Atheistforums.com

(http://gatesofvienna.net/2018/03/islam-in-america-we-bring-everything-and-the-quran/%5B/url)

QuoteZvi Yehezkeli is an Israeli journalist and filmmaker who is fluent in Arabic. In the following documentary about Islam in America, he created a false identity for himself as a Palestinian so he could gain entry to places where infidels are normally not allowed, and hear things that are normally hidden from the kuffar. He visited the Dar al-Hijra Mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, where Anwar al-Awlaki used to be the imam. He went to Dearborn, Michigan and was given a tour by the Arab-American police chief, Ron Haddad. He visited CAIR headquarters in Tampa and talked to its director, Hassan Shibly. And he had some interesting conversations with Muslim taxi drivers in Miami.

Posted for educational purposes. Watch the video.

Not typical.  Most American Muslims are former Nation of Islam, not ME people at all.  This started when Malcolm X broke away from Nation of Islam, and was assassinated for it.  Most ME folks come in from Canada, where it is easier to get into at first.  So yes, if you cherry pick, one can find a bad imam, anywhere.  You can also find a few progressives (not many).  The US isn't Europe or Britain ... or even Canada.

Joseph Lumbard is an educated, White, American Muslim  And I respect his scholarship and knowledge of Arabic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjsyGOaWEBw

Quote from: pr126 on March 28, 2018, 11:45:52 PM


Posted for educational purposes. Watch the video.
(http://gatesofvienna.net/2018/03/islam-in-america-we-bring-everything-and-the-quran/%5B/url)

If you think I am promoting idiotic, cruel and violent Islam in any way, you are quite mistaken.  What I've been saying is that they aren't much different than other religions at this same time in their history and that other religions can be just as violent even in modern history.  Christians and Protestants were bombing and shooting each other just a few decades ago, Christian fanatics bomb Planned Parenthood facilities, Hindus and Moslems massacre each other, Christians are killed in Moslem and Hindu lands, and Moslems and Hindus (among other religious groups and hated in Christian places.  There seems to be no end to it.

The end WOULD be freedom FROM religion, but apparently we are not ready for that yet.  I look forward to the day...

Quote from: Cavebear on March 29, 2018, 07:07:19 PM
If you think I am promoting idiotic, cruel and violent Islam in any way, you are quite mistaken.  What I've been saying is that they aren't much different than other religions at this same time in their history and that other religions can be just as violent even in modern history.  Christians and Protestants were bombing and shooting each other just a few decades ago, Christian fanatics bomb Planned Parenthood facilities, Hindus and Moslems massacre each other, Christians are killed in Moslem and Hindu lands, and Moslems and Hindus (among other religious groups and hated in Christian places.  There seems to be no end to it.

The end WOULD be freedom FROM religion, but apparently we are not ready for that yet.  I look forward to the day...

Oh, no!
You forgot how bad Atheists were in the 20th century!
What, 115 million dead!
If you want to paint the picture, remember to paint the background too!
That is normally the largest coverage on the canvass.

I... don't see a video.

All I could find is Islam in Europe. Maybe YouTube has removed the US version?

I'll keep searching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR7REARFFpQ

Islam in Britain is quite different.  More Arabic and Pakistani ... rather than African-American.

The authorities in the US don't seem to be in collusion as much as they are in Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_the_United_States

In some states there are greater concentrations of Arab or Pakistani Muslims.

Quote from: Mousetrap on July 30, 2018, 10:11:20 AM
Oh, no!
You forgot how bad Atheists were in the 20th century!
What, 115 million dead!
If you want to paint the picture, remember to paint the background too!
That is normally the largest coverage on the canvass.

You think that atheism is a "belief".  It isn't.  That's like saying bald is a hair color.

People not believing in a religion are perfectly able to be complete murderous nuts.  That has nothing to do with atheism.  Put another way, that is like blaming the cats I don't have for killing the birds in my yard when my own cats are inside.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 01, 2018, 06:05:49 AM
You think that atheism is a "belief".  It isn't.  That's like saying bald is a hair color.

People not believing in a religion are perfectly able to be complete murderous nuts.  That has nothing to do with atheism.  Put another way, that is like blaming the cats I don't have for killing the birds in my yard when my own cats are inside.

Atheism is an ideology, same as any other bias.  Humans only have biases, but they vary a lot.

Quote from: Baruch on August 01, 2018, 01:01:30 PM
Atheism is an ideology, same as any other bias.  Humans only have biases, but they vary a lot.

Atheism is a LACK of belief.  Theists never understand that.  And probably never will until the last one dies.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 02:49:36 AM
Atheism is a LACK of belief.  Theists never understand that.  And probably never will until the last one dies.

So you are completely free of bias, or just in one area?  Is asphyxiation lack of oxygen?  Lack of something isn't necessarily a good thing.  See, y'all describe theism as an illness ... like schizophrenia.  Others would describe being gay as being mentally ill too.  So bigotry.

But per SJW, you can't be a bigot, you have to embrace, as potential Democrats, the "different mentality" people, not just the "different sexuality" people.  If you don't embrace everyone, including Republicans, Communists etc ... then Democrats aren't "The Big Tent".  Have fun with that!

Since the US isn't majority Muslim, you have to embrace Muslims.  But Identity Politics tends toward ... accept any minority view or person, but reject any majority view of person ... and that won't work electorally.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 04, 2018, 02:49:36 AM
Atheism is a LACK of belief.  Theists never understand that.  And probably never will until the last one dies.

Oh, do not be mistaken.
We understand exactly what you mean.
We also know what the reality of your claim is.

Then again, Atheists are demanding that Theists are believers, due to "Blind belief".
And that is the only fallacy when we compare Atheism and Theism.

Theists blame Atheists for their "Lack of Belief, and Atheists vice versa on theists for "Lack of evidence".

Now, Lack of belief is somewhat obscure, and should be noted as a religion with lack of belief, because atheists only believe they don't believe.
But, Guess what, this is their belief!

I on the other-hand believe, because of evidence, and not a lack of evidence.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 06, 2018, 06:26:39 AM
atheists only believe they don't believe.

Wow!  You probably thought you've come up with a new theist insight, but it's a just a baseless claim from 60 years ago.  Maybe you can start a new wave of recycled bullshit, and start your own cult.

Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2018, 12:57:41 PM
Wow!  You probably thought you've come up with a new theist insight, but it's a just a baseless claim from 60 years ago.  Maybe you can start a new wave of recycled bullshit, and start your own cult.

but ideology is fine provided it is Marxist, right?

Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2018, 01:14:22 PM
but ideology is fine provided it is Marxist, right?

Wrong.  Why do you choose to throw Marxism into a simple exchange?  Is the water not muddy enough for you? 

Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2018, 02:14:48 PM
Wrong.  Why do you choose to throw Marxism into a simple exchange?  Is the water not muddy enough for you?

Lots of Maduro supporters here.  Bernie Double-Cross and Red Cortez supporters.

The point is, people here claim to be fact based.  In religion they mostly are.  But that is as far as their fact-checking goes.  That and biased Snopes.

Quote from: Baruch on August 06, 2018, 07:39:54 PM
Lots of Maduro supporters here.  Bernie Double-Cross and Red Cortez supporters.

The point is, people here claim to be fact based.  In religion they mostly are.  But that is as far as their fact-checking goes.  That and biased Snopes.

People have opinions.  Ideologies are the outcome of opinions, usually about how to run things.  As such they are not facts.  They are neither right or wrong.  They are opinions.  Some may or may not work better than others, but all have flaws.  Being human we all have ideologies, because we all have beliefs about different things, but we don't have to have beliefs about everything, and we don't have to have ideologies about everything; Nor should we.  Atheism is one of those things that does not require a belief or an ideology.  It's the result of an empty space.  Not believing in a god is an empty space, but there is no psychological dynamic that requires an empty space to be filled, except in some peoples' minds.

Marxism or socialism are ideologies based on beliefs, and they are a separate issue from atheism, and partly why I was befuddled by you bringing Marxism into the discussion.

QuoteMarxism or socialism are ideologies based on beliefs, and they are a separate issue from atheism, and partly why I was befuddled by you bringing Marxism into the discussion.

Well, in my opinion, - note this is just an opinion - atheist are more prone to  Marxism than the religious.

Or put it another way, almost all Marxist/Communist are also atheists. So yes, there is a link.






 

Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2018, 11:38:43 PM
Well, in my opinion, - note this is just an opinion - atheist are more prone to  Marxism than the religious.

Or put it another way, almost all Marxist/Communist are also atheists. So yes, there is a link. 

OK fair enough, but so what?  Theists are more prone to theocracy, and theocrats are almost all theists.  My point was that in the context of the comments in question,...

Quote
Mouse:
atheists only believe they don't believe.

Me:
Wow!  You probably thought you've come up with a new theist insight, but it's a just a baseless claim from 60 years ago.  Maybe you can start a new wave of recycled bullshit, and start your own cult.

Baruch:
but ideology is fine provided it is Marxist, right?

...Baruch's comment makes little sense.  I was just telling Mouse he has no idea what he's talking about by claiming, "Atheists really believe in God; They just believe they don't."  It's one of the oldest and most idiotic tropes theists ever came up with.  So Baruch jumps in the middle and implies I approve of Marx when I have never given anyone any indication of that.  How does that relate to the exchange?  But you're right.  I should have just told him to fuck off.

QuoteOK fair enough, but so what?  Theists are more prone to theocracy, and theocrats are almost all theists.  My point was that in the context of the comments in question,...

There is far more chance to get Marxism/socialism in America than theocracy.
No need for panic attacks just yet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgKB1vUQZiM

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

Quote from: pr126 on August 07, 2018, 01:15:24 AM
There is far more chance to get Marxism/socialism in America than theocracy.
No need for panic attacks just yet.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgKB1vUQZiM

Be careful what you wish for. You might just get it.

...Did you just link Fox News unironically?

Why is it that Dems are so afraid of different opinions?

Living in an echo chamber? Where is the Tolerance, Inclusiveness?

Everything not Democrat orthodoxy is deemed heresy?
Try to come to terms with reality. Not everybody agrees to your politics.

Quote from: pr126 on August 07, 2018, 01:15:24 AM
There is far more chance to get Marxism/socialism in America than theocracy.

I have indeed sensed that Democrats are moving to the left at a faster rate in the last two years than I have seen in 30 years.  But don't make too much of that, because in the last 30 years, the party has been moving to the right, and accelerating too.  It's only the constituency that I sense starting to move to the left, while the Party basically ignores them.

Living in England, you probably realize the US is far more religious than the UK, but I don't think you fully grasp how religious it actually is, and in the last 30 years, religion has edged more and more toward the fanatical.  There has been a recent exodus from organized religions in the polls, but most of that movement is composed of theists, who seem to be tired of various aspects, probably mostly about wanting to more freedom of thought and opinion, and they just want to believe and get along.  But the exodus is not huge.  Personally, I've never met one of those who say they have left organized religion.

And unlike the UK, politicians here either fall all over themselves wooing the evangelicals, or try to dodge demands for more God in Government without really pointing out the meaning of separation of church and state.  And most Christians here feel they have a right to make the rest of country to bow to their demands.

Also, if you want a clear picture of what it's really like here, FOX news isn't something you should pay close attention to.  All the news carries an element of propaganda here, even those that are generally trusted as accurate, but FOX is profoundly editorial opinion.  Almost to the point where it's hard to really justify calling it news.  There's a lot of people here that believe it for sure, but that Utube you offered is typical of FOX's grossly exaggerated picture of what's happening on the left.  Sure things like that happen, but FOX cherry picks it's reports to scare the Hell out of the right, and the lunatic fringe loves it.

The religious right is much more of a threat than the Bolsheviks by a long shot.  Don't misjudge that. 

Quote from: SGOS on August 07, 2018, 12:59:56 AM
OK fair enough, but so what?  Theists are more prone to theocracy, and theocrats are almost all theists.  My point was that in the context of the comments in question,...

...Baruch's comment makes little sense.  I was just telling Mouse he has no idea what he's talking about by claiming, "Atheists really believe in God; They just believe they don't."  It's one of the oldest and most idiotic tropes theists ever came up with.  So Baruch jumps in the middle and implies I approve of Marx when I have never given anyone any indication of that.  How does that relate to the exchange?  But you're right.  I should have just told him to fuck off.

SGOS, I want to commend you, for what my opinion is worth, on your level of thought.
Dont think I am sarcastic, on the contrary, I really mean it.
However, I also think you should attempt to stay away from slants as "bullshit" and so on.
It damages your communicative channeling, and steers the reader away from what you intend to explain.

However, because I am used to be spoken to in this way, I am able to ignore these small infringements, and to note your thinking.

Now, back to the point.
I do not say that Atheists are believers of God, on the contrary, I know Atheists do not believe in God at all!
Period!

But one thing no atheist can get away on this claim is that they are not honest to their conscience in such a claim that their point of stance, is that their position is not religious.

It is just that!
Let me demonstrate.

To know something does not exist, is fact!
...but to walk around looking for evidence that something does not exist, is actually evidence that such a practicing atheist is unsecured on his point of view!
To try to show in Biology, Evolution, RI Dating, Biblical criticism, and any other means atheists needs to show that the Bible is wrong and Christians are deluded, is an effort to sooth the mind.

Also, to ignore any apologetic answers supplied by Bible scholars, is to deny an answer which the Atheist anyway know was incorrect the moment he engauged in constructing anti Biblical straw men.

To conclude, Atheism is a blind faith, something I as a Bible believing christian, ex atheist, can not get over my heart to accept as fact.

greetings.

Quote from: SGOS on August 07, 2018, 02:05:11 AM
I have indeed sensed that Democrats are moving to the left at a faster rate in the last two years than I have seen in 30 years.  But don't make too much of that, because in the last 30 years, the party has been moving to the right, and accelerating too.  It's only the constituency that I sense starting to move to the left, while the Party basically ignores them.

Living in England, you probably realize the US is far more religious than the UK, but I don't think you fully grasp how religious it actually is, and in the last 30 years, religion has edged more and more toward the fanatical.  There has been a recent exodus from organized religions in the polls, but most of that movement is composed of theists, who seem to be tired of various aspects, probably mostly about wanting to more freedom of thought and opinion, and they just want to believe and get along.  But the exodus is not huge.  Personally, I've never met one of those who say they have left organized religion.

And unlike the UK, politicians here either fall all over themselves wooing the evangelicals, or try to dodge demands for more God in Government without really pointing out the meaning of separation of church and state.  And most Christians here feel they have a right to make the rest of country to bow to their demands.

Also, if you want a clear picture of what it's really like here, FOX news isn't something you should pay close attention to.  All the news carries an element of propaganda here, even those that are generally trusted as accurate, but FOX is profoundly editorial opinion.  Almost to the point where it's hard to really justify calling it news.  There's a lot of people here that believe it for sure, but that Utube you offered is typical of FOX's grossly exaggerated picture of what's happening on the left.  Sure things like that happen, but FOX cherry picks it's reports to scare the Hell out of the right, and the lunatic fringe loves it.

The religious right is much more of a threat than the Bolsheviks by a long shot.  Don't misjudge that.

Friend, Living in a socialist and Marxist country, as I do, is the evidence that your claim might be a bit bias and exaggerated.
I perceive the USA as secular, but with a huge base of Christianity.
This is what makes the USA a safe haven where Atheists, gays, Muslims and who ever wants to live in.

If it is not because of the Christian base of the USA, there will be no difference between it and Venezuela!

Guys, please open your eyes and see how rotten the Marxist countries turned out to be.
Do not preach to me on how bad a Christian country will be, and how wonderful socialism is!
This is a fallicy, and ignorance.

Accept that a Christian country is safe.

Quote from: pr126 on August 06, 2018, 11:38:43 PM
Well, in my opinion, - note this is just an opinion - atheist are more prone to  Marxism than the religious.

Or put it another way, almost all Marxist/Communist are also atheists. So yes, there is a link.

Indirect link.  People oppose their society for various reasons.  For example: People who oppose society, oppose their government.  People who oppose society, oppose their religion (almost all societies are religious).  Only communist societies (not even Nazis) are anti-religious (because of ideology competition).  Does that imply that anarchism goes with theocracy?  No.  One doesn't drive the other, they are driven by a common cause (variously expressed).  Does that imply that communism goes with atheism?  Only in one direction ... communism is pro-atheism, but atheism isn't necessarily pro-communist.  So direction of cause/effect and immediate or shared cause ... complicate things.

And the socialism = communism is another argument for elsewhere (Bernie and Red Cortez, as I posted, aren't even Left socialist, they are Right socialist .... just like Hillary).

Quote from: SGOS on August 06, 2018, 02:14:48 PM
Wrong.  Why do you choose to throw Marxism into a simple exchange?  Is the water not muddy enough for you?

To clarify, it was a rhetorical question, not requiring an answer.  Also I am not implying that all atheists are communists.  See more detailed response to pr126.

OK, trying to be explicit ... non-rhetorical.  Ideology is a choice,.  So is theology.  I agree that theology is questionable.  Most here don't agree that ideology is questionable.  The question to me is, skepticism only extends to theology (and any ideology you disagree with) but doesn't extend to ideologies you do agree with.  One is free to make that choice or any other choice.  I agree (contrary to some) that theology and ideology aren't the same thing.

So why do people agree with some ideologies instead of rejecting all of them?  Most people here reject all theologies instead of some of them.  I see no reason not to be completely skeptical of both.  No, not muddying the water, but the subject is an inherent muddle puddle.

Quote from: pr126 on August 07, 2018, 01:59:30 AM
Why is it that Dems are so afraid of different opinions?

Living in an echo chamber? Where is the Tolerance, Inclusiveness?

Everything not Democrat orthodoxy is deemed heresy?
Try to come to terms with reality. Not everybody agrees to your politics.

There is one true politics, and it is Progressive (sarc).  And Democrat = Progressive (sarc).  Therefore one-party politics, with extreme ideological policing, is simply the right thing to do (sarc).  Just an extension of the New England psychosis from Salem days (see Cavebear).  Cotton Mather = "name any D-pol calling Trump a traitor".  I am surprised they don't want to burn Trump at the stake, or at least dunk him bound and gagged in a river to see if he floats (witchcraft).  Well maybe it isn't religious,  But politics comes from the same dark place as religion.

Baruch wrote:

Quote...Most people here reject all theologies instead of some of them.

I would say not exactly.

Criticizing Islam is denigrating Muslims. That is Islamophobic, bigoted and hateful. Some say racist even.

All other religions are free for all to criticize.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 07, 2018, 03:17:52 AM
To conclude, Atheism is a blind faith, something I as a Bible believing christian, ex atheist, can not get over my heart to accept as fact.

You're wrong.  You don't know you're wrong, because it's inconceivable to you that others do not have faith, let alone blind faith, so you make the assumption that they do.  I accept your faith is honest, and I'll guess as an atheist you acted on faith because you were that kind of an atheist.  You might have even been a blind faith atheist.  The psychological mechanism for seeing in others what you see in yourself is called projection.  You operate on faith and conclude that it's normal, probably because you never experienced absence of faith, and then project that behavior onto everyone else.  In some cases, you are right.  In other cases, you are wrong, because you are projecting a generalization that does not hold true across the board.

I recognize that some atheists can have faith that there is no god.  They are distant cousins, so I include them in my camp, but most atheists do not have the assurance offered by faith.  Some don't need the assurance of faith because they don't see the issue as worth thinking about in the first place.  It requires no faith to toss off god anymore than it takes to toss off Martians or flying teapots.

Faith is inherent in religion.  It's even demanded, and then it is tested with the query in a booming voice, "Do you believe.  Do you REALLY BELIEVE?!"  Imagine a voice emanating as though from the clouds.  That's the importance of faith in religion.  You must have it, or be DOOMED TO THE FIRES.  How deep is your faith?  Do you REALLY HAVE FAITH?!  Faith is not required for people who just want to live their lives and make sense out of their environment the best they can.  But it is paramount in religion.  Not all theists acquire the amount of faith demanded by their peers, but oddly most of them are not struck by lightening.  And faith is simply not required in areas of other human endeavors.
[/quote]

Quote from: pr126 on August 07, 2018, 08:32:55 AM
Baruch wrote:

I would say not exactly.

Criticizing Islam is denigrating Muslims. That is Islamophobic, bigoted and hateful. Some say racist even.

All other religions are free for all to criticize.

I've noticed it a lot when it comes to liberal atheism, not just on here. Its okay to insult christian beliefs because Christianity is a white person religion (despite it being practices by many colors around the world and it not even starting as a white persons religion) but it makes it okay to insult Christians because their white, and its okay to insult white westerners and their beliefs.
But don't you Daaaare insult the brown people relgiion, or the black people religion, because
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/09/racist1.gif)

Seems beyond fucking ridiculous to be how people because of their political indoctrination can't distinguish the difference between race and religion, they can't separate a mentality from the color of someones skin, which to me is pretty racist itself.

Globalist (Marcon, Merkel, May, Soros) are using Islam as a tool to destabilize societies.
They are importing only Muslims by the millions to Europe just for that purpose.
There is no intent to stop the illegal invasion even if it is ruining the economy. 

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 07, 2018, 03:26:28 AM
Friend, Living in a socialist and Marxist country, as I do, is the evidence that your claim might be a bit bias and exaggerated.
I perceive the USA as secular, but with a huge base of Christianity.

Yes, the US is secular, but let's not credit Christians with that.  The Christian right doesn't like it.  As we speak, they are working to change the system. 

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 07, 2018, 03:26:28 AM
Guys, please open your eyes and see how rotten the Marxist countries turned out to be.

Strongly Christian influenced governments have seen dark days too.  It's a question of moderation.  The US was formed as a secular state to prevent religion from usurping the power of government, because they knew from history how ugly that could be.  Rome, Spain, modern day Islamic governments, and colonial America, are examples of failed theocracy.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 07, 2018, 03:26:28 AM
Do not preach to me on how bad a Christian country will be, and how wonderful socialism is!
This is a fallicy, and ignorance.

What I gather from you is that South Africa is both Christian and socialistic.  How is that working out for you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=22&v=huXZWOq7u2w

Quote from: SGOS on August 07, 2018, 08:54:47 AM
Yes, the US is secular, but let's not credit Christians with that.  The Christian right doesn't like it.  As we speak, they are working to change the system. 
Strongly Christian influenced governments have seen dark days too.  It's a question of moderation.  The US was formed as a secular state to prevent religion from usurping the power of government, because they knew from history how ugly that could be.  Rome, Spain, modern day Islamic governments, and colonial America, are examples of failed theocracy.

What I gather from you is that South Africa is both Christian and socialistic.  How is that working out for you?

South Africa was a secular state, and as the socialist communist ANC are slowly changing it into a Socialist state, with the Communist party as ally.
Free Education, Hospitalization, Value added tax at 15%, personal tax at 35%, company tax 28%, with 4% development levies, 35% taxation on petrol (price per liter R15.80 which amounts to 59.80 Rand per US gallon. This is 4.5 US Dollar per US gallon.) The rest is taxes to support the ANC government to give grants to everyone in the country. Grants for having a baby, children, TV, housing, food, schooling, universities, etc.

Now they are following the path as did the Marxist socialist government did in Mozambique, and the socialist government in Zimbabwe,  in expropriating the land from farmers who are the food producers of Africa, to dish it out to their voters who do not have a cooking clue how to farm.

So far exactly 100% of all the farms and businesses the ANC took over and dished it out to their friends and supporters, went bankrupt within the first year, and it lays waste. Some for 20 years already. Any company or mine they take over, gets stripped of anything that can be sold to a scrap metal company.

Same as in Zimbabwe and Mozambique, the socialists now expropriate the land without compensation to the owners, under the umbrella of being white, to keep it as government property. This they then rent out on a 99 year scheme to the previous owners, who can stay on, but they will never own the land again.

To further the view on how nice the country is, they will now implement a medical scheme similar to Obama care.
Why?
Only to ransack the private hospitals, medical schemes, medical insurance etc.

Guys, out of Socialism and communism nothing comes good.
This is a recipe for destruction, and the sooner atheists realize that their recipe is one of historical demise, the better the world will turn out to be.

Quote from: SGOS on August 07, 2018, 08:54:47 AM
Yes, the US is secular, but let's not credit Christians with that.  The Christian right doesn't like it.  As we speak, they are working to change the system. 
Strongly Christian influenced governments have seen dark days too.  It's a question of moderation.  The US was formed as a secular state to prevent religion from usurping the power of government, because they knew from history how ugly that could be.  Rome, Spain, modern day Islamic governments, and colonial America, are examples of failed theocracy.

What I gather from you is that South Africa is both Christian and socialistic.  How is that working out for you?

I do not know what Rome, Spain, Modern day Islamic governments and Colonial America has to do with the Western civilization as we know it.

If it is an attempt to prove to me that a Christian government is bad for a country, you are excessively exaggerating on how the roman Catholic empire, Spanish Inquisition, Islamic terrorism, Quakers, and other religions were accountable for religious oppression on the masses.
Lets see, the Roman catholic empires, Western and Eastern, are not a great example of Christian morals, but of corrupt popes who misused the Bible for their excesses.
Spain and the inquisition was definitely also a corrupt organisation where the Church and Government persecuted and killed for power and fortune. Not Biblical at all!
Colonial America, well, If you use the few bad examples of people who used the Church to kill for money, we are again at a witch hunt lynching where gross corrupt men killed to get rich.

Not very nice examples of "Christianity at all"! I agree.

However, I do not want a country to be a Christian or Islamic one, I want a democratic one free of Socialism, because we saw in the 20th century how many people died under Communism and socialism.

Give me a country where the people are Christian, and they elect their government on the foundations of Biblical morals.
Prohibit religious governments, but allow prayer in Parliament!
Allow free choice, but stop abortions.
Allow gay and lesbianism, but prohibit gay marriages.
Be strict on crime, but prohibit despotism.
Teach Evolution, but do so with ID too.
Allow freedom of speech, but stop slander.

Fight Racism, but allow pride in who you are as a skin color.

Oh, and never allow Islam to force their religion in such a country.
Islam is not a religion, but a treasonous ideology to destroy a free society.
Prohibit Islam, Mosques, Halaal food production, Sharia law, the Burka and hajib, and any speakers calling Muslims to prayer.

Quote from: pr126 on August 07, 2018, 01:59:30 AM
Why is it that Dems are so afraid of different opinions?

Living in an echo chamber? Where is the Tolerance, Inclusiveness?

Everything not Democrat orthodoxy is deemed heresy?
Try to come to terms with reality. Not everybody agrees to your politics.

I'm not afraid of different opinions. But as soon as you quote Fox News, a network that exists solely to push Conservative propaganda, I'm no longer taking you seriously.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 07, 2018, 12:35:03 PM
I'm not afraid of different opinions. But as soon as you quote Fox News, a network that exists solely to push Conservative propaganda, I'm no longer taking you seriously.

I see. Triggered?

But it is always OK to push Democrat propaganda. Got it.

As of 2017, White Christians are no longer the clear majority, they only have plurality ...

http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/racial-and-ethnic-composition/

Quote from: pr126 on August 07, 2018, 12:53:00 PM
I see. Triggered?

But it is always OK to push Democrat propaganda. Got it.

Triggered? No. Not even rattled. I hear your brainwashed bullshit so constantly, it's like a broken record. Lemme guess. You think that CNN, NBC, and basically everything but Fox News is Liberal propaganda, right? SMH

Quote from: Munch on August 07, 2018, 08:39:08 AM
I've noticed it a lot when it comes to liberal atheism, not just on here. Its okay to insult christian beliefs because Christianity is a white person religion (despite it being practices by many colors around the world and it not even starting as a white persons religion) but it makes it okay to insult Christians because their white, and its okay to insult white westerners and their beliefs.
But don't you Daaaare insult the brown people relgiion, or the black people religion, because
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/2013/09/racist1.gif)

Seems beyond fucking ridiculous to be how people because of their political indoctrination can't distinguish the difference between race and religion, they can't separate a mentality from the color of someones skin, which to me is pretty racist itself.

I criticize Christianity more than Islam because Christians are always the ones criticizing my beliefs-- I don't even know any Muslims. We certainly have more Christians spamming this forum and insulting us than Muslims. Islam isn't off limits, it just doesn't affect me.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 07, 2018, 10:14:11 AM
South Africa was a secular state, and as the socialist communist ANC are slowly changing it into a Socialist state, with the Communist party as ally.

According to Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa

QuoteChristianity is the dominant religion in South Africa, with almost 80% of the population in 2001 professing to be Christian. No single denomination predominates, with mainstream Protestant churches, Pentecostal churches, African initiated churches, and the Catholic Church all having significant numbers of adherents. Importantly, there is significant and sustained syncretism with African Traditional Religion among most of the self-professed Christians in South Africa. [14] Of the total national population of 44.8 million, 35.8 million or 79.8% identified as members of a Christian denomination.[15]

Assuming you are a democracy, I don't think you can blame South Africa's problems on atheists when the country is 80% Christian.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 07, 2018, 10:14:11 AM
Guys, out of Socialism and communism nothing comes good.
This is a recipe for destruction, and the sooner atheists realize that their recipe is one of historical demise, the better the world will turn out to be.

The forum leans liberal, but I don't think you will find a communist in the bunch. I don't know how typical the forum is of atheists in general either.  In the US, Liberals that I know, as opposed to atheists that I know, tend to perceive government tax revenues  disproportionately going to corporations, rather than coming back to taxpayers.  Each new administration seems to favor a new part of the private sector.  Bush, an oil man, did things that unsurprisingly benefited Oil.  Obama favored wall street and placed some of Wall Street's rogues in his cabinet to oversee the economy.   Our society is definitely capitalist.  The government does help those in need, but we are not a typical welfare state. We are capitalists.   Although I suppose it depends what you think a welfare state is.

You are mistaken in equivocating atheists and communists in the US.  I don't know about socialists either.  Again it depends on what you think a socialist is.  I have never met a communist.  Atheists don't believe in god.  There may be a correlation to liberal, but I don't see a causation.  And I have met an atypical number of atheists that are right wing conservatives, many that buy the whole Ayn Rand package of atheism and libertarianism.

But I don't think your socialistic government is caused by atheists.  Probably more by Christians of varying ideologies about government.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 07, 2018, 03:26:34 PM
I criticize Christianity more than Islam because Christians are always the ones criticizing my beliefs-- I don't even know any Muslims. We certainly have more Christians spamming this forum and insulting us than Muslims. Islam isn't off limits, it just doesn't affect me.

Exactly. My life has been threatened by radical Islam a grand total of zero times. Beliefs have been imposed on me by Muslims zero times. Christians, though? They want their hands in everything. They're not happy having the right to worship how they want, they want everyone else to live by their standards too. They try to claim ownership over marriage and decide who can or can't marry. They want to make abortion illegal based on nothing but their religious beliefs. They use the government to force their religion on everyone, putting God in the pledge of allegiance and on the money (and no, they were not always there), putting the Ten Commandments on government property and making people swear on the Bible (might as well put my hand on The Prisoner of Azkaban). Christians are the ones who burden me, not Muslims.

Quote from: GSOgymrat on August 07, 2018, 03:26:34 PM
I criticize Christianity more than Islam because Christians are always the ones criticizing my beliefs-- I don't even know any Muslims. We certainly have more Christians spamming this forum and insulting us than Muslims. Islam isn't off limits, it just doesn't affect me.

Beliefs?
What beliefs are these, so I can steer clear in offending others.

Quote from: SGOS on August 07, 2018, 04:53:00 PM
According to Wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_South_Africa
Assuming you are a democracy, I don't think you can blame South Africa's problems on atheists when the country is 80% Christian.
The forum leans liberal, but I don't think you will find a communist in the bunch. I don't know how typical the forum is of atheists in general either.  In the US, Liberals that I know, as opposed to atheists that I know, tend to perceive government tax revenues  disproportionately going to corporations, rather than coming back to taxpayers.  Each new administration seems to favor a new part of the private sector.  Bush, an oil man, did things that unsurprisingly benefited Oil.  Obama favored wall street and placed some of Wall Street's rogues in his cabinet to oversee the economy.   Our society is definitely capitalist.  The government does help those in need, but we are not a typical welfare state. We are capitalists.   Although I suppose it depends what you think a welfare state is.

You are mistaken in equivocating atheists and communists in the US.  I don't know about socialists either.  Again it depends on what you think a socialist is.  I have never met a communist.  Atheists don't believe in god.  There may be a correlation to liberal, but I don't see a causation.  And I have met an atypical number of atheists that are right wing conservatives, many that buy the whole Ayn Rand package of atheism and libertarianism.

But I don't think your socialistic government is caused by atheists.  Probably more by Christians of varying ideologies about government.

I can claim that only 7% of south Africa is Christian due to the Ancestral worship practiced by 95% of all Black people in this country.
The cloak of Christianity is worn by "Pastors and Prophets", who intertwined the ancestral worship in the place of the "Holy Ghost".
only a very small fraction of Black people does not worship their ancestors. The belief is that the last person who died in the family must be kept happy, and they will then be the intermediate between God and you.
Mandela was also a Methodist / African ancestral worshiper. These are things Black people keep silent about, but it is ingained in their cultures.

Now we get to the core of what the Black man in South Africa beliefs in.
I am led by my ancestor.
If I want to know why something goes wrong, I must go to my Traditional leader.
He will tell you what to do.
If I have aids, sex with a baby will cure me.
If the ancestors tell me to go and rape a white women, or to go to kill a White farmer, I have no choice but to satisfy my ancestor, or carry the consequences.
The ANC government supports, and give Grants to Traditional healers, and they will do what ever the ANC tells them to do.
If you feel someone mistreated you, you can ask the ancestor to bring trouble on the offender's path.
If you are poor, or cant have a child, or even got a ticket, it is due to someone who got their ancestors to bewitch you.
Daily people are burned alive because they identify a witch with the use of a Sangoma, or Traditional healer, who speaks to the spirits and find answers to who the witch is.
Furthermore, Jacob Zuma was identified as a Prophet of God, and Mandela as the Messiah of the African people.

However, I will not use the silly argument that you have to be a certain someone, else you are not Christian, as long as I know who is who, I am safe in my opinion.

Good, now that you placed a wiki link showing me that the South Africans are Christians, I think you must understand that the ANC government are indeed Communist and Socialist.
As is all the African nations and their political parties.

They give everything for free, until the country is totally bankrupt.
Then they accuse the White West for their dilemma.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 02:58:56 AM
Beliefs?
What beliefs are these, so I can steer clear in offending others.

Too late.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 08, 2018, 02:11:11 AM
They're not happy having the right to worship how they want, they want everyone else to live by their standards too. They try to claim ownership over marriage and decide who can or can't marry.

The marriage thing, be it gay or straight, puzzles me.  Although it didn't always.  At one time, I thought the marriage ceremony was the marriage, and had to be done by a minister, in public in front of your relatives.  I thought that license issued by the courthouse, was just some record keeping thing, and you couldn't have sex until after the minister officially pronounced you married. 

But there is nothing official about a representative of God sanctioning your marriage, although he and others might think he's the one marrying you.  Oh sure, there's lots of fal-der-rhal, and people getting drunk, and if you like parties, a marriage offers that.  But why do people think you are being married by the church?

You were married by the state.  The clerk at the window who stamps your license and verifies your signature is more important than the minister or the governor.  That's right.  Betty at the courthouse will take care of the whole thing for $15.  And that license is the big deal, not bla, bla, bla from the guy wearing the ornate robe.  But the church intercedes and gives the impression that, "No, no, no.  This is what makes you married, like they provide the last key that the process needs for completion, when it's the state document that gives you and your spouse special privileges and reassigns each of you as the official next of kin.  If there is ever a question about your marriage, the state document is the actual verification that the judge in court wants to see.

In the old days it was the church that kept all the records of births, marriages and deaths.
Those records are still kept.

Ancestry.com still gets their research from those, as well as the modern (state) records.

Only in modern times that the state started record keeping.

Quote from: pr126 on August 08, 2018, 06:07:04 AM
In the old days it was the church that kept all the records of births, marriages and deaths.
Those records are still kept.

Ancestry.com still gets their research from those, as well as the modern (state) records.

Only in modern times that the state started record keeping.

I have no doubt that at one time, it was all about the church, but not anymore.  Western civilization allows churches to do symbolic church stuff, but has taken a dim view of the church setting itself up as final arbiter.  The marriage ceremony is a tradition that harkens back to the old days, and people can still make as much of it as they want.  But the last thing that I want in my marriage is the church.  If it makes others happy to have their marriage blessed by a god, let them.  If they want to drill their well where the water witch says they can find water, I'm all for that too.

But I'll take my chances with secular rule of law and the tyranny of democracy.  I'd rather be accountable to a judge than some Mormon cabal.  Yeah, both are dicey and both are destined to fail, but talk about the lesser of two evils.  I like the new system better.

Quote from: SGOS on August 08, 2018, 05:18:40 AM
The marriage thing, be it gay or straight, puzzles me.  Although it didn't always.  At one time, I thought the marriage ceremony was the marriage, and had to be done by a minister, in public in front of your relatives.  I thought that license issued by the courthouse, was just some record keeping thing, and you couldn't have sex until after the minister officially pronounced you married. 

But there is nothing official about a representative of God sanctioning your marriage, although he and others might think he's the one marrying you.  Oh sure, there's lots of fal-der-rhal, and people getting drunk, and if you like parties, a marriage offers that.  But why do people think you are being married by the church?

You were married by the state.  The clerk at the window who stamps your license and verifies your signature is more important than the minister or the governor.  That's right.  Betty at the courthouse will take care of the whole thing for $15.  And that license is the big deal, not bla, bla, bla from the guy wearing the ornate robe.  But the church intercedes and gives the impression that, "No, no, no.  This is what makes you married, like they provide the last key that the process needs for completion, when it's the state document that gives you and your spouse special privileges and reassigns each of you as the official next of kin.  If there is ever a question about your marriage, the state document is the actual verification that the judge in court wants to see.

Marriage has been a contract since the days of Rome.  The religious part has always been an extra added on, because religious people want the sanction of the gods.  Usually it is a contract between families (Montagues and Capulets).  Dating was forbidden, to keep the young women in virgin condition.  You would only have assignations with "keepers" to make sure nothing was done or said that was untoward.  Often a marriage broker would be involved (aka bride seller).  The idea of big church weddings is a Victorian cultural tradition ... it didn't exist in Colonial America.  And we know how hypocritical our Victorian ancestors were.

Jewish marriage in the Bible was the same, there was a contract negotiated between families (otherwise they were common-law married aka fornicating).  The engagement went on for a year, and then the bride moved into the house of her father-in-law, where the groom lived.  The idea of the nuclear family is recent.

One reason for the "legal" wedding is to protect the woman, in fact the idea of formal marriage is a woman's idea.  Men would simply sleep around like animals.  Part of the usual contract was the dowry.  This was provided by the father of the bride, it was his daughter's social security.  But the control of it would pass from the father of the bride to the groom.  If a divorce occurs, the groom/groom's family has to return the girl and the dowry to her family of origin.  People used to be ... civilized.  We mistake anarchy for liberty.

Quote from: SGOS on August 08, 2018, 06:45:02 AM
I have no doubt that at one time, it was all about the church, but not anymore.  Western civilization allows churches to do symbolic church stuff, but has taken a dim view of the church setting itself up as final arbiter.  The marriage ceremony is a tradition that harkens back to the old days, and people can still make as much of it as they want.  But the last thing that I want in my marriage is the church.  If it makes others happy to have their marriage blessed by a god, let them.  If they want to drill their well where the water witch says they can find water, I'm all for that too.

But I'll take my chances with secular rule of law and the tyranny of democracy.  I'd rather be accountable to a judge that some Mormon cabal.  Yeah, both are dicey and both are destined to fail, but talk about the lesser of two evils.  I like the new system better.

Tyranny of democracy coming ... Senate Democrats working on proposals to totally regulate Internet (as it is in China) in order to protect us from Russian spies like Boris and Natasha.  Meanwhile it has been admitted that Senator Diane Feinstein kept a Chinese spy on her staff for 20 years (until he retired).

Quote from: SGOS on August 08, 2018, 04:45:45 AM
Too late.

Wow!
You realized soon enough that the Mouse trap almost snapped your neck!
Just imagine how the Mousetrap would have asked if you said you believed in Atheism: "I told you Atheism is a religion!"

Quote from: pr126 on August 08, 2018, 06:07:04 AM
In the old days it was the church that kept all the records of births, marriages and deaths.
Those records are still kept.

Ancestry.com still gets their research from those, as well as the modern (state) records.

Only in modern times that the state started record keeping.

Nicely answered.
I did not even think about that.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 07:07:28 AM
Nicely answered.
I did not even think about that.

Adding, if you are concerned that Christianity in Africa is ... Africanized (think bees) ... then you don't understand America.  Christianity is Americanized in America.  Basically they are pagan Romans larping as Jewish wannabes ... as they have for 1700 years now.

Though, in so far as early Christianity originated in Egypt ... it was African from the beginning.  The average Christian today, is non-White for the first time in 1700 years (Constantine used White-in, not White-out).

Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2018, 07:10:39 AM
Adding, if you are concerned that Christianity in African is ... Africanized (think bees) ... then you don't understand America.  Christianity is Americanized in America.  Basically they are pagan Romans larping as Jewish wannabes ... as they have for 1700 years now.

Though, in so far as early Christianity originated in Egypt ... it was African from the beginning.  The average Christian today, is non-White for the first time in 1700 years (Constantine used White-in, not White-out).

Have you listened to that Black pastor David Manning?
He is cross because Black men integrated with Europeans, and don't want to be Christian Black men.

Then you get the Israel Vision religion who say Jews are not Israel (they are Philistines, Samaritan Arabs), but the Whites are the lost 10 tribes of Israel.

Then there is the new Christian religion, Hebraic Messianic movements. They embrace the Jewish religion, but accept Jesus as God.

Religion is incredibly interesting, and I studied them all to find out why they differ so much, but all claim to be Christian.

Same with Islam.
An impostor religion who claim to be an extension of Christianity, but with a flashback to Judaism, and then total denial of both.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 07:05:29 AM
Wow!
You realized soon enough that the Mouse trap almost snapped your neck!
Just imagine how the Mousetrap would have asked if you said you believed in Atheism: "I told you Atheism is a religion!"

You know, mathematicians can have beliefs, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is a system of beliefs. You would never say that because I'm a mathematician and I have beliefs, that "I told you Mathematics is a religion!"

You are falsely attributing to atheism the beliefs that atheists hold. Being an atheist doesn't mean that I don't have some beliefs, they just don't come from atheism, because atheism is characterized by the lack of one particular belief â€" and doesn't say anything any other belief I may hold.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 08, 2018, 08:20:05 AM
You know, mathematicians can have beliefs, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is a system of beliefs. You would never say that because I'm a mathematician and I have beliefs, that "I told you Mathematics is a religion!"

You are falsely attributing to atheism the beliefs that atheists hold. Being an atheist doesn't mean that I don't have some beliefs, they just don't come from atheism, because atheism is characterized by the lack of one particular belief â€" and doesn't say anything any other belief I may hold.

I still dont get it.
Dont you believe in atheism?
or do you?
or you dont believe in a god, therefore the philosophy of Atheism is our identification on assimilation.
And because you do not believe in God, you are by default an Atheist.

I believe in God, therefore I am by default a Christian.
Therefore Christianity is my religion, and Atheism yours.

Quote from: Baruch on August 08, 2018, 06:53:22 AM
Marriage has been a contract since the days of Rome.  The religious part has always been an extra added on, because religious people want the sanction of the gods.  Usually it is a contract between families (Montagues and Capulets).  Dating was forbidden, to keep the young women in virgin condition.  You would only have assignations with "keepers" to make sure nothing was done or said that was untoward.  Often a marriage broker would be involved (aka bride seller).  The idea of big church weddings is a Victorian cultural tradition ... it didn't exist in Colonial America.  And we know how hypocritical our Victorian ancestors were.

Jewish marriage in the Bible was the same, there was a contract negotiated between families (otherwise they were common-law married aka fornicating).  The engagement went on for a year, and then the bride moved into the house of her father-in-law, where the groom lived.  The idea of the nuclear family is recent.

One reason for the "legal" wedding is to protect the woman, in fact the idea of formal marriage is a woman's idea.  Men would simply sleep around like animals.  Part of the usual contract was the dowry.  This was provided by the father of the bride, it was his daughter's social security.  But the control of it would pass from the father of the bride to the groom.  If a divorce occurs, the groom/groom's family has to return the girl and the dowry to her family of origin.  People used to be ... civilized.  We mistake anarchy for liberty.

Marriage was for the woman's benefit? Uh, I don't think so. It may be that way now, but not in ancient times. Marriage was invented because men wanted to know who their children were, by having exclusive rights to their wives. That's why polygamy was a thing, and only with one man and multiple wives, never the other way around. The man could sleep around all he wanted. If his wives didn't excite him any more, he could find a prostitute to sleep with, then later stone her to death for being sexually promiscuous. Funny how Christians claim that the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. From what I gather from the Bible, it sounds more like it's between one man, multiple wives, the wives' maidservants, and concubines.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 09:56:01 AM
I believe in God, therefore I am by default a Christian.
Therefore Christianity is my religion, and Atheism yours.

If that was an attempt to construct a syllogism, it's the worst one I've ever seen.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 09:56:01 AM
I still dont get it.
Dont you believe in atheism?

One doesn't believe in...*sigh*  Okay, let me try to put this in the simplest way I possibly can.

When you were a kid, you were probably taught that Santa exists and brings presents for Christmas.  Eventually, you came to the conclusion that this story was bullshit and Santa doesn't really exist, he's just a fictional character.  Not believing in Santa is not a belief system - you don't believe in a-santaism.  There's no common creed or anything.  It's just a stance on the Santa story - you don't believe it, some people do.  That's it.  You might believe in lots of other stuff - space aliens, bigfoot, etc - but you don't necessarily hold those beliefs in common with other people who are a bit skeptical on the Santa story.

Quoteor do you?
or you dont believe in a god, therefore the philosophy of Atheism is our identification on assimilation.

WTF are you even talking about here?  "the philosophy of atheism is our identification on assimilation"???  Do you want some dressing for that word salad?

QuoteAnd because you do not believe in God, you are by default an Atheist.

That part is actually 100% correct.

QuoteI believe in God, therefore I am by default a Christian.

There are a great many theistic religions, so no, theists are not automatically Christians any more than pizzas are automatically deep-dish.

QuoteTherefore Christianity is my religion, and Atheism yours.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 08, 2018, 10:43:23 AM
Marriage was for the woman's benefit? Uh, I don't think so. It may be that way now, but not in ancient times. Marriage was invented because men wanted to know who their children were, by having exclusive rights to their wives. That's why polygamy was a thing, and only with one man and multiple wives, never the other way around. The man could sleep around all he wanted. If his wives didn't excite him any more, he could find a prostitute to sleep with, then later stone her to death for being sexually promiscuous. Funny how Christians claim that the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. From what I gather from the Bible, it sounds more like it's between one man, multiple wives, the wives' maidservants, and concubines.

Sorry ... but all people were property in ancient times.  Men belonged to their fathers.  Women also belonged to their father, and were lent to their husbands.  Hence the return policy on wives ;-)  So ... ancient people weren't enlightened?  Duh.  Most men never had more than one wife a time, rich men had concubines (women servants they slept with).  Sarah did rate higher than Hagar.  Polygamy wasn't common at all.  However if you were a widow, or a divorced woman without an ancestral home to return to, you had other problems.

You have a very negative view of ancient men.  All men are rapists?  Sounds like you are an Arab.  Or you think cavemen actually hit women on the head and kidnapped them.  Bride capture actually happened among the Kazakhs .. but that was exceptional.  In criminal groups, women were simply shared around, they weren't wives.  That is how you view ancient society .. basically a camel riding biker gang bang.  Abraham was rich, and Jacob was rich.  And David was rich (he was a bandit king) and Solomon was very rich (he was a great king).

Marriage in ancient Greece or Rome was quite a bit more civilized even than Arabia.  And if you messed with the wrong woman in Arabia, her men-folk would deal with you.  They still do.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 07:30:00 AM
Have you listened to that Black pastor David Manning?
He is cross because Black men integrated with Europeans, and don't want to be Christian Black men.

Then you get the Israel Vision religion who say Jews are not Israel (they are Philistines, Samaritan Arabs), but the Whites are the lost 10 tribes of Israel.

Then there is the new Christian religion, Hebraic Messianic movements. They embrace the Jewish religion, but accept Jesus as God.

Religion is incredibly interesting, and I studied them all to find out why they differ so much, but all claim to be Christian.

Same with Islam.
An impostor religion who claim to be an extension of Christianity, but with a flashback to Judaism, and then total denial of both.

No don't know of him.  I can see why there is a dual-personality problem with people adopting religions from cultures not their own.  How could a Christianized-German Jew (Marx) conquer China?  I know Messianic Jews .. I worship with them, though I don't exactly share their theology.  I also know one local who takes English people as crypto-Jews (Ephraim and Manasseh).

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 08, 2018, 08:20:05 AM
You know, mathematicians can have beliefs, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is a system of beliefs. You would never say that because I'm a mathematician and I have beliefs, that "I told you Mathematics is a religion!"

You are falsely attributing to atheism the beliefs that atheists hold. Being an atheist doesn't mean that I don't have some beliefs, they just don't come from atheism, because atheism is characterized by the lack of one particular belief â€" and doesn't say anything any other belief I may hold.

The practice of mathematics is demonstrable ... not a belief.  But philosophy of mathematics is not demonstrable ... it is a belief.  So is Pythagoras right or wrong?  That is a belief.  2+2=4 is demonstrable (count pebbles).  Just don't let a D or R do the counting.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 08, 2018, 09:56:01 AM
I believe in God, therefore I am by default a Christian.
Therefore Christianity is my religion, and Atheism yours.

Therefore not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Oh, wait. It isn't.

I don't believe in any god, and that includes yours, and therefore I'm an atheist. But that doesn't tell you a single other thing about me, just my stance on that belief. You don't know why I don't believe in your sky pixie, or what other beliefs I have, or any philosophical underpinning of my morality or reasoning, just from my descriptor of "atheism."

It does get galling to be in a situation akin to someone asking, "Which god do you believe in?" answering, "None," and get a response of, "Ah! You worship the God 'None'!" Makes you want to drive nails into a board with your forehead.

That's not to say there can't be atheistic religions; there are in fact plenty. Buddhism, for example, has quite a few traditions that do not ascribe to divine beings, although other traditions do. However, that just means that "atheistic" is a qualifier for a religion, just as much as Christianity is the name for a related family of religions.

And didn't you a while back say that Christianity requires accepting Jesus as divinity? Does that mean you've changed your stance on Jehova's witnesses?

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 08, 2018, 08:20:05 AM
You know, mathematicians can have beliefs, but that doesn't mean that mathematics is a system of beliefs. You would never say that because I'm a mathematician and I have beliefs, that "I told you Mathematics is a religion!"

You are falsely attributing to atheism the beliefs that atheists hold. Being an atheist doesn't mean that I don't have some beliefs, they just don't come from atheism, because atheism is characterized by the lack of one particular belief â€" and doesn't say anything any other belief I may hold.

Well, If you read what Hawkin said, he believes because there are Mathematics and Laws of Gravity, the Universe could spontaneously pop into existance.
Quite frankly, I do not have even a fraction of such religious belief such as Atheism has in science and Mathematics.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 08, 2018, 10:43:23 AM
Marriage was for the woman's benefit? Uh, I don't think so. It may be that way now, but not in ancient times. Marriage was invented because men wanted to know who their children were, by having exclusive rights to their wives. That's why polygamy was a thing, and only with one man and multiple wives, never the other way around. The man could sleep around all he wanted. If his wives didn't excite him any more, he could find a prostitute to sleep with, then later stone her to death for being sexually promiscuous. Funny how Christians claim that the Bible says that marriage is between one man and one woman. From what I gather from the Bible, it sounds more like it's between one man, multiple wives, the wives' maidservants, and concubines.

And the NT is clear on the ONE MAN ONE WIFE MARRIAGE.
Jesus also said God created one man and one women, but due to lust and sin they divorced.
Just so you know.

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 08, 2018, 11:46:01 AM
One doesn't believe in...*sigh*  Okay, let me try to put this in the simplest way I possibly can.


WTF are you even talking about here?  "the philosophy of atheism is our identification on assimilation"???  Do you want some dressing for that word salad?

There are a great many theistic religions, so no, theists are not automatically Christians any more than pizzas are automatically deep-dish.
Garbage in, garbage out.

From my point of view, which I invite you to observe here with me on my balcony of Theism, I find it easy to believe in YHWH.
Stepping over to your balcony,
I have to believe in Evolution without any factual evidence,
Believe in a nothing, that popped into a Big Bang.
I have to believe in matter mixed into a primordial soup where molecules started to reproduce without any DNA, where it developed with mindless, unguided, blind processes into you who contains a Mind that also developed from unguided unintelligent mechanical processes into what you are.

Now, This is incredible belief, something I just can not fathom!

And you want me to believe you dont believe in anything, your beliefs is not a religion?

Back on my balcony, I am witness to you bowing down to ideologies, ones that does not differ from the Eastern Orthodox Church's Icons!

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 09, 2018, 02:06:39 AM
From my point of view, which I invite you to observe here with me on my balcony of Theism, I find it easy to believe in YHWH.
Stepping over to your balcony,
I have to believe in Evolution without any factual evidence,
Believe in a nothing, that popped into a Big Bang.
I have to believe in matter mixed into a primordial soup where molecules started to reproduce without any DNA, where it developed with mindless, unguided, blind processes into you who contains a Mind that also developed from unguided unintelligent mechanical processes into what you are.

Now, This is incredible belief, something I just can not fathom!

And you want me to believe you dont believe in anything, your beliefs is not a religion?

Back on my balcony, I am witness to you bowing down to ideologies, ones that does not differ from the Eastern Orthodox Church's Icons!

I understand that attempting to describe atheism to you is like trying to describe color to a blind man.  Can faith describe color to a blind man?

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 09, 2018, 01:54:56 AM
Well, If you read what Hawkin said, he believes because there are Mathematics and Laws of Gravity, the Universe could spontaneously pop into existance.
Quite frankly, I do not have even a fraction of such religious belief such as Atheism has in science and Mathematics.

People who don't understand the Big Bang ... make nonsense out of it, even professors.  Same as any other self proclaimed expert.  I have studied General Relativity since High School (differential geometry) and it is non-trivial, even if you accept just one of the possible models allowed by the equation.  Observational evidence pretty much identifies just one of the possible models as being right (single expansion that is slowly accelerating).  And I know this much, even if I am NOT an expert in that area.  The impact on my theology, by cosmology ... is nil.  Nature doesn't influence it at all.  Humanity is the basis for my interests, psychology is the basis for my theology.  There has been, since the time of Plato, a great effort in Judaism, Islam and even Christianity to de-Humanize religion, to naturalize it.  Not that I diss enjoying a night sky filled with stars.  As Apostle Paul said, G-d makes fools of the wise.

Neither scripture nor clergy have authority.  Man wasn't made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for the man.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 09, 2018, 04:04:09 AM
I understand that attempting to describe atheism to you is like trying to describe color to a blind man.  Can faith describe color to a blind man?

Funny how that is an inversion of an argument made by theists against atheists.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 09, 2018, 01:54:56 AM
Well, If you read what Hawkin said, he believes because there are Mathematics and Laws of Gravity, the Universe could spontaneously pop into existance.

So? Hawking can read into mathematics and science just as much as you read into the bible. The individual is imperfect, and prone to various errors and prejudices. To help weed that kind of thing out is the reason why we have peer review. Until evidence appears to back that up, Hawking's belief remains just that â€" his belief.

Hawking has been demonstrated to be wrong before. While he is still held in high regard even after his death, we know that he wasn't perfect.

Quote
Quite frankly, I do not have even a fraction of such religious belief such as Atheism has in science and Mathematics.

Neither mathematics nor science is based on "faith." Individual mathematicians and scientists may have quasi-religious belief in particular things, but that's no problem so long as they don't advance them as definitely true in absence of evidence or proof. To my knowledge, Hawking has never advanced his belief that the universe came into existence spontaneously as a definite thing, but only has his personal belief and perhaps with some justification for it. It is intriguing, however, so it does garner some attention, but it is a matter that will actually be decided one way or another by evidence.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 09, 2018, 02:06:39 AM
From my point of view, which I invite you to observe here with me on my balcony of Theism, I find it easy to believe in YHWH.

Good for you, I guess.  And I know you want me over there, just like I know why you want me over there.  Because your religion has a compulsion to spread your beliefs built into it.  And because non-belief is viewed as a threat.  Do yourself a favor and delve into why that is.

QuoteStepping over to your balcony,
I have to believe in Evolution without any factual evidence,
Believe in a nothing, that popped into a Big Bang.
I have to believe in matter mixed into a primordial soup where molecules started to reproduce without any DNA, where it developed with mindless, unguided, blind processes into you who contains a Mind that also developed from unguided unintelligent mechanical processes into what you are.

Aren't you the straw-man guy?  Don't you find that title ironic?

QuoteNow, This is incredible belief, something I just can not fathom!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_fallacy

QuoteAnd you want me to believe you dont believe in anything

...not what I said.  At all.

Quoteyour beliefs is not a religion?

I have many beliefs, of course.  Just none that constitute a system of faith and worship of a divine being.  Is that really too difficult for you to fathom?

QuoteBack on my balcony, I am witness to you bowing down to ideologies, ones that does not differ from the Eastern Orthodox Church's Icons!

Your balcony has a really terrible view that doesn't let you see reality.

Discussing anything with mousetrap is like discussing clouds with a mole...

Quote from: Cavebear on August 12, 2018, 06:33:21 AM
Discussing anything with mousetrap is like discussing clouds with a mole...

Bad analogy. You cannot discus ANYTHING with a mole. :-)

Wind in the willows, perhaps?

Quote from: Baruch on August 09, 2018, 06:33:08 AM
People who don't understand the Big Bang ... make nonsense out of it, even professors.  Same as any other self proclaimed expert.  I have studied General Relativity since High School (differential geometry) and it is non-trivial, even if you accept just one of the possible models allowed by the equation.  Observational evidence pretty much identifies just one of the possible models as being right (single expansion that is slowly accelerating).  And I know this much, even if I am NOT an expert in that area.  The impact on my theology, by cosmology ... is nil.  Nature doesn't influence it at all.  Humanity is the basis for my interests, psychology is the basis for my theology.  There has been, since the time of Plato, a great effort in Judaism, Islam and even Christianity to de-Humanize religion, to naturalize it.  Not that I diss enjoying a night sky filled with stars.  As Apostle Paul said, G-d makes fools of the wise.

Neither scripture nor clergy have authority.  Man wasn't made for the Sabbath, the Sabbath was made for the man.

Oh, dont misunderstand my position on the Big Bang.
I dont have any problem with this scientific theory at all, and by reverse engineering the Red-shift, it is highly plausable, and a well founded theory that can explain the universe.
However, my opposition to what Atheists claim is that if the Big Bang occurred spontaneously, without any causation, it is impossible.
To follow their spin on how this Big Bang developed from nothing, is where I find their error!

To claim that there was a difference in mathematical structures, different Physics, and gravity before the Big Bang, simply means that they say:

There was nothing, but this nothing was energy, or gravity, or something else we dont know, but it must count as nothing.

They need to show 0=+1-1

This is where anti matter found its source.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 09, 2018, 10:59:19 AM


Neither mathematics nor science is based on "faith." Individual mathematicians and scientists may have quasi-religious belief in particular things, ...

Just AS I dont believe in God!
I know Him and I have ample evidence on His existence.

If I tell you I have a son called Tommy, but you never met him, obviously you will believe that I have a son.
You will be convinced, however no evidence in your environment exists.

However, when you meet my son, you dont have to believe Tommy exists, you will know him.
Gone is the religion, is is the fact.

This is the only difference between me and you.
I know where everything came from, you deny it on the grounds that you can not believe therein.
You believe to believe is erroneous, and now claim no evidence to believe.

Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

Aristotle ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_causes

Materialists only acknowledge the Material cause and the Formal cause.  But not all atheists are materialists.  There are also the Efficient cause and the Final cause.  Some will acknowledge these two, for things that are human caused (or by extension to animals etc).  But they will not extend this to the universe as a whole.  My typing this uses the "efficient cause" of a computer and other technology.  My purpose, communicating, is the "final cause".  But a stone, spontaneously rolling down hill, under gravity, has neither of those ... there is no technique, no person intended it.  These people who exclude "efficient" and "final" causes from the universe as a whole, are also atheists.

Now back in the day, at the dawn of modern science, Aristotelianism ruled in Western universities.  "efficient" and "final" causes were described by theology (though for Aristotle, the "final" cause of the universe was impersonal, not a deity).  Christians had adapted Aristotle to make him a theist, which he was not.  When you consider "final" causes, that are impersonal, these are called "teleology".  The rise of modern science got rid of this "teleology" directly.  And that indirectly god rid of deity.  The seculars gradually seized control of the universities and governments, from the clergy.  Modern science was then expanded on the basis of technique aka "efficient" cause ... but the human one.

An ancient person would say definitely, that if a rock rolls down a hill on its own, some spirit pushed it ... it has an "efficient" and a "final" cause.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 13, 2018, 04:57:58 AM
Just AS I dont believe in God!
I know Him and I have ample evidence on His existence.

Liar. You absolutely believe that your God exists. It shapes your worldview and your words. Philosophically, knowledge is a subset of belief.

And no, you don't know him or have ample evidence of his existence. You only think that you do.

Quote
If I tell you I have a son called Tommy, but you never met him, obviously you will believe that I have a son.
You will be convinced, however no evidence in your environment exists.

We know that sons â€"male children of other peopleâ€" do in fact exist. I have seen ample evidence that it is possible for you to have a son called Tommy, and I have no prior reason to doubt you when you claim such.

There has been no demonstration that a God exists, and there is plenty of reason to believe that any person who claims that one exists is either mistaken, lying, or delusional.

Quote
However, when you meet my son, you dont have to believe Tommy exists, you will know him.
Gone is the religion, is is the fact.

You are using "religion" in a way not generally recognized as legitimate. Trusting you that your son Tommy exists is not a "religion." It's just trust. I don't have to pray to Tommy, I don't have to bear being browbeaten by obnoxious internet citizens that your son Tommy really exists on pain of Hell after I die, nor does your Tommy have any supernatural insights into the origin and working of the universe that he has revealed in this special book of his.

And you are unable to present God to me to prove his existence like the way you can present Tommy to me and prove his existence. That, to me, is a very substantial and real difference.

Quote
This is the only difference between me and you.

"Only?" Bold words. No, there are a few other more substantial differences between you and me. Like an education.

Quote
I know where everything came from,

Proven false by your inability to answer basic questions about these origins.

Quote
you deny it on the grounds that you can not believe therein.

I deny it on the grounds that you demonstratably don't know what you're talking about.

Quote
You believe to believe is erroneous, and now claim no evidence to believe.

No, to believe without evidence is a recipe for disappointment in the least. I have seen no evidence of your god or even the possibility of your god, while I have seen evidence for the possibility for your son Tommy.

Quote
Atheism, what a wonderful religion, where one believe to believe is erroneous.

You can keep repeating that line, but it won't make it any more true. Atheism is the label for people who don't believe that there is any god. Nothing more.

I don't care if you proclaim otherwise from the top of the tallest mountain, a lie is a lie.

mousetrap, your believing that you know god and that he does exist has as much credibility to it as people who use to believe that cutting a sick patient and letting them 'bleed out the negative energies' was a legit way of curing their aliments.
Thankfully medicine has evolved since those days. maybe its time you did too.

Quote from: Munch on August 13, 2018, 08:02:46 PM
mousetrap, your believing that you know god and that he does exist has as much credibility to it as people who use to believe that cutting a sick patient and letting them 'bleed out the negative energies' was a legit way of curing their aliments.
Thankfully medicine has evolved since those days. maybe its time you did too.

Yea! John Hughes Bennett and William Harvey discovered Bloodletting is not Medicine.
Then Again, they were Christians, and one would expect such science to be discovered by them.

Quote from: Munch on August 13, 2018, 08:02:46 PM
mousetrap, your believing that you know god and that he does exist has as much credibility to it as people who use to believe that cutting a sick patient and letting them 'bleed out the negative energies' was a legit way of curing their aliments.
Thankfully medicine has evolved since those days. maybe its time you did too.

Actually, I would hope that consenting adults could choose that kind of treatment. That would thin them out nicely.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 14, 2018, 08:47:31 AM
Actually, I would hope that consenting adults could choose that kind of treatment. That would thin them out nicely.

Just think how atheists would die if it was not for God fearing surgeons and doctors who discovered all the workings of Biology.
No, I would say you guys have something to be great full for.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 14, 2018, 08:53:21 AM
Just think how atheists would die if it was not for God fearing surgeons and doctors who discovered all the workings of Biology.
No, I would say you guys have something to be great full for.

you seem to be equating a belief in god to that of the growth of modern day medicine and biological understanding. It was only when they stopped following religious indoctrination did such studies evolve, and that is why the majority of doctors these days do not follow a faith, or leave that shit at the door to only focus on medicine and becoming a doctor.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 14, 2018, 08:45:51 AM
Yea! John Hughes Bennett and William Harvey discovered Bloodletting is not Medicine.
Then Again, they were Christians, and one would expect such science to be discovered by them.

They were probably right-handed, too.  More proof of the inherent superiority of us orthodox Rights over the sinister Lefts.

Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on August 14, 2018, 08:47:31 AM
Actually, I would hope that consenting adults could choose that kind of treatment. That would thin them out nicely.

Only at your local licensed barber.  They were the only ones with sharp knives, hence the red/white barber pole

Quote from: Hydra009 on August 14, 2018, 12:54:38 PM
They were probably right-handed, too.  More proof of the inherent superiority of us orthodox Rights over the sinister Lefts.

Leonardo was Left and Gay ... so burn his shit! (sarc)

Quote from: Munch on August 14, 2018, 11:50:19 AM
you seem to be equating a belief in god to that of the growth of modern day medicine and biological understanding. It was only when they stopped following religious indoctrination did such studies evolve, and that is why the majority of doctors these days do not follow a faith, or leave that shit at the door to only focus on medicine and becoming a doctor.

on the contrary.
I observe that if it was not for the reformation and renaissance, we would still be burned at the stake for trying to discuss science.
By the way, all my doctors are either Christian or Jew.
I dont like atheist practitioners, they dont care for the old and sick as the theists does.

I also ask for Christian or Jewish judges when in court.
They have a conscience of accountability.
Atheists judges and doctors are egoistic.

Early in this thread there was an on-topic post regarding Muslims in America.  Someone pointed out that many American Muslims are actually Nation of Islam.

It is my contention that Nation of Islam is not real Islam, based on a few critical theological points, the main one being who is the final prophet.  Muslims (both Shia and Sunni) say Mohammed was the FINAL prophet, no other interpretation possible or allowed.  NOI believes that their founder was a later prophet.

Also Islam will accept any person as a convert if you actually are crazy enough to want to join.  NOI is explicitly racist, and even believe the absurd story of Big Head Yakub the scientist who created white people.

Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on August 19, 2018, 12:51:02 PM
Early in this thread there was an on-topic post regarding Muslims in America.  Someone pointed out that many American Muslims are actually Nation of Islam.

It is my contention that Nation of Islam is not real Islam, based on a few critical theological points, the main one being who is the final prophet.  Muslims (both Shia and Sunni) say Mohammed was the FINAL prophet, no other interpretation possible or allowed.  NOI believes that their founder was a later prophet.

Also Islam will accept any person as a convert if you actually are crazy enough to want to join.  NOI is explicitly racist, and even believe the absurd story of Big Head Yakub the scientist who created white people.

(https://i.giphy.com/media/CkyV1ZWhU3oGI/giphy.webp)

What? lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUEN1ZuDSMg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUEN1ZuDSMg)

Note - the individual posting this video doesn't agree with this.  He is posting it to expose it so that we can know about it.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 14, 2018, 08:53:21 AM
Just think how atheists would die if it was not for God fearing surgeons and doctors who discovered all the workings of Biology.

I am sure to be corrected if wrong, but the church stymied our early doctors from using corpses to help learn more about the human body. God fearing? Highly unlikely. If it was up to "god" every town in the world would have a tent city outside of the town where them nasty stinky bloody women go once a month for 7 days. Your god is a clown. Clowns like other clowns.

Quote from: aitm on August 19, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
I am sure to be corrected if wrong, but the church stymied our early doctors from using corpses to help learn more about the human body. God fearing? Highly unlikely. If it was up to "god" every town in the world would have a tent city outside of the town where them nasty stinky bloody women go once a month for 7 days. Your god is a clown. Clowns like other clowns.

Yes and know.  Early anatomists, post Galen, who worked on gladiators and Roman soldiers, had to steal bodies from graves.   Nobody was donating their bodies to science.  And, bodies have to carefully handled in crime, per "corpus delecti".  Under early coroner laws, that is why Franklin's basement in London looks like a "cold case" serial killer crime scene.

Quote from: aitm on August 19, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
I am sure to be corrected if wrong, but the church stymied our early doctors from using corpses to help learn more about the human body. God fearing? Highly unlikely. If it was up to "god" every town in the world would have a tent city outside of the town where them nasty stinky bloody women go once a month for 7 days. Your god is a clown. Clowns like other clowns.

You are correct. Even in early American history, doctors had to resort to robbing graves of their corpses in order to study them. The church has always been, and always will be, resistant to scientific advancement. Hell, when gas lighting was invented, the church complained that it was "unnatural" for people to be awake after dark.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2018, 01:04:17 AM
You are correct. Even in early American history, doctors had to resort to robbing graves of their corpses in order to study them. The church has always been, and always will be, resistant to scientific advancement. Hell, when gas lighting was invented, the church complained that it was "unnatural" for people to be awake after dark

Ghouls for science?  So people shouldn't have funerals and burials etc ... because Dr Frankenstein needs anatomy parts?

Some people have disturbed sleep because of city noise and light.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2018, 01:04:17 AM
Hell, when gas lighting was invented, the church complained that it was "unnatural" for people to be awake after dark.

It does seem unnatural, and I more and more find myself awake in the middle of the night prowling around the house like a zombie.  Then I get tired and fall asleep in the middle of the day like a vampire.  Yeah, it's unnatural.

But even in my younger days going to bed at sundown would have seemed unnatural.  There was no way I was going to fall asleep before 10 or 11.

Quote from: aitm on August 19, 2018, 05:12:06 PM
I am sure to be corrected if wrong, but the church stymied our early doctors from using corpses to help learn more about the human body. God fearing? Highly unlikely. If it was up to "god" every town in the world would have a tent city outside of the town where them nasty stinky bloody women go once a month for 7 days. Your god is a clown. Clowns like other clowns.

It still does not change the fact that Christians established medicine we have today.
Why the Straw Puppet argument to attempt dust in other's eyes?
Do you think it is appropriate to build an argument against facts, that has nothing to do with Christians who achieved the science we have today?

Not a verygood argument anyhow!

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 22, 2018, 02:24:49 AM
It still does not change the fact that Christians established medicine we have today.
Why the Straw Puppet argument to attempt dust in other's eyes?
Do you think it is appropriate to build an argument against facts, that has nothing to do with Christians who achieved the science we have today?

Not a verygood argument anyhow!

Christians did not establish our medical practices.  Actually Moslems did most of that until the Crusades.  Non-christian doctors in Europe carried on past that (christianity forbade vivisection).

Quote from: Cavebear on August 22, 2018, 05:13:07 AM
Christians did not establish our medical practices.  Actually Moslems did most of that until the Crusades.  Non-christian doctors in Europe carried on past that (christianity forbade vivisection).

vivisection = dissecting a living being
surgery = cutting patient
dissection = dissecting a dead being

surgery was always allowed.  vivisection was and still is, illegal, on humans.  dissection of humans was prohibited.

It's absolutely moronic to claim that Christians established anything in science. In a world where being a skeptic can get you killed, of course scientists are going to say they're Christian, even when they're not. Science did not grow because of Christianity, but in spite of it. Christianity has been opposed to science from the very beginning, and the scientists who existed would have been put to death if they expressed dissent from the religion. Why do you think that most scientists today are atheists? It's because we no longer live in a society were atheism is a punishable offense. Science flourishes today because of secularism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPOMNdvKZtQ

"Historically, this has been Christianity's typical MO: Fight a war against progress, lose that war against progress, and when that progress turns out to be a good thing after all, claim credit for that progress."

"If we look at our top scientists now, they are mostly atheists. That's true even in the United States, where atheists are still a tiny minority. Let that sink in. As soon as you're no longer allowed to kill this tiny minority, suddenly that same tiny minority becomes the majority of your top minds."

QuoteIt's absolutely moronic to claim that Christians established anything in science.

List of Christians in science and technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology)

Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Leibnitz, Newton, Darwin, Kepler, Lavoisier, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Babbage, Lister, Maxwell, Kelvin, Joule, Mercali, Rontgen, Mendel, Marconi, Heisenberg and many more.

All secret atheists in Taqiyah from the Inquisition ;-)

Humans prove every day that there is no progress.

Most scientists today ... are secular.  That wasn't always true.

The average person is threatened by change, so feel threatened by new knowledge.  This is lower than religion.

Knowledge isn't everything, but it is useful.  Understanding is better.  Wisdom better still.  Science doesn't aid understanding or wisdom.  In Logical Positivism ... all philosophy was denied, all art was denied ... only logic and empirical science allowed.  This died out in the 1950s.  It was replaced by tripping on acid and attending Beatles concerts while they pretended to be Hindu.

There are 2 roots we should applaud  on why science advanced in the West.
The Renaissance and Reformation.

I can only shake my head when an Atheist tries to tell me that the Christians did not want scientists to advance with Science.
They have this huge capacity to generalize anything they need to change into a straw puppet.

There might have been some Jesuits Catholics who wanted to stop certain published observations because of their pre conceived bias, but they eventually were silenced by men such as Newton who was safe in England, and not in a Catholic country.
As soon as the Catholic Church saw what the Reformers achieved on science, they stopped their foolishness and joined in the feast of scientific discoveries!

One should actually compare the Catholic Church of the 14th and 15th century with Atheism of today!
Just as when the priests then hated scientific truth, so does Atheism today!

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 23, 2018, 06:37:53 AM
There are 2 roots we should applaud  on why science advanced in the West.
The Renaissance and Reformation.

I can only shake my head when an Atheist tries to tell me that the Christians did not want scientists to advance with Science.

They were willing to go along with science at first because they thought their religious beliefs would be vindicated. When that changed, they stopped being so in support of science.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 23, 2018, 11:42:55 AM
They were willing to go along with science at first because they thought their religious beliefs would be vindicated. When that changed, they stopped being so in support of science.

Luther wasn't fooled, he immediately condemned Copernicus, same as the Pope did.  But back then, science was natural philosophy, and philosophy was the handmaid of theology.

Quote from: pr126 on August 22, 2018, 11:13:03 PM
List of Christians in science and technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology)

Francis Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, Pascal, Leibnitz, Newton, Darwin, Kepler, Lavoisier, Volta, Ampere, Faraday, Babbage, Lister, Maxwell, Kelvin, Joule, Mercali, Rontgen, Mendel, Marconi, Heisenberg and many more.

And? Again, Christianity was slowing scientific progress, not advancing it. Which you'd know if you'd read beyond the first sentence, or watched the fucking video. Want to know how many ancient scientists were atheists? So would I, but those people were either playing the part or dead. Early scientists had to walk a fine line between advancement and heresy. Discover something that the church deems incompatible with church doctrine? Keep quiet or face the consequences.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 20, 2018, 01:04:17 AM
You are correct. Even in early American history, doctors had to resort to robbing graves of their corpses in order to study them. The church has always been, and always will be, resistant to scientific advancement. Hell, when gas lighting was invented, the church complained that it was "unnatural" for people to be awake after dark.

Hell, they wouldn't even condone lightning rods!

Christian Churches vs. the Lightning Rod (http://www.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html)

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 23, 2018, 04:31:33 PM
Hell, they wouldn't even condone lightning rods!

Christian Churches vs. the Lightning Rod (http://www.miltontimmons.com/ChruchesVsLightningRod.html)

Well, of course not! Lightning isn't a natural phenomenon with erratic and unpredictable patterns. It's God's tool to smite people with! He wouldn't allow a building to be struck by lightning if the people inside it didn't offend him in some way!

In all seriousness, though, Christians always hate new stuff. I remember when I was a kid playing Pokemon, the church leaders believed that Pokemon were demons. Like, actual fucking demons that would infest your house or possess your kids if you allowed the game to be in your house. I had assumed that after a couple decades, the church would have finally gotten used to the idea and moved on, but then Pokemon Go came out and...they thought that churches being used as Pokestops and gyms was letting demon Pokemon infest their churches. You'd think they'd appreciate the sudden increase in young people coming to their churches, but nope.

You mean like this preacher?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNb3xJFzkc




"Russian roulette is just a game!"

Just...LOL!

I like how this video ends, with the preacher saying "don't think." That's exactly what Christian leaders want, for their flocks to not think.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 23, 2018, 05:45:17 PM
You mean like this preacher?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmNb3xJFzkc




"Russian roulette is just a game!"

Just...LOL!

Yup. He started off fine, but went right off the deep end at about the one minute mark, when he just starting making shit up.

"But they're so into this make believe world that they can't distinguish between fantasy and real," says the pastor who thinks that creatures in a video game can hurt you. OMG.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 23, 2018, 05:15:29 PM
Well, of course not! Lightning isn't a natural phenomenon with erratic and unpredictable patterns. It's God's tool to smite people with! He wouldn't allow a building to be struck by lightning if the people inside it didn't offend him in some way!

In all seriousness, though, Christians always hate new stuff. I remember when I was a kid playing Pokemon, the church leaders believed that Pokemon were demons. Like, actual fucking demons that would infest your house or possess your kids if you allowed the game to be in your house. I had assumed that after a couple decades, the church would have finally gotten used to the idea and moved on, but then Pokemon Go came out and...they thought that churches being used as Pokestops and gyms was letting demon Pokemon infest their churches. You'd think they'd appreciate the sudden increase in young people coming to their churches, but nope.

With Pokémon Go, you can see the actual demons in action ;-)

Here is something to think about.

We have radical Islam.  And it logically follows that there is also moderate Islam? Really?
But there is only one Quran. No radical Quran and moderate Quran. Just one.

Why not radical Buddhism or radical Judaism? Or radical Christianity?
How about radical Jainism? Ever heard of radical Taoism? Radical Hinduism anyone?

Quote from: pr126 on August 23, 2018, 11:37:37 PM
Here is something to think about.

We have radical Islam.  And it logically follows that there is also moderate Islam? Really?
But there is only one Quran. No radical Quran and moderate Quran. Just one.

Why not radical Buddhism or radical Judaism? Or radical Christianity?
How about radical Jainism? Ever heard of radical Taoism? Radical Hinduism anyone?

Radical Hindus killed Gandhi.  There are radical Christians (Dominionism).  Radical Jains are that sect of Jains who wear no clothes at all.

Some radicals are better than others.

Alinsky - rules for radicals.

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on August 23, 2018, 11:42:55 AM
They were willing to go along with science at first because they thought their religious beliefs would be vindicated. When that changed, they stopped being so in support of science.

Consider this.
Newton published his first scientific book on light and optics.
He was ridiculed by his peers and fellow scientists, even in the members of the Royal society had only criticism and desperately tried to find fault with what he wrote.
This so disgruntled Newton, that he thereafter refused to publish anything and was only later convinced by John Locke to change his mind!

Now, lets see what we learned about the whole affair.
Newton loved the Bible and remarked that it was his source of information and inspiration.
He is not only one of the world's greatest scientists, but also a great Biblical scholar.
He clearly despised any notion of Naturalism, or as we know it to be, Atheism.

Newton was scolded by fellow scientists!

Can I now say that science oppressed Christianity?
I will be a fool to even thing this way.

Now, why the heck do you take a few "Christians" as an example of oppressors of science, when clearly you are talking of isolated incidents?
Hopefully out of mischief, and not iddiocity.

Atheists and the left hate Christianity with a passion.
Islam hates Christians, Jews.

When one criticizes Islam, he will be called a bigot, hater, racist Islamophobe by the atheists, and the left.




The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 23, 2018, 05:15:29 PM
Well, of course not! Lightning isn't a natural phenomenon with erratic and unpredictable patterns. It's God's tool to smite people with! He wouldn't allow a building to be struck by lightning if the people inside it didn't offend him in some way!

In all seriousness, though, Christians always hate new stuff. I remember when I was a kid playing Pokemon, the church leaders believed that Pokemon were demons. Like, actual fucking demons that would infest your house or possess your kids if you allowed the game to be in your house. I had assumed that after a couple decades, the church would have finally gotten used to the idea and moved on, but then Pokemon Go came out and...they thought that churches being used as Pokestops and gyms was letting demon Pokemon infest their churches. You'd think they'd appreciate the sudden increase in young people coming to their churches, but nope.

I also remember when Pokemon was a craze in South Africa.
My sons were in primary school and in the NG Church.
The minister also came up with that stupidity.
I told him he's talking BS!

But, I was intelligent enough to distinguish between a stupid priest, and the truth without blaming it on the Bible or the Christian religion.

You should try to find reality without using it as an excuse for your atheistic beliefs!

Quote from: pr126 on August 24, 2018, 04:54:50 AM
Atheists and the left hate Christianity with a passion.
Islam hates Christians, Jews.

When one criticizes Islam, he will be called a bigot, hater, racist Islamophobe by the atheists, and the left.




The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

This has been explained to you countless times, but it seems to just go in one ear and out the other. We hate Christianity because Christians actually have power to affect our lives. We have more exposure to Christianity. I don't think that Muslims are immune to criticism. They just aren't a threat to me.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 24, 2018, 06:18:26 AM
You should try to find reality without using it as an excuse for your atheistic beliefs!

I don't have "atheistic beliefs" - I have atheistic unbeliefs.

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 24, 2018, 08:00:51 PM
This has been explained to you countless times, but it seems to just in one ear and out the other. We hate Christianity because Christians actually have power to affect our lives. We have more exposure to Christianity. I don't think that Muslims are immune to criticism. They just aren't a threat to me.

You'll probably have to explain that several more times, and it still won't sink in.

Quote from: Unbeliever on August 24, 2018, 08:07:56 PM
I don't have "atheistic beliefs" - I have atheistic unbeliefs.

On deity yes.  In other areas, you do have beliefs.  That is funny about evangelists, they think that because you believe something, you should believe their particular thing too.  Bias, prejudice, ideology etc don't work that way.  The first evangelists were Buddhists, blame them.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 24, 2018, 04:38:51 AM
Consider this.
Newton published his first scientific book on light and optics.
He was ridiculed by his peers and fellow scientists, even in the members of the Royal society had only criticism and desperately tried to find fault with what he wrote.

In many ways, it's the JOB of a scientist to shoot down each others' ideas. You know that an idea is of worth precisely because it has survived harsh criticism.

But, yes, the science done in those days was kind of cutthroat.

Quote
This so disgruntled Newton, that he thereafter refused to publish anything and was only later convinced by John Locke to change his mind!

Now, lets see what we learned about the whole affair.
Newton loved the Bible and remarked that it was his source of information and inspiration.
He is not only one of the world's greatest scientists, but also a great Biblical scholar.
He clearly despised any notion of Naturalism, or as we know it to be, Atheism.

Eh, no. As I said before, cribbing any source for ideas is fine, and nobody cares about what you believe, only what you can support. Newton's corpuscular ideas of light were revolutionary, but was unsupported except by arguments that even I in the 20th century find kind of unconvincing (and I know light is made of particles... and waves), and even overshadowed for a while by the wave theory of light.

Quote
Newton was scolded by fellow scientists!

Who were also Christians. Furthermore, it was just scolding. Newton never got scalded for his ideas.

Quote
Can I now say that science oppressed Christianity?

No.

Quote
Now, why the heck do you take a few "Christians" as an example of oppressors of science, when clearly you are talking of isolated incidents?

Because such oppression took the form of more drastic measures than mere "scolding."

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 24, 2018, 04:38:51 AM
He is not only one of the world's greatest scientists, but also a great Biblical scholar.
He clearly despised any notion of Naturalism, or as we know it to be, Atheism.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote from: Blackleaf on August 22, 2018, 10:52:32 PM
It's absolutely moronic to claim that Christians established anything in science. In a world where being a skeptic can get you killed, of course scientists are going to say they're Christian, even when they're not. Science did not grow because of Christianity, but in spite of it. Christianity has been opposed to science from the very beginning, and the scientists who existed would have been put to death if they expressed dissent from the religion. Why do you think that most scientists today are atheists? It's because we no longer live in a society were atheism is a punishable offense. Science flourishes today because of secularism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPOMNdvKZtQ

"Historically, this has been Christianity's typical MO: Fight a war against progress, lose that war against progress, and when that progress turns out to be a good thing after all, claim credit for that progress."

"If we look at our top scientists now, they are mostly atheists. That's true even in the United States, where atheists are still a tiny minority. Let that sink in. As soon as you're no longer allowed to kill this tiny minority, suddenly that same tiny minority becomes the majority of your top minds."

Scientists are, per se, logical.
Logical people are usually atheist.

Quote from: pr126 on August 23, 2018, 11:37:37 PM
Here is something to think about.

We have radical Islam.  And it logically follows that there is also moderate Islam? Really?
But there is only one Quran. No radical Quran and moderate Quran. Just one.

Why not radical Buddhism or radical Judaism? Or radical Christianity?
How about radical Jainism? Ever heard of radical Taoism? Radical Hinduism anyone?

There are radical versions of all major theisms.  That is called "the mainstream".  Hindus, Moslems, Christians, and Jews kill anyone they disagree with.  Taoism and Jainism may be more of a philosophy.

Quote from: Mousetrap on August 24, 2018, 04:38:51 AM
Consider this.
Newton published his first scientific book on light and optics.
He was ridiculed by his peers and fellow scientists, even in the members of the Royal society had only criticism and desperately tried to find fault with what he wrote.
This so disgruntled Newton, that he thereafter refused to publish anything and was only later convinced by John Locke to change his mind!

Now, lets see what we learned about the whole affair.
Newton loved the Bible and remarked that it was his source of information and inspiration.
He is not only one of the world's greatest scientists, but also a great Biblical scholar.
He clearly despised any notion of Naturalism, or as we know it to be, Atheism.

Newton was scolded by fellow scientists!

Can I now say that science oppressed Christianity?
I will be a fool to even thing this way.

Now, why the heck do you take a few "Christians" as an example of oppressors of science, when clearly you are talking of isolated incidents?
Hopefully out of mischief, and not iddiocity.

Science-minded people who thought logically did it in spite of their lingering religious views.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2018, 03:55:36 AM
Scientists are, per se, logical.
Logical people are usually atheist.

Scientists are empirical and usually employ mathematical models.  That isn't the same as logic.  Theologians can be logical (Thomas Aquinas).

Logical people are usually logicians.  Nobody else cares (see my string on logic).

Claims to being logical here, are just another version of virtue signaling by the usual suspects.

Quote from: Cavebear on August 27, 2018, 04:07:12 AM
There are radical versions of all major theisms.  That is called "the mainstream".  Hindus, Moslems, Christians, and Jews kill anyone they disagree with.  Taoism and Jainism may be more of a philosophy.

Jains have rarely been violent (see S India 1500 years ago).

Taoists can be violent (see China 1200 years ago).

Buddhists can be violent (see Sri Lanka in the last generation).

In all these cases, connections to royal politics.  Should we blame monarchy?