) make the majority opinion law. You should have a beef w/ the govt and society, not christianity on those issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe all the laws in georgia would be the same as they are now if 100% of georgian lawmakers were muslim for the last 200 years, or atheists?

When a law shows up ( in a muslim state it could be 'banning alcohol consumption') that is clearly drawn from the majorities religion then that law is there 'because of that religion'.

There that wasn't so difficult was it? Next.
( I have no way of knowing if you are one of poster Taraz's xtrian sects that ... "...are consistent with thought, reason, and science." I'm assuming so or I wouldn't bother to write this out for you).

cheers, luckyme

[T_Money]

No genius, the law is there BECAUSE IT IS MAJORITY OPINION. If the majority opinion was different, the laws would be different. Your supposed "point" that if atheist or muslims were the majority the law would be drastically different proves this. In other words, blame living in a democracy, not christianity. If you want it to be different, go be a dictator of a country and make laws that the majority opinion is against, ala saddam and countless others. Look I'll get all cute and arrogant now too, NEXT.

And by the way, I'm not a member of anything, I would not consider myself religous, although I can understand where many christian people are coming from.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
btw, of course Islam is a worse and more dangerous religion than Christianity. Only brain-dead left-wingers could possibly believe otherwise at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you validate this?

[ QUOTE ]
Here in Australia we have democracy, and we have a liberal society with hardly any deeply religious types in office.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it democratic to make it a punishable offense to abstain from voting?

Does it not make a mockery of democracy to have a Prime Minister carry 4 terms consecutively?

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
First, the evolution was just an example and didn't really have anything to do with athiesm, christianity or anything, just something that I'm sure almost all nonbelieving people agree with (evolution that is). Secondly, you're right, there is no part of evolution that says to blow up churches. That's the point. However there definitely exist people who may decide that, for the "indirect ways" you mentioned above, churches are impeding progress and there is no other alternative than to blow them up and they will then claim that they did it to help evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, well look. When guys start blowing up churches and citing atheism or belief in evolution as their reasons, then you can start arguing that these beliefs can be used to justify violence. Until then, using hypotheticals like this in an argument is totally worthless.

btw, of course Islam is a worse and more dangerous religion than Christianity. Only brain-dead left-wingers could possibly believe otherwise at this point.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, your also wrong on your comments about oral sex jailings and banning online gambling, etc. How you can blame christianity for that is ridiculous. Our government is supposed to be for the people by the people. ie, the voters who elected Frist, and the voters who elected the other people who voted for all the other bills you mention are to blame. Maybe they were elected simply because they were christian, but our government is set up to (and I know this is simplifying it too much) make the majority opinion law. You should have a beef w/ the govt and society, not christianity on those issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

WHAT?? This is completely incoherent. Here in Australia we have democracy, and we have a liberal society with hardly any deeply religious types in office. However, as is currently becoming painfully clear in Iraq, democracy there results in the election of sectarian maniacs, who proceed to try to abolish democracy. In Venezuela, democracy resulted in the election of Hugo Chavez, a megalomaniac criminal hell-bent on destroying the country's economy.

All these countries have democracy. The difference between them lies in the belief systems of the voters. If a large portion of the voters have a belief system - Christianity - that causes them to vote to curtail my liberties, why would I blame democracy rather than blaming that belief system? Democracy works just fine where people don't consult imaginary friends before casting their votes.

[T_Money]

[ QUOTE ]


WHAT?? This is completely incoherent. Here in Australia we have democracy, and we have a liberal society with hardly any deeply religious types in office. However, as is currently becoming painfully clear in Iraq, democracy there results in the election of sectarian maniacs, who proceed to try to abolish democracy. In Venezuela, democracy resulted in the election of Hugo Chavez, a megalomaniac criminal hell-bent on destroying the country's economy.

All these countries have democracy. The difference between them lies in the belief systems of the voters. If a large portion of the voters have a belief system - Christianity - that causes them to vote to curtail my liberties, why would I blame democracy rather than blaming that belief system? Democracy works just fine where people don't consult imaginary friends before casting their votes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored], take a god damn government class. They vote to curtail your liberties because they don't believe people should have those liberties. It is then made into law because that is the GOD DAMN JOB OF DEMOCRACY. A democracy doesnt give a rats about your liberty, it only cares that "people get from the govt what they ask from the govt." Just because you live in a democracy doesn't guarantee you any rights or liberties, only that the govt will do what the majority of people want it to.

[ChrisV]

What on earth? How can you not get this? An analogous argument might be that 9/11 happened not because of the religious beliefs of the hijackers, but because there are such things as passenger airplanes. It's a completely back to front argument. People's opinions are the driving force behind legislation; democracy is merely the machinery via which those opinions are enforced.

You've just admitted that a population with different belief systems leads to different legislative results. To change the laws of the land, we can either abolish democracy (immoral and inadvisable) or we can try to change people's opinions. I'm well aware that "A democracy doesnt give a rats about my liberty", as you put it. That's why I'm an anti-theist, because it pisses me off when people consult their imaginary friends and come back with the news that he told them they have to take control of sections of my life.