The Atheist Thread

bluetailfly wrote: I'd don't think very many individuals (at least on this website) can be shown to hold "falsly drawn conclusions." It's not simply a matter of that. Most individuals hold different assumptions, and that's not something you can claim is "falsely held."

I guess I didn't say exactly what I meant to say. 

What I meant was, if someone claims to prove that you're wrong, but does so with false logic, that logic is most likely going to be scrutinized.   for example, if I claimed to mathematically prove something, but did so by dividing by zero, people wouldn't just accept my proof, they would show that the logic I used was incorrect. 

The same applies for this.  You were arguing against atheism by using logical atrocities.  We weren't trying to destroy the conversation with "logic jargon," but to point out flaws in your logic. 

I think it really just boils to down to is this, does one really think that life could be a result of chance occurrence...atoms and molecules bombarding one another until the double helix of the DNA stand emerges. I mean, given an immense amount of time, and atoms and molecules bombarding one another in the wind, would a rolex watch all of sudden just be created...

Just because the way this occurs is beyond your comprehention does not mean that it is impossible.

your example of a rolex watch is irrelivant.  The organization of atoms in molecules is totally different from the organization of molecules and atoms into a solid.  All you're showing is a lack of understanding of the matter. 

rileydog22 wrote: I think it really just boils to down to is this, does one really think that life could be a result of chance occurrence...atoms and molecules bombarding one another until the double helix of the DNA stand emerges. I mean, given an immense amount of time, and atoms and molecules bombarding one another in the wind, would a rolex watch all of sudden just be created... Just because the way this occurs is beyond your comprehention does not mean that it is impossible.your example of a rolex watch is irrelivant.  The organization of atoms in molecules is totally different from the organization of molecules and atoms into a solid.  All you're showing is a lack of understanding of the matter.

I also don't understand why it is any more plausible that there is a cosmic being performing magic. The amount of time involved for DNA to occur is also quite vast. We're talking about billions of years.
    

rileydog22 wrote: I think it really just boils to down to is this, does one really think that life could be a result of chance occurrence...atoms and molecules bombarding one another until the double helix of the DNA stand emerges. I mean, given an immense amount of time, and atoms and molecules bombarding one another in the wind, would a rolex watch all of sudden just be created... Just because the way this occurs is beyond your comprehention does not mean that it is impossible.your example of a rolex watch is irrelivant.  The organization of atoms in molecules is totally different from the organization of molecules and atoms into a solid.  All you're showing is a lack of understanding of the matter.

I suppose you'll need to explain to me what "the matter" is, because I'm not sure what you mean by that.

But, you even make the point, "just because something is beyond my comprehsion doesn't mean it's impossible." Of course not, but the point is, the question of a creator is beyond everyone's comprehension. You can sit back and go, "I don't think there's a creator," but that's a ludicrous position to hold to, because you simply don't know. To state a claim that there is no creator is only a arrogant posturing.

Now as far as my Rolex example goes, I stand by it. It's that kind of chance occurrence that would have had to have happened to bring about this world by chance. Now if you want to stand by that, and believe the world came about because of swirling matter, and make that your belief system, fine. But I think it's instinctively ludicrous and imaginitively starved positon to hold to.

I am not personally vested in there being a creator, but it's a tantalizing question and one that will be until we die, and maybe after...

"But, you even make the point, "just because something is beyond my comprehsion doesn't mean it's impossible." Of course not, but the point is, the question of a creator is beyond everyone's comprehension. You can sit back and go, "I don't think there's a creator," but that's a ludicrous position to hold to, because you simply don't know. To state a claim that there is no creator is only a arrogant posturing."

I do agree. Moreover this position is often the scientist's position, who has a prejudice, whereas he sould have a neutral position.

Actually it comes from the cartesian philosophy which was born on middle-age obscurantism ashes and so refuses everything "spiritual" (even if this word is quite empty)or "divine" and rely only on a narrow minded materialism.




    

Edited by oliverstoned - January 14 2007 at 13:27

oliverstoned wrote: "But, you even make the point, "just because something is beyond my comprehsion doesn't mean it's impossible." Of course not, but the point is, the question of a creator is beyond everyone's comprehension. You can sit back and go, "I don't think there's a creator," but that's a ludicrous position to hold to, because you simply don't know. To state a claim that there is no creator is only a arrogant posturing." I do agree. Moreover this position is often the scientist's position, who has a prejudice, whereas he sould have a neutral position. Actually it comes from the cartesian philosophy which was born on middle-age obscurantism ashes and so refuses everything "spiritual" (even if this word is quite empty)or "divine" and rely only on a narrow minded materialism.

    
I appreciate your response, though I believe a true scientist would hold a neutral position on this as well, as the vast majority do.

oliverstoned wrote: Science is powerless to explain Infinity: we can symbolize it by a mathematical symbol, but it's beyond the human's mind understanding. To meditate.

    
I like that, and really I appreciate what the scientists are doing: they are working with matter, which as I see it is a piece of creation, and they are attempting to understand its properities as much as humanlely possible. Actually, if I were a scientist, I think that would stengthen my tendency to believe in an Umoved Mover. They are at least getting out of their idealistic heads a bit and interacting with the material world and are open to changing there fundamental assumptions if their experiements show them to be flawed.

It's not the scientists that I see are threatening the fundamental religious experience that human consciousness arouses, it's politicians and those that have reason to make preposterous unfounded claims in an attempt to motivate people to their cause. It's motivated by power or a response to power.

Originally posted by Sean Trane 

 

 

EDIT: JUST CHECKED AND THE NUMBER OF ATHEISTS IN THE WORLD IS OF 240'000,000 (ONLY 4% of the humanity), If you add Agnostic and non religious, who don't deny the existence of God, the pecentage increases to slightly bellow 20%.

 

So it's a bit arrogant to see  4% of the people asking to ban what 80% accept and believe and 16% claim to don't know or care.

 

Isn't this exactly the same methods that fanatics use to attack every other religion?

 

A very small minority claiming to know what's better for the humanity than 96%  of the world?

 

 

Exactly because this is for humanity's good. Everyone was for tobaccos just one hundred years ago, because it created wealth and jobs, and nobody cared for the health issues, especially for those who chose to abstain; Religion is like tobacco, a drug when almost everyone was enticed into delving into it (well nobody killed non-tobacco users, where non-religious users where tortured . We ask of it, because we know more massacre will come and that mass destructive weapons are now more and more in the hands of religious fanatics.

 

Do you not see that Atheism is (unfortunately) the ONLY way for peace. Atheists are the future of mankind, we are precursors. Religions only mean destructions (at the hands of radicals only, but since the moderates are not acting against the radicals) and the end of mankind. Those 4% (and much much much more in intellectual circles) are visionaries of sorts.

 

 Through religions, communities are created and as such they are inclusive (so far so good), but if you do not agree with the community (or as very often dispute the religious leader's credential), you are excluded (or excommunicated, which means rejected >> "not one of us" crap >>> and that starts to stink), and the other communities become dangers. Thus ending in warfares (religions wars are among the most commons in human history).

 

 

This medics start an alternative career using natural or esoteric methods creating an  extremely dangerous community, but I haven't heard anybody asking to close the Medical Associations or the Laboratories despite their criminal practices like selling the AIDS cocktail in US$ 18,000 a year (20 pills a day) when the one from the India (One pill a day) costs US$ 400.00 a year.

 

Hey Sports are dangerous, in some parts of Latin America, England, Scotland, etc the Hooligans have caused thousands of deaths for a stupid sport...Why don't we ban sports also, they are dangerous.

 

 

Politic is dangerous, civil wars are started frequently because the guy who lost the elections doesn't accept the results, lets ban politics also!!!!! 

 

Well while your examples are not exactly to the point, I am getting at, you are bound to get hit by god's wrath with bad faith by using bad examples; sports and medicine is good for human health, exploitation of it as a spectator's sport or medicine as an industry is not acceptable either. Let's just say that god, medicine and sports can be good; Religions, pharmaceutical empires and hooligans are evil.

 

As such , atheists feel that religions are obscurantist, and definitely not preaching the message of peace it is supposed to bring.

 

That's what Atheists feel, but accept it Sean, Atheists are a very small minority in the world, what they feel is irrelevant and would be also irrelevant if they were a majority because our rights to believe in what we want are protected in most civilized countries. >> yes those very same civil rights association that you so conveniently call atheists (and they are not) are responsible of that.

 

 

Thus is a weird way for religious people, atheists see religion as the root of a lot of evil.

 

Many religious groups see Atheists as root of evil, the lack of moral values in the young people is creating more violence than ever (Not saying Atheists lack of ,moral, but that's the perception a good number of persons have and is as flawed as saying Religion is negative), Religion is banned in schools, religions are not banned but in order to accommodate everyone (and avoid religious taking schools as battlegrounds), they are told to take in private. Private matters are not to be taught publicly. In most Western countries there are moral classes discussing religions and this is just fine.

 

but still once in a while some kid gets a Winchester and shoot other students because they are more popular than him or because he believes they are too stupid to live. >> and those kids probably were religious too. Over 95% of the US citizens declare themselves religious

 

The root of evil is humanity itself, we're an evil specie. Well there is obscurantism if I see it; speak for yourself, I am not evil and I don't think you are. I categorize humans as basically good, but they have a self-destructing gene and their willingness to affirm themselves as superior to their neighbours (hence the rat race for power) are to be seen also in other animals realms >> alpha reproductive males etc…   But your religious beliefs and dogmas (all religious tendencies) are the ones I see creating problems.  

 

 That might seems preposterous to religious people, but there is way too much proofs proving the atheists right that religious fanatics' intolerances are simply dangerous. And the fact that religious moderates are simply bloody scared of the fanatics, they should act against those fanatics from being a nuisance and  actually discrediting their "faith".

 

Religious groups try to close those fanatic branches >>> Come on  Ivàn, why would the Vatican kill Opus Dei, the same way Islam is not about to do anything to stop their god's little soldiers >> they come way tooooooooo handy for so many dirty jobs., they ban them or even excommunicate them but...THE ATHEIST CILVIL LIBERTIES GROUPS ARE THE ONES THAT JUMP TO MAKE A SCANDAL WHEN A GROUP OF FANATICS ARE PROSECUTED, SAYING THE GOVERNMENT IS ATTEMPTING AGAINST THEIR RELIGIOUS LIBERTY. >> again this trash of civil rights group being atheists. Please correct you views on those, because you are wrong. Those civil rights groups are usually constructed on the profile of the country they are in. If there may be some unreligious appearance, it is because of NEUTRALITY's sake. Because to ensure everyone's fallacies are free to express (privately) , the atheists (who are about as neutral as they can get) are often activating CRW defence to stop one religious faction exterminating another. Atheist could EASILY do without having to stop religion factions exterminating each other…..

 

Last week we saw members of this site saying that the Davidians in Waco were just good USA citizens in the excercize of their civil rights to have weapons...So not the Religious leaders, not the Pope, but the CIVIL LAW IS THE ONE THAT PROTECTS THIS FANATICS. >> I also read this wacko's ( couldn't resist that one) saying, but CRW are not atheists especially not in the US.  You are just as off balance by saying atheists protect sects against religions as that wacko was in his post.

 

To atheists, religious moderates are as much to blame as the fanatics, because they do not act towards the fanatics. Their laxism towards the fanatics is proving to as criminal as the fanatic's actions.

 

If it was for the organized religious groups, the fanatic sects would be eradicated but THE CIVIL RIGHTS ASSOCIATIONS ARE THE ONES WHO PROTECT THE FANATICS AND THIS ASSOCIATIONS ARE MAINLY ATHEIST. >>> Bullcrap Ivàn.. And you know it. Atheists would rather see sects wiped out from human's history even quicker than organized and established religions. Every single atheist thinks that sects are more dangerous than huge religions. Those advocating the right of belief are religious, because the atheists do not have religious beliefs.

 

 

Most atheists would like to see religions abolished because mankind is now intelligent enough to know that even if a god/creator existed, it would not need worshipping and massacring to its name. So if we atheists try to convince gullible religious people that blind faith or normal faith is not only dangerous, but makes you a puppet in the hands of the clerical authorities, it is for the good of the future of mankind that we try to stop them from "believing".

 

That's your perspective...WHY MUST HUMANITY ACCEPT IT? Aren't you acting as fanatic groups who want to abolish every religion that they don't believe in?

 

Aren't you saying:

1. We Don't believe in God.  >> but we can accept that a god exist if one wishes to. 
2. We believe Religion is dangerous, because religion is a form of power used to eradicate the others not agreeing with them
3. It doesn't matter if we are a minority, we act for the good of humankind, because we are precursors
4. Let disappear every other belief or disbelief different to ours. Nope religions are saying that!!! Atheism

Aren't you implying that you feel superior to obscurantist religious people who believe in something you don't? >> read my changes to your claiming what I claim.

Please Sean, massacres are in this days acts of fanatics >> Religious ones.

 

CIVIL SOCIETY SHOULD VANISH THIS FANATICS, NOT RELIGIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE POWER, THE WEAPONS OR THE LAW IN OUR SIDE, WHILE THE GOVERNMENT HAS IT, >> so you admit most moderates are powerless to help prevent your fanatics, yet you would like me to keep trusting the religions with man's future.

 

But the problem is that those fanatics vote and politicians want their votes, so they are the ones who protect them. >> Then since those fanatic's votes are so important, it is because they are much more numerous than you care to admit. I say roughly half the religious are fanatics or activists (and this is likely to grow in coming years) but not all in a bad manner. And those political leaders accepting the fanatic votes are more than likely at least more than just casual followers, they are active religious members themselves. Do you see where I'm getting at?? Actually you're helping me with arguments you are freely giving me here.

 

Unfortunately even at the XXIst century, this is a battle of everyday that is rather hard to fight.

 

Today there's a battle against everything, violence in schools, violence in streets, violence in sports, violence in politics, violence everywhere.

 

Isn't it clear that mankind will find any excuse to be violent if there was no Religion? I'll give you that much.

 

If it was for the organized religious groups, the fanatic sects would be erradicated but THE CIVIL RIGHTS ASSOCIATIONS ARE THE ONES WHO PROTECT THE FANATICS AND THOIS ASSOCOIATIONS ARE MAINLY ATHEISTS. Once again, CRW are not atheists, they must be neutral

  

 

It would be so nice if we could put all the religious fanatics in an arena, lock them in, throw them weapons so then can eliminate themselves. Trouble is that religious fanatics are searching power and are all too often in power and are happy to see how they can handle crowds, and are ready to destroy their opponents with armies.

 

I'm quoting your last parragraph in red and replacing a few words in blue

 

 

Your quote would apply to almost everything and we can't ban everything, humanity must learn to deal with this fanatics and the best way is too ignore them, the more propaganda they receive (Positive or negative) the more they will grow . True!!!!! all forms of power race is evil including the religious ones.

 

Prog fans are dangerous because they fight each other constantly on stupid issues: even when they pray the same musical ideals, they fight on bands, sub-genres, influences, etc...   (We have seen a lot of this)  >> I know Yes fanatics, DT and ELP fanatics are all evil, and not good for the prog cause

 

 

 

Would religions be intelligent enough to set aside their rivalries, atheists would probably not be worried for humankind's future and therefore would not seek to disprove a possible god's existance.

 

You can't force us to share the same beliefs or disbeliefs, lately there's a great effort between the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican and Orthodox religions to end the differences between them, this is a start.

 

But the President (Civil leader) of one country (You know who) went during his campaign to the Bob Jones University (Racist, fanatic, sectary, bigot and discriminatory) who attacks all other churches, just because he required their votes.  >>Not familiar with this, please be more specific if important >> if not drop it, because it will mean more arguments in my favor!!

 

I imagine you speak of Dubya >> is he not a religious fanatic???

 

Then blame the civil leaders not the organized religions, that University is so clearly illegal that I believe their tax benefits were suppressed when Mr. Jones banned the inter racial dating.

 

It may sound that atheists are trying to convince religions of their wrongdoings by eliminating the creator, but is the best way to stop wars is not to stop building weapons or is the best way to kill a disease not to attack the virus instead of the disease's symptoms???

 

No Sean, you can't eliminate the creator, Atheists don't have that power,  God exists (Or doesn''t exist as you say) independently from our acts. No wish to since he doesn't exist.

 

But why should you decide what is better for us? Again Sean, Atheists are a minority why should they decide what is right and what is wrong for the huge majority that doesn't agree with them?  >> because we are precursors

 

The countries where Religion was banned are precisely the less democratic in the world (USSR, Democratic Kampuchea (Democratic..ha ha), Mao's China, etc. >> you confuse communism with atheism and you pertinently know you are, just to score goals with the hand (of god >> right Diego? )

 

If you ban religions, probably the different Atheist philosophies will start to fight one against the other, Humanists against Rationalists against Naturalistic Pantheists, etc. >> argue maybe, fight unlikely raises armies against each , never

 

If you're a democratic person (I'm sure you are) you should be the first one in the line supporting our right to believe in what we want. In principle I am >> but unfortunately we have seen the disastrous results (let's be careful because religions did good too) of religions, it is now high time to get serious. Plus when religions could've let atheists or even Cathars believe want they wanted, they did nothing of the sort.

 

Believe me, if you ban religions something new will appear, race, stature,  weight, politics, sports, anything is a good excuse for violence and you can't ban everything. >> The rat race will keep on going I agree, but one of the worst causes will be eliminated.

 

Iván

 

Hugues

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Sean Trane

   

I think I hit the nail pretty well on the head (remember I was subjected/brainwashed to that stuff until I started thinking of my own), but I do not have your reading on the "event" and its consequences.

 

As I said before Sean, apparently you consider that we have been brainwashed and we're not able to think on our own...Or am I wrong? Contrary to you, my fiend, my huge advantage is to know what I've been lead to believe or brain-fed when I was a kid. And I would really hate to think of what I'd be like (knowing all my flaws) if I was also endoctrined by religion >> * shud-d-d-d-ders in pure horror*

 

Religions capitalize on the guilts instilled almost at birth when you are baptised. Then they tell you that no matter what you do, you are a sinner (and paying for that original sin in Eden) and thaty no-one will ever be able to amend that offence to that god. So you start in life with a huge debt and no chance of erasing it.

 

Seems you don't know what the Baptism means for the Catholic Church.

 

With this sacrament WE'RE FREE OF THE ORIGINAL SIN, without doing anything, only because Christ sacrificed to save us. Baptism is only welcoming you in religion , a bit like you mark the new born cattle with a red iron  >> to say he's ours, not to be taken.  If it was the way you say so, then why are we always guilty???

 

So we start our life free of sin, the huge debt has been already paid.

 

I'd rather be blissfully ignorant than to play in that poker game where you can only loose.

 

I don't believe that living according to your principles is a loose game,. from the start it's not a game, it's something serious, a real choice you must accept or reject, that's your option. Game was a metaphor fore life Ivàn, you knew that!!!

 

Ivàn

 Your friend (reminds me of the good times)

 

Sean in Green......Iván in Blue

 

Exactly because this is for humanity's good. Everyone was for tobaccos just one hundred years ago, because it created wealth and jobs, and nobody cared for the health issues, especially for those who chose to abstain; Religion is like tobacco, a drug when almost everyone was enticed into delving into it (well nobody killed non-tobacco users, where non-religious users where tortured . We ask of it, because we know more massacre will come and that mass destructive weapons are now more and more in the hands of religious fanatics.

 

Why is Religion as Tobacco? Because you say so? or because a small part of 4% believes so?

 

Isn't a moral code good even if you don't want to believe in the Religious part?

 

Isn't teaching to do to others as you want them to do to you good?

 

This is the advange of the free world, 96% of the people is allowed to believe Religion is good and a small part of 4% is allowed to believe the contrary.

 

Mass destruction weapons were more dangerous than today when weere in hands of an Atheist country as USSR, so don't blame Religion for this.

 

 

Do you not see that Atheism is (unfortunately) the ONLY way for peace.

 

I don't believe so and 96% off the humanity doesn't believe so.

 

Atheists are the future of mankind, we are precursors. Religions only mean destructions (at the hands of radicals only, but since the moderates are not acting against the radicals) and the end of mankind. Those 4% (and much much much more in intellectual circles) are visionaries of sorts.

 

You're talking as those fanatics that you criticize so much, you are trying to tell us that your way is the only one, that you are a precursor when as a fact even Governments have failled in their attempt to destroy religion.

 

And again don't claim the representation of that 4% of Atheists, just a few posts ago another Atheist told you that he doesn't support your claims, that he is in favour of freedom of faith as most civilized world.

 

Well while your examples are not exactly to the point, I am getting at, you are bound to get hit by god's wrath with bad faith by using bad examples; sports and medicine is good for human health, exploitation of it as a spectator's sport or medicine as an industry is not acceptable either. Let's just say that god, medicine and sports can be good; Religions, pharmaceutical empires and hooligans are evil.

 

I'm not talking about healthy sport or as recreation I'm talking about organized armies of Hooligans destroying everything before them, I'm talking in Mike Tysons that hardly are able to read but receive US$ 40'000,000 for breaking the head of another man while people who has studied all their lives can't dream with that.

 

Lets say Religions are Good, fanatics are evil (The same argument can be used by both parts) 

 

 >> yes those very same civil rights association that you so conveniently call atheists (and they are not) are responsible of that.

 

I don't say it, the Atheist organizations claim to have the lead in Civil rights, read what the San Francisco Atheist Organization says while they take the credit of being the main Civil Rights watchers in USA.

 

But thanks God there are civilized Atheist Organizations who strongly disagree with you:

 

Organized atheism supports the right to hold religious beliefs but vigorously opposes religious behavior that is politically and socially predatory or harms innocent people. http://www.atheistsforhumanrights.org/

 

They are the first to disagree with you Sean.

 

 

 I would hint that most religious think that only their religion is not obscurantist and that all other religions are obscurantist. Most Christians would love seeing Islam disappearing (and the opposite is true too) off the face of the earth. And from what I judge over half the Christians and Muslims would like to see the other obliterated from this planet

 

Don't judge us for what some fanatics say as i don't judge Atheists for what you say.

 

Today Catholic Church messes with nobody, we don't even claim to have the exclusivity of salvation, we believe it's an open path for all just men.

 

About 15 years ago, the Catholic, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans are having meetings to stop the differences and joiun again, because we're have more in common (Jesus faith) than any  difference.

 

religions are not banned but in order to accommodate everyone (and avoid religious taking schools as battlegrounds), they are told to take in private. Private matters are not to be taught publicly. In most Western countries there are moral classes discussing religions and this is just fine.

 

Casually the rate of violence has increased in schools since the days in which Religious expressions were not banned.

 

Even though I believe Religion is private or a mnatter of a congregation, why should we be silenced if Atheism can be mentioned everywhere? Isn't this inverse discrimination?

 

 >> and those kids probably were religious too. Over 95% of the US citizens declare themselves religious

 

False all those kids who have shooted in schools have clearly expressed their reasons (With the police or in postumous videos), most of them because they hated the popular people or because they believed they were superior to the rest or because they were mentally ill.

 

 speak for yourself, I am not evil and I don't think you are. I categorize humans as basically good, but they have a self-destructing gene and their willingness to affirm themselves as superior to their neighbours (hence the rat race for power) are to be seen also in other animals realms >> alpha reproductive males etc…   But your religious beliefs and dogmas (all religious tendencies) are the ones I see creating problems.  

 

Man as an individual is not necesarilly evil, but humanity is:

1. What other specie kills for greed?
2. What other specie starts wars for territory
3. What other specie dresses in their best clothes and goes to a Colloseum to watch how an anuimal is tortured.
4. What oher specie pays US$ 10,000 for a ringside ticket to watch two humans hitting their brains to death? 

Don't blame religion for this, this is human nature.

 

>>> Come on  Ivàn, why would the Vatican kill Opus Dei, the same way Islam is not about to do anything to stop their god's little soldiers >> they come way tooooooooo handy for so many dirty jobs.,

 

I'm not an Opus Dei fan but they have never done anything illegal or violent, unless you believe in the Da Vinci Code and albino monks trying to kill their enemies  

 

Yesterday another member who accused the Catholic Church of doing nothing during WWII had to accept the cold facts of at least 40,000 humans from a different religion saved inside the walls of the Vatican.

 

People talk without knowing,. i don't agree with Opus Dei, but they are far from violent.

 

. >> again this trash of civil rights group being atheists. Please correct you views on those, because you are wrong. Those civil rights groups are usually constructed on the profile of the country they are in. If there may be some unreligious appearance, it is because of NEUTRALITY's sake. Because to ensure everyone's fallacies are free to express (privately) , the atheists (who are about as neutral as they can get) are often activating CRW defence to stop one religious faction exterminating another. Atheist could EASILY do without having to stop religion factions exterminating each other…..

 

It's not trash, the Atheist Organizations boast to have the lead in human rights, read any page like Atheists for Human Rights.

 

What neutrality? You can't praise God in Public but you can proclaim your atheism, in other words 96% of the people has to do what less than 4% wants, that's not neutrality.

 

 

 >> I also read this wacko's ( couldn't resist that one) saying, but CRW are not atheists especially not in the US.  You are just as off balance by saying atheists protect sects against religions as that wacko was in his post.

 

Human Rights Organizations protect the fanatics, the law protects the fanatics, that's a fact. I believe it's insane to allow a aprent let his/her kid die because they are against transfusions, but when organized Churches say something about this issues, they are accused of being authoritative or arrogant.

 

>>> Bullcrap Ivàn.. And you know it. Atheists would rather see sects wiped out from human's history even quicker than organized and established religions. Every single atheist thinks that sects are more dangerous than huge religions. Those advocating the right of belief are religious, because the atheists do not have religious beliefs.

 

But they claim to be the pladins of Civil Rights and they go to extremes to prove it. Catholic Church inmediately excomunicates this fanatic grouups, sanctions the priests when they accept political charges (Look at Bishop Ernesto Cardenal in Nicaragua) but more we can't do because law doesn't allow us to do more.

 

1.  >> but we can accept that a god exist if one wishes to. But you want to ban Religion, in other words believe in what you want but you can't organize.
2. Bcause religion is a form of power used to eradicate the others not agreeing with them Again, don't talk about all of us for a bunch of fanatics, we don't care for Power as a Religion, by the contrary in the case of Catholuic and Orthodox Churches, priests are forbidden to accept political positions.
3. W act for the good of humankind, because we are precursors You act for WHAT YOU THINK IS GOOD FOR HUMANITY AND WE POOR STUPID FANATICS MUST ACCEPTR YOUR POSITION
4. Nope religions are saying that!!! Atheism False, we are against any form of discrimination against Atheists

>> Religious ones. Yeah sure: Cambodia, China, USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, all atheist form of Government that commited horrendous crimes against humanity

  >> so you admit most moderates are powerless to help prevent your fanatics, yet you would like me to keep trusting the religions with man's future.

 

Our limits are where the law marks it (CIVIL LAW), we aren't allowed to close a fanatic sect without being sued, only the law can do that, so don't blame us.

 

 >> Then since those fanatic's votes are so important, it is because they are much more numerous than you care to admit. I say roughly half the religious are fanatics or activists (and this is likely to grow in coming years) but not all in a bad manner.

 

I don't know where you take this data, I live in a 95% Catholic country, and Churches are empty every sunday, I believe barely 5% are activists or faithful religious.

 

And those political leaders accepting the fanatic votes are more than likely at least more than just casual followers, they are active religious members themselves. Do you see where I'm getting at?? Actually you're helping me with arguments you are freely giving me here.

 

So called Christian politicians also  visited Sinagoguies offering help to Israel and Mosques offering tollerance to Moslems, Politicians use anything even if they don't believe in it.

 

 

Isn't it clear that mankind will find any excuse to be violent if there was no Religion? I'll give you that much.

 

Then why ban religion if every single issue is pottencially dangerous and vioient?

 

Once again, CRW are not atheists, they must be neutral

 

I will believe that when Atheist Organizations stop claiming they take the lead in Civil Rights. 

I quoted your phrase with some changes, but you obviously deleted them  

 

True!!!!! all forms of power race is evil including the religious ones.

 

 

 >>Not familiar with this, please be more specific if important >> if not drop it, because it will mean more arguments in my favor!!

 

Our friend Bush visiting the Bob Jones University during campaigne, he calls himself a Christian but goes to this hall of bigottry to get votes.

 

But he also visited Sinagogkes, The Catholic Monsignor and the representatives of Moslem faith.

 

 

 

>> you confuse communism with atheism and you pertinently know you are, just to score goals with the hand (of god >> right Diego? )

 

No, I have my mind clear, I know Communism is Atheist and that's a fact, those countries banned religion and made of Atheism the official belief, that's also a fact, I'm just mentioning facts.

 

I never said Atheism is Communist that would be a lie

 

>> argue maybe, fight unlikely raises armies against each , never

 

 

In principle I am >> but unfortunately we have seen the disastrous results (let's be careful because religions did good too) of religions, it is now high time to get serious. Plus when religions could've let atheists or even Cathars believe want they wanted, they did nothing of the sort.

 

In other words you are a democrat until péople disagrees with you or in other words democracy is the right to act according Sean's beliefs?

 

 

Then what will be next, do we have to ban everything YOU disagree with ?

 

 

Contrary to you, my fiend, my huge advantage is to know what I've been lead to believe or brain-fed when I was a kid. And I would really hate to think of what I'd be like (knowing all my flaws) if I was also endoctrined by religion >> * shud-d-d-d-ders in pure horror*

 

False Catholic Baptism liberates the born child from the Original sin, read a bit of Theology, at least as a philosophy, doesn't hurts unles you believe you will be brainwashed

 

The official Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear and evident, we don't live with the sin over us, without any effort of our part, the Original sin is forgiven and if Baptozed as an adult, any previous personal sin also.

 

 Game was a metaphor fore life Ivàn, you knew that!!!

 

In my case also, I only expanded the metaphor

 

 Your friend (reminds me of the good times)

 

Me too, and I enjoy it.

 

 

The Good days are back.

 

Iván

Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - January 16 2007 at 19:14

rileydog22 wrote: I disagree. The athiest USSR never used any nuclear weapons. If I recall correctly, the only nation to use nukes was a Christian nation in North America....