Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
You must have forgotten the great Atheists, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot...
Atheism - the most deadly ism in human history - nothing else even comes close.
Why do the God-haters persist?
- Thread starter Boss
- Start date
You must have forgotten the great Atheists, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot...
Atheism - the most deadly ism in human history - nothing else even comes close.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Even if we accept your nonsense as true, you have 14 versus 200.
But then, you said Hitler was an occultist...
You're reality challenged. It's stereotypical of sweaty, chest-heaving loons to parrot absurdities as you do.
It's been explained to you that your continued confusion with atheism as a religion is false and unsupportable. You're just a slow learner?
Steven_R
Tommy Vercetti Fan Club
- Jul 17, 2013
- 4,852
- 932
- 245
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Got it, because the Inquisition was under a popular Republican government....
Ahm that must be why religion was never found in the European monarchies - it undermind absolute authority....
In some ways you have a point - but where you jump off track is in failing to grasp that Atheism is extremism by nature.
thebrucebeat
Senior Member
More acronyms for vulgarity.
I don't really think I am going to go to your posts for wisdom.
Your arrogance not withstanding.
You haven't forgotten, just never learned, that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Pot, furthered political ideologies and /or goals of self aggrandizement.
I suppose it offends your tender sensibilities to have your slogans and cliches dismissed as pointless.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
thebrucebeat pointed out extremism. I'll add nationalism. Even where religion or atheism were involved, how many wars or atrocities have been committed because clashes between nations, or a requirement for devotion to same?
The important point, I think, is that trying to pin religion or atheism with the blame for every death caused by a religious or atheistic regime is foolish.
You were just schooled on how ineffectual and blatantly absurd your comments are.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
It is not a matter of confusion. Atheism has more than one definition.
You, for example, use a definition that seems to include love of murder rather than a simple disbelief in god(s).
thebrucebeat
Senior Member
I can't help but think you don't know many atheists.
Most of them think our entire conversation is a hilarious waste of time.
They couldn't care less, and are the least extreme elements of society because they are simply not engaged in this at all.
You have created a vision of the lack of belief in a deity morphing into blood lust and murder fantasies, and it is an insane self-created fantasy.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
I'm not a theist by any stretch of the imagination, but I see the bigotry and religious intolerance perpetrated by the left as an assault on fundamental liberty. I adamantly defend the right of men to say there is no god, without fear of prison or censure from the state. I defend their right to say this in the public square and on the court house steps.
But you demand that those who say there is a god should be silenced by force of arms from stating their beliefs. It makes no difference to me if a little girl prays to Bugs Bunny before a football game, why would it. But you demand that men with guns must stop a little girl from praying to Christ on what you see has holy ground, owned by the beloved state who is above all men.
I oppose you not because I have faith in the god of the Christians, I most certainly do not, I oppose you because you promote tyranny.
emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
1. I do not see you as angry at all. All your objections seem to be based on content, not rejecting for the sake of rejecting. You seem to present yourself in a evenly keeled good natured tone.
I understand you have reasons for distrusting, criticizing and rejecting "politicized Christianity" but that is separate from the true meaning message and practice.
That seems a natural reaction that doesn't impede you too much from interacting and seeking to share with others.
You seem to stay rationally minded about this, so I would peg you as one of the "righteous gentiles" who naturally follows the law by conscience.
This path is still governed by the same spirit of truth and justice that God and Jesus represent, while gentiles using natural laws share from a secular perspective of seeing and saying things.
If you have a bias against the concept of a god, I think it is natural for you, and not just an emotional reaction against other people or views.
So I think this is workable with. Everyone has limits, conditions, boundaries and biases.
We all have cultural differences that make our perception and experiences come out different and unique to each of us.
There is no reason to make this a stumbling block when everyone is going to have differences, and some of these are going to conflict directly. that's just life and how people are.
2. I would compare your view of Christian politicians as very similar to why people distrust the Democrat party and liberals "as a group" and do not have faith that abuses of power can be corrected.
Instead of seeking to work with people within the party, opponents just attack the whole group, pointing out the corruption and wrongs done by party leaders and politics in the name of elections and votes, and the complete denial and refusal to address these issues.
So this is similar to how opponents reject Christianity where members seem to totally overlook wrongs and seem to push their own agenda for selfish reasons, so it's abusive
The abuses of Christianity are then used to discredit the practice and its practitioners as a whole.
Sealybobo it is interesting to me that you and I can forgive the problems with Democrats falling to corrupt politicians abusing the party for votes and power; I share the faith that people WITHIN the party have sincere ideals and commitment, even if the system of power has been hijacked by those with more influence financially, politically and with the media.
I do not throw out all the other members, and principles, just because of the corrupt Democrat leaders, practices and history that have completely gone against these goals.
In fact, I try even HARDER to correct the problems by standing up for these principles,
and working toward corrections, solutions and restitution invested from past abuses. I think that is the very least owed, for all the exploitation of minorities and politics in the past.
So when I take this same self-correctional approach with Christianity, enforcing the principles among peers in order to hold each other to the standards we agree to follow, to correct abuses,
I find that not all people can do that. Christians may have faith that other Christians can be held to account this way; but opponents attacking from outside do not. The parties are equally bad if not worse.
GISMYS may be able to forgive the wrongs committed in the name of Christianity because he puts the good and true purpose first;
but when it comes to groups he opposes, then all the dirt and past wrongs come out to discredit that group and people associated with it.
Same with political parties.
(One of my friends is so dependent on the Democrat party to represent his disdain for conservative Christian Republicans, that he will not come forward and talk about his opposition to ACA because he doesn't want to align or get used by the other party.)
SB if you also favor the liberal Democrats over the conservative Republicans, if you can forgive the problems and exploitation in the history of the Democrat party, and seek instead to focus on humanitarian principles and purposes that are good to defend, and can be used to OVERCOME and correct the problems that Democrats have long been blamed for.
Isn't that similar to how Christians defend the good principles and purpose in the faith,
and forgive historic wrongs and abuses while seeking to correct these? Instead of rejecting the whole thing as problematic?
3. my understanding of the concept of immaculate birth of Christ
is that it represents Jesus carrying no karma from physical family as other people do,
and thus no debts that his actions had to repay for his own conscience sake.
So the sacrifice of Christ was not to pay for anything he did or owed which was nothing,
and so it represents paying off and breaking the cycle of karma for all humanity.
Collectively it was for all other people, by nature of his divine role in this process,
and was not for him personally.
Everything is paid forward to help others, and none of it is for working off debts owed in the past, as symbolized by Jesus born free of sin/karma normally inherited from the past.
That is what it symbolizes, but the storytelling and explanation of it makes no sense.
If Mary had to be 100% pure for him to be pure, then so would her parents etc. etc. etc.
That is taking it too literally.
The point is about spiritual purity and lack of conditions.
All other people carry conditions and biases where we do not treat people equally
but favor some more than others. what Jesus represents as God's love or justice
is unconditional, where all people are loved and included equally, which only God can do.
the rest of us are imperfect and biased by material conditions or "sin/karma" passed down.
I understand you have reasons for distrusting, criticizing and rejecting "politicized Christianity" but that is separate from the true meaning message and practice.
That seems a natural reaction that doesn't impede you too much from interacting and seeking to share with others.
You seem to stay rationally minded about this, so I would peg you as one of the "righteous gentiles" who naturally follows the law by conscience.
This path is still governed by the same spirit of truth and justice that God and Jesus represent, while gentiles using natural laws share from a secular perspective of seeing and saying things.
If you have a bias against the concept of a god, I think it is natural for you, and not just an emotional reaction against other people or views.
So I think this is workable with. Everyone has limits, conditions, boundaries and biases.
We all have cultural differences that make our perception and experiences come out different and unique to each of us.
There is no reason to make this a stumbling block when everyone is going to have differences, and some of these are going to conflict directly. that's just life and how people are.
2. I would compare your view of Christian politicians as very similar to why people distrust the Democrat party and liberals "as a group" and do not have faith that abuses of power can be corrected.
Instead of seeking to work with people within the party, opponents just attack the whole group, pointing out the corruption and wrongs done by party leaders and politics in the name of elections and votes, and the complete denial and refusal to address these issues.
So this is similar to how opponents reject Christianity where members seem to totally overlook wrongs and seem to push their own agenda for selfish reasons, so it's abusive
The abuses of Christianity are then used to discredit the practice and its practitioners as a whole.
Sealybobo it is interesting to me that you and I can forgive the problems with Democrats falling to corrupt politicians abusing the party for votes and power; I share the faith that people WITHIN the party have sincere ideals and commitment, even if the system of power has been hijacked by those with more influence financially, politically and with the media.
I do not throw out all the other members, and principles, just because of the corrupt Democrat leaders, practices and history that have completely gone against these goals.
In fact, I try even HARDER to correct the problems by standing up for these principles,
and working toward corrections, solutions and restitution invested from past abuses. I think that is the very least owed, for all the exploitation of minorities and politics in the past.
So when I take this same self-correctional approach with Christianity, enforcing the principles among peers in order to hold each other to the standards we agree to follow, to correct abuses,
I find that not all people can do that. Christians may have faith that other Christians can be held to account this way; but opponents attacking from outside do not. The parties are equally bad if not worse.
GISMYS may be able to forgive the wrongs committed in the name of Christianity because he puts the good and true purpose first;
but when it comes to groups he opposes, then all the dirt and past wrongs come out to discredit that group and people associated with it.
Same with political parties.
(One of my friends is so dependent on the Democrat party to represent his disdain for conservative Christian Republicans, that he will not come forward and talk about his opposition to ACA because he doesn't want to align or get used by the other party.)
SB if you also favor the liberal Democrats over the conservative Republicans, if you can forgive the problems and exploitation in the history of the Democrat party, and seek instead to focus on humanitarian principles and purposes that are good to defend, and can be used to OVERCOME and correct the problems that Democrats have long been blamed for.
Isn't that similar to how Christians defend the good principles and purpose in the faith,
and forgive historic wrongs and abuses while seeking to correct these? Instead of rejecting the whole thing as problematic?
3. my understanding of the concept of immaculate birth of Christ
is that it represents Jesus carrying no karma from physical family as other people do,
and thus no debts that his actions had to repay for his own conscience sake.
So the sacrifice of Christ was not to pay for anything he did or owed which was nothing,
and so it represents paying off and breaking the cycle of karma for all humanity.
Collectively it was for all other people, by nature of his divine role in this process,
and was not for him personally.
Everything is paid forward to help others, and none of it is for working off debts owed in the past, as symbolized by Jesus born free of sin/karma normally inherited from the past.
That is what it symbolizes, but the storytelling and explanation of it makes no sense.
If Mary had to be 100% pure for him to be pure, then so would her parents etc. etc. etc.
That is taking it too literally.
The point is about spiritual purity and lack of conditions.
All other people carry conditions and biases where we do not treat people equally
but favor some more than others. what Jesus represents as God's love or justice
is unconditional, where all people are loved and included equally, which only God can do.
the rest of us are imperfect and biased by material conditions or "sin/karma" passed down.
Last edited:
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
So, he wants to murder Catholic Priests - but where is molestation more likely to occur, in a Catholic Church, or a public school?
Blood Lust is one of the defining characteristics of Atheists, as is bigotry.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
Ironic post is ironic..
I find very little difference in the reasoning abilities or tactics of GISMYS and SealyBobo. They have differing faiths, but both are fanatics without a hint of reason...
thebrucebeat
Senior Member
Silly argument on its face.
No one tries to silence little girls praying at gunpoint. What in the world kind of fantasy are you creating?
What non-believers are proactive about is not letting the state become a conduit for religious faith. The girl is free to pray anywhere she likes. She is not free to use the state's infrastructure to promote her prayers to everyone else.
Why would the faithful need the state to promote their ideals? Are they not capable of presenting these ideas on their own?
YES!! I HAVE FOUND ETERNAL LIVING TRUTH and I love to share!!! I take no joy in seeing you chose hell!!
thebrucebeat
Senior Member
Where do you get this insane idea?
What evidence do you have of that? What do you base this on?
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
God wasn't inserted into the pledge of allegiance until 1954 you ******* dimwit.
Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
So your answer is to lie?
Well, isn't that clever.
200 million victims of Atheist genocide - regardless of whether you lie for your faith.
Yet here you are, shoving your faith down the throat of everyone else.
See, I support your right to believe any damned thing you want. We clash because you deny that right to others.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Powerful Iranian missile sink USS Abraham Lincoln and also the island of Cyprus all in the same day!- Started by justoffal
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
