Oh, I see you edited your post Red Redemption. You weren't fast enough. But now we know what you truly believe.
Lol. I was hoping you'd catch that. I wrote that to make a point. You did exactly the same thing early on. I'm trying to restrain myself from bashing those that adopt religion and keep it for themselves. Those that use that religion to justify hatred and discrimination and attempt to enter the public arena, those people I will ridicule. Also I've made myself clear many times. I think anyone that honestly believes in that crap is either using it as an emotional crutch or just flat out isn't very intelligent. There is no shame is hiding what I think of Christians. Especially when their "beliefs" are poisoning the social progress of this nation. It honestly is sad. I wouldn't care so much if Christians were tolerant of other beliefs but they aren't. Not to mention all of the shoehorns they throw in during any sort of discussion about God.
If your goal is to be incredibly insulting and intolerant of people of all religions, then you have succeeded. Congratulations.
If your goal is to brainwash the masses and stunt the progressive growth of the US both socially and technologically then you have succeeded. Congratulations. My anger isn't really directed at you. There are some good people and bad people that believe in Christianity and likewise who don't believe in religion of any sort. This thread just reminded me of all the vacuous morons running around that let themselves be brainwashed by whatever pastor or priest they listen to and likewise all the morons on r/atheism that that are just mouthpieces of Neil Degrasse Tyson, Richard Dawkins, etc. Religious or not, ignorance makes me seethe. I'll admit I'm an *******, but at no point am I ever trying to convert you. If you are one of the tolerant Christians that keeps religions to themselves then I have no quarrel with you.
Many Christians are not tolerant of other beliefs, but not all Christians. Indeed many of the greatest scientific discoveries were by Christians. I would not allow a vocal minority of Christian Fundamentalists color your entire perspective. For example, some of the most rational, scientifically grounded people I have met have been Jesuits.
Yeah, you are absolutely right. Its my fault for making that generalization, I need to remind myself. Its not easy when the loudest factions are usually also the most ignorant. I don't think of tolerant Christians because they aren't usually prominent in public with a megaphone shouting their agenda. I agree its important to make that distinction and its not something I remember everytime.
Actually Russia culturally and historically have the mind set being presented by the Creationists. They do not question authority, they submit to an oligarchy (Russian Orthodox Church) or dictator (Lenin, Stalin, Putin) and are predisposed to superstition.
Are you making the argument that Soviet Russia was a horrible place to live BECAUSE they were secularists? LOL. That is so far out of left field its not even funny. Its a good thing we have these things called logical fallacies to prevent arguments like these from amassing any credibility. Either that or you're just telling me that I should leave because I don't fit into the cookie cutter view of the typical Christian citizen in the Christian Nation you perceive the US to be.
Were Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Galileo, Newton, Linnaeus, Bernoulli, Priestley, Dalton, Pasteur, Thomson, Planck, von Braun all using Christianity as an "emotional crutch?" What would the world be without these people who were influenced by Christianity or were Christians? Clearly by your writing you lack tolerance for those of us who subscribe to the Judeo-Christian worldview; it is too obvious. In fact, you are so intolerant and unaccepting of those you consider intolerant and unaccepting that you must underline the words "intolerant" and "unaccepting." You claim to be morally superior to others on the grounds that you do not believe you are morally superior to others. Ethnocentrism is a concept really only taught within the culture of sociology and anthropology departments at universities. The idea that you should not judge other religions and cultures is itself a judgment, and the number of people who subscribe to it make up a very small percentage of the people on this planet. Buy they demand that we all live by their non-judgmental worldview, which flourishes only in certain departments of elite Western universities, even though that worldview really imposes harsh judgments on others outside their own beliefs.
I think DH13 was referring to Red's intolerance of religion. Marxism as an ideology is obviously against religion, also.
I'm not diving into an argument. I've made my thoughts clear. Believe what you want to believe, but don't force your beliefs onto others and marginalize who you deem sinners in society that is all I ask. I hate these threads, the amount of anger I build up from these threads is truly incredible.
Actually, I'm openly critical yet tolerant. I'm not calling for the banning or persecution of religion. Just like there are some that openly admit their distaste of gays yet wouldn't force the marginalization of gays through public policy. bobmarley I think was his username.
I did not use the word "sinner" or define morality anywhere in that argument, and I do not see how that argument is forcing Christianity onto you. If you really think I am attacking your beliefs rather than defending Christianity, then my argument stands as is.
Sounds like you just need a little Jesus inside you. Or you insida a Maria, if you're not into dudes.
I don't know what you do or don't do. You've only been here like six months, probably even less in the D&D. I have no idea what you stand for other than that you are a conservative Christian. I just gave you a blanket request. Whether you ascribe to it or not, it is completely irrelevant. I'm not accusing you of anything.
These debates often just leave me shaking my head at both sides, and this was no exception. Faith is irrational. That's largely the point. Kierkegaard went so far as to liken faith with lunacy. If there were a way to rationally prove the existence of God, then there can be no "leap of faith." It's in subjectivity that religious truth exists. Not objective truth. Objective knowledge is bound by the laws of nature, and our capacity to understand them. Those laws cannot explain something that exists beyond them, nor could our mind begin to understand it. Therefore, if God were objectively proven to exist, his existence would also be disproved. It's a fascinating little paradox, and often makes me wonder about the existence of anything we might lack the capacity to objectively understand. If I am capable of grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy fathoms of water still preserving my faith. -Johannes Climacus
In the end, when asked what could change their mind, Ham basically said "nothing" and Nye said "evidence." That alone encapsulates the difference between the two arguments. One side is confident in their belief, evidence be damned... another side is willing to accept contrary evidence if it's presented and is real. Spoiler I'll never understand how someone can attach themselves to Ham's approach of ignoring evidence and facts. I think that attachment ultimately comes from early indoctrination in religious institutions; it forms before the person is old enough to know better. It's rather sad, really, but there is certainly bliss in ignorance.
