You don't have to follow their rule, all you need is to conform to their standard theology! No I don't. What are you going on about? Last I checked, I could choose for myself what to believe, and not believe, in. So you're a Christian, but only for the subset of Christ's words that you choose to believe? I missed the part where you showed that I was forced to be a Christian. Were you routinely exposed to judeo-christian influences at a young age? Had you been taught that your choice was Christianity or eternal hellfire by the time you first learned about death?
You don't have to follow their rule, all you need is to conform to their standard theology! No I don't. What are you going on about? Last I checked, I could choose for myself what to believe, and not believe, in. So you're a Christian, but only for the subset of Christ's words that you choose to believe?
I have friends in the deaf community, and I have seen others show discomfort around them because their communication methods are (according to some) more advanced. My friends can carry on complete conversations, silently, from across the room - using ASL. That's nothing: I can carry on complete conversations with people in other rooms by modulating sound waves with my respiratory passage. I can even use a phone to do this with people in other continents!
Plus, nothing is stopping me from learning sign language or lip reading. Wow, it's as though they have a handicap, but they're in denial about it so much that they have convinced themselves (and you) that their inferior range of sensory perception is an advantage!
People are not allowed to use technical assistance in competitions. You wouldn't let someone run the 100 meters with shoes Back to naked Olympics it is!
The third world will be happy to hear about this, but winter Olympic participation might see some shrinkage.
Your religion does not ask that you live by their rule? Absolutely not. I am a Christian. ...
If you didn't understand what I wrote there, well, do some research. It's standard Protestant theology, and I am not going to spend time giving a seminar here. You don't have to follow their rule, all you need is to conform to their standard theology!
Stop being an idiot Fuck you. He said the earth was spinning, they said he wasn't allowed to tell people he had proof of it, he was forced to "balance" the truth with the dogma. That's censorship, that's evil, and you're defending it.
Your religion does not ask that you live by their rule? Absolutely not. I am a Christian. Last time I was subjected to Christian indoctrination, they had a shitload of rules they expected me to follow. Expected to what end? For you to participate in their church, or for you to go to heaven? If the latter, then that is very explicitly un-Christian. The Bible is quite clear on this, that salvation comes through faith, not through doing -- or not doing -- specific things. The Holy Spirit indwells believers and changes them; change is not a prerequisite for salvation.
Methinks you're entirely delusional. You're obviously incorrect. You're not making sense to me any more. We need to recalibrate.
Plenty of Atheists call for the extermination of people who disagree with their brand of "faith". Quote me 5. I want five different atheists (not just random net trolls) who have called for the extermination of people who believe in gods, with supporting quotes. Otherwise, I call bullshit.
It's fallacious to compare such notions so far apart in history. Scientists today are more civilized than the Pope was 600 years ago, wow! The fact is scientists are much milder today than *scientists* were 600 years ago too. Everybody is milder. We live in a more civilized time after all. Abu fucking grahib. You know what was the first reaction when the pictures came out? Ban soldiers from having cameras.
Scientists don't get to arrest, torture and kill people (but when given a position of power by Nazis, many did), the pope lost that power long ago, and the people who have that power today do the same with it as people have done throughout history with power: They abuse it.
The important thing is not who you give that power to, but that you don't.
yet atheism is not to blame for the problems of atheism exactly how? What part of not worshiping gods require that you kill people? I can quote you a few bible passages ordering the faithful to kill people in droves, though.
offered him the opportunity to write a book giving a balanced account of both models Teach the controversy! Pretend that the model based on biblical mumbo jumbo weighs as much as what science shows reality to be like! THAT's fair!
Atheism has rendered the worst forms of injustice and the most killing throughout history (Communism, Hitler, etc). The inquisition took up a much larger portion of history than Hitler did. If the inquisition had machine guns and a population of similar size to shoot at, they'd have had the same kind of scorecard.
Corpenicus' work proposing the heliocentric hypothesis was after all church sponsored (as was Galileo) and indeed inscribed, IIRC, to the pope of the time. And it was REJECTED ON BIBLICAL GROUNDS, and then BANNED FROM VIEW. It is impossible to honestly take those action into account and come to the conclusion that the church did not oppose science.
The church would let them build their proof, and then reject it our of hand for unscientific reasons. The fact that they would pretend to be willing to listen is NOT a good thing: It's hypocrisy.
Your religion does not ask that you live by their rule? Absolutely not. I am a Christian. Last time I was subjected to Christian indoctrination, they had a shitload of rules they expected me to follow.
No one is censoring the Pope. Quite the opposite, the man gets far more attention than I think he deserves. He speaks for 1/7 people on earth. Theoretically, since most baptisms are done without the consent of the subject. Just because someone is baptized Catholic doesn't mean they agree with everything the Pope says. Despite what other Christian denominations would have you believe, not all Catholics are mindless drones to the papacy. Tell me something I don't know.
Far more people have been executed and tortured at the hands of atheist regimes than religious ones. [citation needed], first of all. Secondly, the bodycount difference you're talking about is due to difference betweens methods (industrial VS manual), not motivations. People have been executed and tortured for far longer, and in many more places by religious forces than by atheists.
As far as motives, how can you dissociate religion from a desire of control? Your religion does not ask that you live by their rule? Do you know many religions that do not demand submission to an absent authority represented by the mortal leaders of the religion?
he had no empirical proof. He had a looking glass he could point at the sky, he had balls he could drop off a ship's mast, and he was telling the truth, and was censored because he contradicted the holy bible. It was religion opposing science, and there is an effort to downplay this crime against humanity just as any large organization wages public relations damage control operations after they get caught doing something bad.
So it's perfectly okay for a Creationist to demand that he be allowed to give a speech at a biology department?
You do know that the Catholic Church, including Benedict XVI, supports the theory of evolution, with only a few caveats that it's part of God's plan? As factually correct as you are, I do not think he meant the Church, I think he meant hypothetical "Intelligent Design" pseudoscientists demanding to "teach" their made up controversy.
If you actually knew religion well, you would know that its positive effects far outweigh its negative ones. Warm fuzzy feelings far outweigh torture and genocide? Because the negative side of religion is death and persecution, and those are pretty consistently applied by theocracies.
I'm not saying you're just bidding your time to start raping and pillaging, but I think religion is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and you seem really focused on the softness of its hide.
Slashdot Mirror
And he is not wrong for doing so. So if you say something incorrect often enough, it'll become true?
Had you been taught that your choice was Christianity or eternal hellfire by the time you first learned about death?
And it's all thanks to the second amendment. Cyborg bears can't be far behind...
I can even use a phone to do this with people in other continents!
Plus, nothing is stopping me from learning sign language or lip reading. Wow, it's as though they have a handicap, but they're in denial about it so much that they have convinced themselves (and you) that their inferior range of sensory perception is an advantage!
The third world will be happy to hear about this, but winter Olympic participation might see some shrinkage.
But why? Because without it you can't ask why.
Please explain these words to me:
I want five different atheists (not just random net trolls) who have called for the extermination of people who believe in gods, with supporting quotes. Otherwise, I call bullshit.
You know what was the first reaction when the pictures came out? Ban soldiers from having cameras.
Scientists don't get to arrest, torture and kill people (but when given a position of power by Nazis, many did), the pope lost that power long ago, and the people who have that power today do the same with it as people have done throughout history with power: They abuse it.
The important thing is not who you give that power to, but that you don't.
Peace.
Life has intrinsic value, no gods required.
Buddhism, but that's the same reason Buddhism isn't (relatively speaking) widespread and popular.
Ah, the exception that proves the rule.I like budhists, you never hear of anyone killing people in the name of budha.
I can quote you a few bible passages ordering the faithful to kill people in droves, though.
Pretend that the model based on biblical mumbo jumbo weighs as much as what science shows reality to be like! THAT's fair!
If the inquisition had machine guns and a population of similar size to shoot at, they'd have had the same kind of scorecard.
It is impossible to honestly take those action into account and come to the conclusion that the church did not oppose science.
The church would let them build their proof, and then reject it our of hand for unscientific reasons.
The fact that they would pretend to be willing to listen is NOT a good thing: It's hypocrisy.
Methinks you're entirely delusional.
Because the Internet doesn't use any electrical power?
What's bad about electricity?Theoretically, since most baptisms are done without the consent of the subject. Just because someone is baptized Catholic doesn't mean they agree with everything the Pope says. Despite what other Christian denominations would have you believe, not all Catholics are mindless drones to the papacy. Tell me something I don't know.
Secondly, the bodycount difference you're talking about is due to difference betweens methods (industrial VS manual), not motivations. People have been executed and tortured for far longer, and in many more places by religious forces than by atheists.
As far as motives, how can you dissociate religion from a desire of control? Your religion does not ask that you live by their rule? Do you know many religions that do not demand submission to an absent authority represented by the mortal leaders of the religion?
It was religion opposing science, and there is an effort to downplay this crime against humanity just as any large organization wages public relations damage control operations after they get caught doing something bad.
You do know that the Catholic Church, including Benedict XVI, supports the theory of evolution, with only a few caveats that it's part of God's plan? As factually correct as you are, I do not think he meant the Church, I think he meant hypothetical "Intelligent Design" pseudoscientists demanding to "teach" their made up controversy.
Because the negative side of religion is death and persecution, and those are pretty consistently applied by theocracies.
I'm not saying you're just bidding your time to start raping and pillaging, but I think religion is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and you seem really focused on the softness of its hide.