robertsan21
Member
Kreed said:
Oh I am so sorry
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
CNN Panel on Atheism - YouTube Link Inside!
- Thread starter Fragamemnon
- Start date
- Status
Oh I am so sorry
SaggyMonkey
Member
Earthstrike said:
The site's meant more as an eye opener to existing Christians, and points out clearly (with bible references) some of the crazy stuff "they" believe or that exists in 'scripture', that much of the time isn't known to single followers. (and some of the stuff that clearly isn't logical when you really sit and look at it.) An attempt to talk to them on their own terms. Normalbobsmith.com is another fun site, as he likes to make cartoons out of fundie hate mail, and fun pamphlets you can print: http://normalbobsmith.com/publicity&promotion/pamphlets.html
That CNN clip would have turned out much differently if Sam was on it.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Kreed said:
First, because it's simply naive to think that two peoples can live without conflict when their values are totally incompatible. Some differences are minor (e.g. group A dislikes nudity, group B sees nothing wrong with it), and indeed we see in our western societies that even though these differences can occasionally cause conflict, various groups can co-exist without significant difficulty.
Other differences are fundamental. How can group A co-exist with group B if group A believes that anyone who deconverts from their religion should be murdered, and group B believes in freedom of religion? Either they don't co-exist at all, or group B has to enforce their values by force of law over group A, while most of group B's population plays the austrich and keeps pretending that a terrifyingly large fraction of group A aren't barely repressed potential murderers.
Second, because groups, peoples, and gangs aren't homogenous. We're all very tolerant of Muslim traditions such as forcing women to wear a burka, because after all who are we to say that our culture is better? If Muslims want their women to wear burkas, it's the Muslims' business, not ours. But of course the group of people we call "Muslims" is made of individuals, some of whom are women who would prefer not to wear a burka if they weren't forced to by their families and communities. Don't you realize how silly it is to be afraid of imposing our culture of personal freedom, while respecting other cultures' "right" to oppress the people they're made of? We grant the group the right to deny freedom to some of its people, but we refuse to force the group to grant rights to the indidivuals it's composed of. It's hypocritical, and extremely stupid. "Groups", "cultures", and "peoples" don't matter, individuals matter.
If we accept that people should have the right to wear whatever they want, then the Muslim tradition that women must wear a burka has to be abolished.
When two peoples' values contradict each other in a fundamental way, unless the peoples are completely isolated from one another, one set of values has to go. And with the way globalization is proceeding, it's an inescapable fact that complete isolation is impossible in the long term. We have to start defending our values now, not in 30 years.
1- Because people nowadays have the intense urge to stick their ideas upon anyone else's ass, but that's common to atheists, evangelists, sport comentators, politicians and gaffers as well (me included).
2- I believe in God, but since I have an atheist girlfriend I have seen that Atheists are not exactly very good looked by the majority of the society outside Europe and some few countries, they feel persecuted, hence the "need" for validation. Heck, just look at the video to see what I mean.
3- Atheists tends to only consider real the material world, hence why they feel that they are in the possesion of the truth: their "belief" is base on observation and rational thought instead of feelings and faith, which the majority of the believers base their asumption of the existance of God, albeit atheists also act as if Snt.Thomas or any rational thinker that supported the idea of the existence of God never existed, but to be fair, the overwhelming majority of believers are not exactly models of pure reason.
PhlegmMaster said:
It's one thing to have conflicts, it's another to want your values to overcome another set of values. Groups can have conflicts/issues without having to solve them by eradicating the opposing set of values.
Compromise or separate.
Only if the Muslims are a part of or want to be a part of "gang A" and there is no way to compromise. If they are over in "gang B territory" and "gang B" isn't threatening "gang A" then I see no reason to abolish anything.
Defend? You want to convert everyone into "gang A" because you feel "gang A's" values are more important than "gang 1's". That's not defense. And as I said before...opinions like yours are why we have so many problems today. It's always the gang "defending" their values that causes the most problems.
Ned Flanders
Banned
Ikael said:
I think this point is critical. So much of my experience with believers seems to yield quite a bit of emotion-based justification for their chosen faith, which I would suppose is the major impediment to applying rational arguments in discussing the issue regarding deities/religion. The funny thing to me is that science is rapidly advancing the understanding of the biomechanics of emotion itself
Also, I'm a bit offended at the notion of atheists "seeking validation", as though it were some psychological defect or persecution complex. Through the lens of history, you wouldn't level such a claim against black rights or women's suffrage advocates, you would hail them as bold individuals unafraid to make their case for equality in the face of a society that frowned upon them.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Kreed said:
Explain to me how people who believe in freedom of speech can co-exist with people who don't believe in freedom of speech.
Compromise? See above. Sometimes you can't compromise.
Separate? In the case of Muslims, the only way to separate would be to send back all European Muslims who still think the Sharia is a good thing back to Muslim countries, and keep Muslims confined to those countries. But for the moment there are many Muslims living in our countries who do support sharia 'law', and who would be murdering apostates if they weren't afraid of getting arrested.
People don't separate themselves into "gangs" so easily. What about the women in "gang A" who want to come over to "gang B" and wear whatever they want, but who can't because we let their husbands and families oppress them? If every individual had the choice to be part of either "gang", there would be no problem. But the real problem is that gang A's cultural and religious values don't give indiividuals that freedom. To give individuals freedom there is no way but to abolish traditions which favor oppression.
I want to protect every individual's freedom. You want to protect the gangs' freedom, and by doing so you're oppressing some individuals. If you accept that, the distinction between attacking and defending becomes irrelevant.
- A group with an oppressive ideology attacks some of its members' values by defending the group's values.
- A group with an ideology which values freedom for all individuals will protect everyone's values by protecting its own, except of course for those values which are oppressive.
Being tolerant is sweet and all, but being tolerant of intolerance is counter-productive, or simply selfish.
fatigues_gasolini
Member
Here is my two cents:
I am an atheist, but did attend Chruch and Sunday School for the first 13 years of my life. From what all I was told and learned, I drew my own conclusion and just didnt accept what I was being told. Luckily for me, my parents didnt force their values down my throat. They taught me manners, and how to treat other people. I do not think religion is evil, nor tell people they are stupid for what they believe in. While I may not agree with what they say, they are free to believe what they want. I do have a problem with people whole try to force what they think is right on me and other people. From my understanding, and what I can remember, the Bible was trying to teach people to to help the down trodden and poor, and be good to each other. Its a guide for people. Some people just take it to an extreme and pick and choose what they think is right. How many times does the Bible metion how homosexuality is evil? maybe once or twice? How many other times down it mention to help the poor? many times. Not many in power seem to pick up on that. If I am wrong in my Bible references, please tell me, its been a while.
I am an atheist, but did attend Chruch and Sunday School for the first 13 years of my life. From what all I was told and learned, I drew my own conclusion and just didnt accept what I was being told. Luckily for me, my parents didnt force their values down my throat. They taught me manners, and how to treat other people. I do not think religion is evil, nor tell people they are stupid for what they believe in. While I may not agree with what they say, they are free to believe what they want. I do have a problem with people whole try to force what they think is right on me and other people. From my understanding, and what I can remember, the Bible was trying to teach people to to help the down trodden and poor, and be good to each other. Its a guide for people. Some people just take it to an extreme and pick and choose what they think is right. How many times does the Bible metion how homosexuality is evil? maybe once or twice? How many other times down it mention to help the poor? many times. Not many in power seem to pick up on that. If I am wrong in my Bible references, please tell me, its been a while.
bigfatgameguy said:
The evils of homosexuality and "sexual immorality" are mentioned more than just once or twice in Paul's letters. It's not done in a malicious way, but I just see it as a product of the context Paul was writing in. I also think there are some wonderful things that one can take from the Bible...Passages from the Psalms or Proverbs can be very inspiring.
whats the point of all this debate,to try and change someones mind into your way of thinking?is it a personal goal of yours or some kind of achievment to convert someone to atheiesm.Some people do believe in a ancient text some dont believe in anything supernatural.is it that you athiests just cant stand that some people believe in God?does it frusterate you that much.or let me guess do you feel pity for what you like to think is our simple brain washed and mislead minds, at least according to athiests. or you just want to understand how we can believe these things and how faith is enough for us.
so someone will say we debate because we need to support our ideas with facts and knowledge.but so what if you athiests spend time reading proathiesm articles,books and listening to lectures just so you can repeat everyhing in a forum to try and show it to us believers. the bottom line is no one is going to change their mind. why dont you athiests just debate among yourselves.
so someone will say we debate because we need to support our ideas with facts and knowledge.but so what if you athiests spend time reading proathiesm articles,books and listening to lectures just so you can repeat everyhing in a forum to try and show it to us believers. the bottom line is no one is going to change their mind. why dont you athiests just debate among yourselves.
At family get-togethers, I usually pretend to pray to Jesus Christ when my deeply Christian family members say grace just so they don't question my lack of faith. Ironic that as an atheist I love my family too much to attack their faith and yet I'm quite certain they wouldn't hesitate to try and convert me out of some kind of moral obligation.
Situations like that are exactly why atheists like myself feel so persecuted in US society. Most atheists are not out to stop people from believing in God and yet we usually get the opposite in return. Christianity wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't require it's members to script their children and convert non-believers.
Situations like that are exactly why atheists like myself feel so persecuted in US society. Most atheists are not out to stop people from believing in God and yet we usually get the opposite in return. Christianity wouldn't bother me so much if it didn't require it's members to script their children and convert non-believers.
The hypocrisy and irony in this post is hilarious. You really want to compare atheists to christians in terms of trying to force beliefs down others' throats? And are you forgetting what this thread was about in the first place-- a panel discussion on atheism with no atheists? You people and your silly arguments. You try so hard.Ruas said:
PhlegmMaster said:
People have been doing it for years all over the world, including the US. Not always peacefully, but co-existing.
And why would European Muslims need to separate simply because SOME of them may think the Sharia is a good thing? Just because they simply think something is a good idea doesn't mean they need to be separated. It's when they begin to ACT that things like compromise/separation needs to occur.
And? If they can obey the laws of gang A and aren't murdering/killing, what's the problem?
And that's something for "gang A" to decide, not "gang B". If "gang B" wants to, "gang B" can decide not to make deals/associate with "gang A" until "gang A" can agree to "gang B's" terms. But that doesn't mean "gang B" needs to go off into "gang A's" territory and start a turf war.
Don't make assumptions on what I want to do. All I said was opinions like yours are what cause most of today's problems. That opinion is all I've actually been "defending" here.
But anyway, you're trying to protect every individual's freedom by destroying opposing values until your values are the only thing left. That leads to oppressing a whole lot MORE individuals in the process and that is counter-productive. And then you're in for another set of problems when people following your values start to form "inner gangs" and you STILL haven't found a better solution other than "one value must prevail". Rinse, recycle, repeat.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Kreed said:
That's nonsense. Co-existence is only possible because there are laws that keep the people who are against FoS in line, and because those people are in the minority on most issues. It's because the people who believe in FoS have the upper hand, because our cultural ancestors WON against their ideological opponents that we live in the kind of societies where different viewpoints are tolerated. Good thing Thomas Jefferson and other great men didn't think, "Hmm geez, maybe we shouldn't be promoting this secular democracy thing. After all, if some states want to adopt the monarchic or theocratic model, it's their choice!"
First, because they are acting. It's fairly hard to get away with murder in Europe, but it's easy to get away with repeatedly raping your wife, or imprisoning her in the house, or beating the shit out of your son because he's kissed another boy, because the very nature of Muslim culture and religion makes it unlikely anyone will report you to the authorities.
Second, because while they're in the minority now, thanks to immigration and the fact that they reproduce like rabbits, they won't remain the minority very long, unless certain measures are taken. And it's not helping that our politicians have no backbone whatsoever, and in many cases have considered or are considering letting the Muslims rule their own communities according to sharia.
As I said, not all crimes will be found out. Murder is hard to hide, rape, violence, and oppression in general aren't.
And besides, don't you think there's something very wrong when the only thing keeping a quarter of the Muslim community living in Britain from going on a murdering rampage is that they're afraid they'll get caught? What happened to the ideal of the responsible, moral citizen?
And what about those individuals of gang A who are getting oppressed? Why favor the rights of the group to oppress over the rights of the individuals to live as they wish?
I want to promote values which favor individual freedom, among other things, and you're for letting the group oppress its members, just because you're not part of the group. By doing nothing to change things, you're passively promoting oppression.
Tolerating intolerance because not doing so would be intolerant is about as smart as letting a husband beat his wife because punching him would be violent. Oh wait, that's exactly what you would do!
PhlegmMaster said:
Thanks for the history lesson. Now I'm just looking for the part where we "eradicated" all other opposing values.
Oh...
Then that's something that "gang B" needs to deal with because it's in "gang B's" territory as opposed to "gang A's".
Let me guess...you read this on a Neo-Nazi/KKK pamphlet?
Do you realize how many people IN GENERAL are kept from doing horrible things because of the law? This is not exclusive to the Muslim community.
I didn't say anything about favoring their rights. All I'm pointing out is that YOUR opinion of your values having to prevail over all others is what caused problems in the past, what is causing problems now, and what will continue to cause problems in the future. That doesn't mean I'm for these problems or against OTHER solutions to these problems.
Didn't I just say not to make assum...
Nevermind. I'll say this once more. The only thing I'm saying is that YOUR opinion is what causes problems.
Right...because punching the husband is the only possible solution in that situation right? Helping the wife get out of that situation just isn't an option?
I'll say it again...this is why we have so many problems.
Chris Michael
Banned
I must say it is pretty stupid in my opinion if atheists want "under God" taken out of the pledge of allegiance so badly. I thought the whole point of atheism was for people who just don't care about religion, or they don't want responsibilities which most religion has a lot of.
It's pretty damn childish. I could understand if, say, a Buddhist wanted it out. But an atheist? pshaw. I don't see why they should hate Christianity/God so much.
personally to speak for myself, I don't really like a lot of atheists *I've* come into contact with, because they're disrespectful douchebags most of the time. just only when they're talking about religion.
It's pretty damn childish. I could understand if, say, a Buddhist wanted it out. But an atheist? pshaw. I don't see why they should hate Christianity/God so much.
personally to speak for myself, I don't really like a lot of atheists *I've* come into contact with, because they're disrespectful douchebags most of the time. just only when they're talking about religion.
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Kreed said:
In the USA, it happened around the time that the constitution and the bill of rights were created. I'd say making opposing values unconstitutional and illegal is equivalent to eradicating them.
Ah, I see. People's rights depend on which side of a country border they're in.
What? The Muslim reproduction rate is well-documented.
Sharia 'law' was actually authorized in Ontario, Canada, until citizens protested in great number, forcing the provincial government to backtrack.
Few people "IN GENERAL" are kept from murdering people for the sole reason that they've deconverted from their religion because of the law. Approximately a quarter of British Muslims are, according to a recent poll.
Do you think that 1 in every 4 Christian around you would go around killing atheists if it wasn't illegal?
And of course things are much worse in Muslim countries where this "point of view" is the most popular one, and where apostates are murdered.
We're faced with an oppressive, violent ideology in the form of Islam. The only solution I see is weakening (or "liberalizing/moderating", in politically correct terms) Islam, just as Christianity was weakened during and after the Enlightenment. What other solution is there? This isn't a rethorical question; what solution do you propose?
My opinion is that everyone should be free to believe and act as he or she will, except when those beliefs or actions impinge on another person's freedom, well-being, or basic human rights. The only people who will feel oppressed by this opinion are oppressors. What's the problem here again?
Gasp! But isn't domestic violence something that gang B should deal with since it's happening in gang B territory? The husband is Muslim, the wife is Muslim, and beating your wife is perfectly fine in Islam. Why are you, a gang A individual, seeking to impose your values on gang B?
I was absolutely furious after watching that video, it was littered with hypocrisy and stupidity. I have a lot of respect for people like the black guy on the panel (don't remember his name, I can't get the video to work again), who actually argued in favor of atheists despite having opposing views. However, the two ladies on the panel were arrogant and were completely out of line.
I'm an atheist and am tolerant of other's beliefs currently, but I used to be extremely bitter. People treated me terribly if they found out I was an atheist, and I was always angry with Catholicism because of an incident with a priest when I was young. The only person I really feel comfortable knowing that I'm an atheist is my father, who is perfectly fine with it, but my mom told me she hated me for it then immediately died after, so we parted on bad terms due to my beliefs.
I was raised a Catholic, and stayed one probably until I was 14 or so, though in retrospect I don't know how I lasted that long. When I went through first communion stuff, I was told by a priest that I couldn't go to heaven because I was born through "in vitro" methods, because the church took a stance against test tube baby creation due to a "possible waste of seed."
I'm an atheist and am tolerant of other's beliefs currently, but I used to be extremely bitter. People treated me terribly if they found out I was an atheist, and I was always angry with Catholicism because of an incident with a priest when I was young. The only person I really feel comfortable knowing that I'm an atheist is my father, who is perfectly fine with it, but my mom told me she hated me for it then immediately died after, so we parted on bad terms due to my beliefs.
I was raised a Catholic, and stayed one probably until I was 14 or so, though in retrospect I don't know how I lasted that long. When I went through first communion stuff, I was told by a priest that I couldn't go to heaven because I was born through "in vitro" methods, because the church took a stance against test tube baby creation due to a "possible waste of seed."
That was nauseating. There's nothing more ****ing revolting on this earth than religion - or specifically the 'Abrahamic' ones. Actually their followers take the cake. Atheists need to expand into space, gundam seed coordinator style, and leave these morons to nuke each other into hell. 
So I just watched the video in the original post and it was pretty cringe-worthy. The one man on the panel was the least hateful, but some of his comments still didn't sit well with me. Not that CNN will care, but I'm going to see if I can somehow send a letter to them to complain about this type of conduct on air and what it does for public perception.
Count Dookkake
Member
Chris Michael,
Atheists don't hate god anymore than they hate Batman. We just have an aversion to laws and attitudes being shaped by rule-books that have not one iota of evidence to back up their magical claims. This is why some atheists would like references to god removed from anything to do with the government. You'd either laugh or be bothered if someone proposed putting Zeus on the dollar bill. I am curious what responsibilities you refer to that atheists don't want, but that religious people do. Atheists have a pretty good understanding of responsibility that comes from logic and evidence.
Boogie,
The problem is that Nazism derived from Christians, so it should be viewed as a particularly virulent form, but not something wholly unique.
Atheists don't hate god anymore than they hate Batman. We just have an aversion to laws and attitudes being shaped by rule-books that have not one iota of evidence to back up their magical claims. This is why some atheists would like references to god removed from anything to do with the government. You'd either laugh or be bothered if someone proposed putting Zeus on the dollar bill. I am curious what responsibilities you refer to that atheists don't want, but that religious people do. Atheists have a pretty good understanding of responsibility that comes from logic and evidence.
Boogie,
The problem is that Nazism derived from Christians, so it should be viewed as a particularly virulent form, but not something wholly unique.
PhlegmMaster said:
But the USA didn't do that. Muslim women are allowed to walk around streets wearing traditional garb without getting arrested. Of course, they "choose" to do that, but again, their values weren't eradicated. They just had to make a "compromise" for staying in the USA. Just like KKK and Neo-Nazis can hold rallies and state their opinions/beliefs, but can't go around lynching people.
No, the right to govern and choose what OTHER people's rights are depend on which side of a country's border they're in.
And this some how makes them worse than the millions upon millions people who didn't convert from a religion but would go around murder other people if it wasn't against the law?
"Weakening" is a lot different than eradicating or someone else's values "prevailing" over others. Though we may have a different opinion on how to weaken or what exactly weakened is in the case of the Muslim community. One solution is making a compromise. Your Christianity example fits this. Another is to stop trading goods/services to territories that allow this type of behavior to go on. Hitting someone in their "wallet" is always a good motivational tool if you can hit them hard enough.
There is nothing wrong with that particular opinion. The problem is that you want this view point to be not only the strongest view point, but the only view point, and you want to use force to follow this view point. And we have seen time and time again that this doesn't work and only causes more problems. Again your Christianity example falls into this category.
I don't remember you mentioning "Gang A and Gang B" in your husband hitting his wife example, but regardless my opinion still stands. Helping the wife get out of that situation is A LOT different than punching the husband. But then I think we may have a different opinion on how to get the wife out of that situation. For example, possibly allowing the Gang A wife to join Gang B and leave Gang A behind.
Kreed said:
These have been wonderful responses and I agree.
The largest responses from atheists thus far resemble an "eye for an eye" mentality. PhlegmMaster's mentality, on the other hand, seems to be so entrenched in cynicism as to be completely jaded about the possibility of co-existence.
It's how altercations snowball; all you need is for someone from gang 1 to be so offensive to gang a to establish itself until gang a responds not to an individual, but a group as a whole. Responding to an earlier comment Phlegm made, its not "simply naive" to believe that two people (and two groups) can easily co-exist in spite of differing perspectives. It comes down to rational discussion tempered with sensitivity. I understand that you don't want to dumb anything down or sweeten anything to make it be heard, but problems occur with people who hold themselves to be so self-righteous and zealous when explaining their perspectives and the people they inadvertently begin to slight.
in this day yes people would laugh about zeus, but no one would laugh back in the roman days.what did people have to base their beilief in zues?not much, a line here or there in a poem.its not comparible to the bible. how stupid is it to try and convince someone to believe in nothing.And to also want to build a community based around a belief in nothing.what will you discuss ? just come up with different ways to try and talk down to those that have a religion?most of you cant even discuss this with out insulting the bible or its believers.I think we get it, you think we are morons.do you think if you make some sort of great argument or what you think is some great notion that you will change someones belief? people have always been divided among religions and beliefs.and their have been arguments and debates for centuries concerning religions and beliefs.but what do you wish for now?for religion to go away? its a selfish and unrealistic goal.and the entire athiest cause is pointless.
Chris Michael said:
The reason "under god" should be taken out is because it goes against the Constitution that says the United States is a secular nation. "Under god" implies a state-prefered or sanctioned preference for the christian/abrahamic god - hence giving preference to the beliefs of christian theists.
Atheism isn't about "not caring about religion". Rather it's more about valuing rational, reasoned and logical thought about everything.
Chris Michael said:
Under god excludes buddhists, hindus, atheists, agnostics, deists and many other people. It is akin to saying "This Nation isn't for you" if youre not a christian.
And finally, on a technicality - atheists don't hate god. You can't hate something which does not exist.
Ruas said:
Because atheists are marginalized and some people are willing to go up to bat so atheists could someday NOT be the least trusted minority group in America? By the way, nice assumption, but I'm not an atheist. Yes there are atheist groups out there, but I'd say the vast majority of atheists wouldn't want much part of them.
Ruas said:
Because it is highly dangerous when a society is based on the archaic belief systems which can readily be shown to be either not true, completely fabricated or at the very least, full of glaring and abhorrent contradictions.
Tell me, would you feel comfortable if your nation consisted of, and was run by voodoo practitioners, for example?
PhlegmMaster
Banned
Kreed said:
Of course they're allowed to wear traditional garb, I'm not saying they shouldn't be. And yes, they have to give up parts of their beliefs in order to live in the West. For example, Muslim men aren't allowed to beat the crap out of a woman "who dresses like a prostitute", as they so charmingly put it. And that's exactly what I want: They can keep the parts of their beliefs that do fit with fundamental humanistic, democratic values, but they have to give up the parts that don't fit.
The problem right now in Europe is that they aren't willing to give up these beliefs, and instead of "compromising", they're trying to recreate the traditional Muslim way of life in Europe. Again, let me emphasize, that's fine for things like women wearing a burka, but it's not fine for things like forcing women to wear a burka. And that's when we're faced with the real difficulty: Given that it's not really possible to enforce an interdiction against things like this (or like domestic violence), what can we do to get these people to give up their oppressive belief system? By doing what 'militant' secularists are doing right now: Pushing for stronger integration policies, slowing down immigration, pointing out the contradictions in Islam, raising consciousness about the evil of childhood indoctrination, etc.
I agree that deciding who should have the power to withhold rights from people is pretty tricky. But what I'm talking about is granting them more rights, not less. The only right some of them would lose is the 'right' to oppress.
What? I've made a simple claim: If there weren't laws against such behavior, approximately a quarter of British Muslims would be murdering apostates as we speak. They've admitted as much. Christians (or Jews, or Hindus, or atheists), put in the same situation, would not do this.
I want to eradicate the parts of Islam which are pro-oppression and pro-violence. Not all of Islam in its current form is oppressive... just most of it. That's what I mean by "weaken".
Uh, what the hell??? What kind of solution do you think I'm advocating? Dropping a new hundred nukes on them?? The solution you propose is exactly the kind of stuff I want our countries to do (although I doubt this particular tactic would work).
You make it sound like there's a middle-of-the-road viewpoint here. What would that be, "freedom for all, uh, except for Muslim women of course". Either everyone has the same rights, or it's not an egalitarian society at all.
Lol? I do? Do you remember the post that started this little debate between the two of us? It was this:
PhlegmMaster said:
Now it looks as though you agree with me on every point. I want people who come to live in our countries to adhere to western values such as freedom of speech, egalitarianism, and basic human rights. I want us to make an effort to spread these values throughout the world, not only in Muslim countries but also in countries like North Korea and China. And I want to be able to criticize ideologies and beliefs which I think are oppressive or simply false, without being called "intolerant" or a "fundamentalist".
Right now, Gang A wife CANNOT join Gang B. That's the issue. That's what I want to change. That, and a thousand other things. Just to name one, I'd like famous critics of Islam to be able to live their lives without the constant fear of assassination.
soul creator
Member
Ruas said:
except "christians" didn't make the USA what it is, which is why the "under God" stuff is silly.
PhlegmMaster said:
Yeah, it would seem I was the one making assumptions about you and what you wanted to do after all. Though I didn't think you wanted to drop "a hundred" nukes.
You could have made this more clear earlier when I started using gang analogies and mentioning "turf wars". But anyway my mistake.Count Dookkake
Member
Boogie,
Yes.
What does it say on Nazi belt buckles? Why does Hitler talk about being a good Christian? Why did he continue the ancient Christian pastime of hating Jews? I am not saying that Hitler represents all of Christendom, but all evidence points to Hitler being a life-long Christian and having a penchant for the supernatural in general.
Yes.
What does it say on Nazi belt buckles? Why does Hitler talk about being a good Christian? Why did he continue the ancient Christian pastime of hating Jews? I am not saying that Hitler represents all of Christendom, but all evidence points to Hitler being a life-long Christian and having a penchant for the supernatural in general.
Count Dookkake said:
You're not going to make Christianity stick to Nazism.
Hitler was his own sort of christian. The other Nazi leaders were into all sorts of wacky occult shit. Hitler's use of religious rhetoric was, if anything, a striking and symbolic way to manipulate the people.
So yeah, Hitler may have been a christian in name, but I don't think it's fair to lump Nazism in as a byproduct of christianity.
Mr Toast said:
QFT!!!
I found this vid where this middle eastern chick calls out religious views.
See this vid!!
It's also worth pointing out that Dookkake has put just about zero research into his Nazism being spawn of Christianity claim. Even cursory searches turn up hits showing that Hitler's religious views weren't nearly clear cut, christian or otherwise. It's still a matter of debate, it appears. Cursory seraches also turn up that many of the key power players in teh rise of the Nazi power belonged to various, non-Christian secret societies, like Thule.
Count Dookkake
Member
While Hitler may have been a "cafeteria Christian," he most certainly believed in the supernatural. This can not be disputed. You may claim that he was not a "real" Christian, but then I invite you to look up the fallacy of "No True Scotsman." His regime is an example of what happens when fanatacism, political might and religion coalesce. It can and will happen again.
Jonnyboy117
Member
Chairman Yang said:
Secular is not the same thing as atheist.
Count Dookkake said:
That's all still a far cry from Nazis being a christian group. They weren't. Lots of people in Germany believed in the occult at the time. I don't think that has a hell of a lot to do with religion. It had to do with a strange sort of nationalism that had been brewing since the late 19th century.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
PhlegmMaster said:
:lol
Muslims "would be murdering apostates as we speak"? I think there's quite a distinction between supporting the death penalty for something and actually being willing to carry out the death penalty on your own.
Do you also believe that the percentage of Canadians who support the death penalty would be running out and murdering convicted murderers if there wasn't a law against it?
- Status