Oh yay, another political thread! (Prop 8, *** marriage stuff)

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

I'm basing that claim in the fact that he tried to create a church where he was essentially christ.

I never heard that before. Do you have a source to back that claim up? Also how would thinking he's divine make him an atheist? I would think that would make him religious.

But assuming this claim of yours is true, what you are saying is that he used a religion to further his evil agenda. This just supports the notion that religion has been one of the primary sources of hatred and violence throughout history.

[TheBig3KilledMyRainDog]

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I never heard that before. Do you have a source to back that claim up? Also how would thinking he's divine make him an atheist? I would think that would make him religious.

But assuming this claim of yours is true, what you are saying is that he used a religion to further his evil agenda. This just supports the notion that religion has been one of the primary sources of hatred and violence throughout history.

To be honest this was something from back in my college days, so i'm going to need to go find it again. Contrary to popular belief, I don't have all my gethered knowledge at my finger tips.

Your second point is fairly well played, but we're going to get back into word play here.

If we're going to take Hitlers failed religion (it never really caught on) as "religion." We're going to have to make some huge steps.

Firstly, that religion would now include not just the three world religions and possibly the lesser, remote ones but anyone who claims to be Christ. You can't pick and choose, so now we're going to have to include homeless people, Tom Cruise, anything really.

And then we're going to have to look at how we want to define this use of religion. Because we'd have to agree that hitlers church was just his ideas reinforced as he was now they ultimate being.

religion doesn't seem to work that way.

But as I write I realize we've taken the argument off the path. I never said religion didn't cause major evil acts, and since I believe that they have commited horrible acts, i don't think i ever would make that assertion.

My point is, that people who claim to be atheists are just as likely, if not more likely to think less of religios people than the religious are of atheists. Its within most religions that conversion is a noble act. The idea that conversations need to happen, or in Islams case "reverts", means there is an obvious an accepted idea that all people aren't religious.

Atheists however generally find the idea of God foolish, with everything from mutating common colds to...the holocaust as proof that "if god was real, he wouldn't allow this."

Because atheists are generally more keep-to-themselves, non-grouped creatures, it would be hard to blame them for much since they don't operate in groups.

The religious however do, and its easier to target them because their a unified front.

This almost lends itself to my point, that because their easier to target, they are more often target. I don't know under what situation outside of the O'Reilly factor would atheists be balmmed for anything now that Jerry falwells dead.

Edit: I'm using a different computer at work today and this keyboard sucks, sorry for the out of place lack of captitalization.

[Janszoon]

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

To be honest this was something from back in my college days, so i'm going to need to go find it again. Contrary to popular belief, I don't have all my gethered knowledge at my finger tips.

No problem. I'd like to read something about that if you get the chance though, sounds fascinating to tell you the truth.

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Your second point is fairly well played, but we're going to get back into word play here.

If we're going to take Hitlers failed religion (it never really caught on) as "religion." We're going to have to make some huge steps.

Firstly, that religion would now include not just the three world religions and possibly the lesser, remote ones but anyone who claims to be Christ. You can't pick and choose, so now we're going to have to include homeless people, Tom Cruise, anything really.

What are these "three world religions" you're referring to? There are certainly more than three world religions out there. And why does something have to have a global presence to count as a religion?

As far as what counts as a religion, I'd go with something along the lines of the dictionary.com definition:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Basically anything that fits that definition is something I'd describe as a religion. It's irrelevant if it's practiced by only 15 people in some remote mountain village or if it has a couple billion adherents around the globe, it's still a religion.

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

And then we're going to have to look at how we want to define this use of religion. Because we'd have to agree that hitlers church was just his ideas reinforced as he was now they ultimate being.

religion doesn't seem to work that way.

Sure it does. How do you think the pyramids got built? How do you think the Catholic church exerted so much power over Europe for so many centuries?

Originally Posted by TheBig3KilledMyRainDog

Because atheists are generally more keep-to-themselves, non-grouped creatures, it would be hard to blame them for much since they don't operate in groups.

The religious however do, and its easier to target them because their a unified front.

This almost lends itself to my point, that because their easier to target, they are more often target. I don't know under what situation outside of the O'Reilly factor would atheists be balmmed for anything now that Jerry falwells dead.

Are you kidding me? Ever notice how often people like to throw the word "godless" around in the direction of people they don't like?

Do you mind if I ask you a personal question? Have you lived in Massachusetts or that general area your whole life? I bring this up because I myself grew up in Mass. and it wasn't until I spent time living in the south and in the midwest that discovered how crazy people in the US can be about their religion and how hostile they can be to non-believers. Up in the northeast people are by-and-large pretty low-key about it, they generally don't try to push their religion down your throat and you never really hear the word "atheist" used with revulsion. That is not the norm throughout the the country though. There's a reason why none of the big wigs in Washington are self-identified atheists. They'd never get elected if they were.

[Double X]

[Tobias]

I know my views have already been stated beofre, but I figured I'd state them in my own words. Here goes...

I'm against Prop 8. Which means i'm for *** marriage. No I'm not ***, I just feel that everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want, and however many times, or however many people.

Polygamy or Monogamy, doesn't matter, ***, straight, don't care. Everyone should have the right to a sacred union, no matter who they are, what they stand for, or who they are sleeping with.

I honestly think that it is no ones business but those getting married. government and religion should stay out of it, to a certain extent.

[TheBig3KilledMyRainDog]

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/61897387

apparently Prince hates *** marrige too.

[streetwaves]

I didn't know Prince was stupid.

[Anteater]

Originally Posted by streetwaves

I didn't know Prince was stupid.

No he's not. He's entitled to his opinion, just as you are...IMO

Preferences and orientation aside though, it was proven quite some time ago that AIDS (and other STDs for that matter), are far more prevalant between homosexual coupled-activities than other kinds of couplings due to the anal sex emphasis in the former. Its not good evidence against ***-marriage, but its a common point of argument for those that are against it.

[TheBig3KilledMyRainDog]

I don't think he's stupid for having an opinion, but rather the manner in which he voiced it.

When people try to break down political philosophy to simplistic terms like they've figured it all out, that generally denotes mental incompetence or laziness.

[adidasss]

Originally Posted by Anteater

No he's not. He's entitled to his opinion, just as you are...IMO

Preferences and orientation aside though, it was proven quite some time ago that AIDS (and other STDs for that matter), are far more prevalant between homosexual coupled-activities than other kinds of couplings due to the anal sex emphasis in the former. Its not good evidence against ***-marriage, but its a common point of argument for those that are against it.

That's an argument against homosexuality, not gay marriage. Also, anal sex isn't any more likely to lead to infection than regular sex. The cause you're looking for is promiscuity and lack of protection. This is why all those very straight people in Africa are dying from it...