So I have to join a group of people who believe in a God that's so weak it needs our help in order to have free speech? How very First Amendment of you!
Huh?
:rolleyes:
You almost sound intolerant of those that believe in something you don't.
Think about what you posted. You suggest that I can't speak about what Religious groups have done and are doing without having a Religious group of my own. Or did you mean to say that it's wrong to hold the members/supporters of a group responsible for the actions of the group as a whole?
You almost sound intolerant of those that believe in something you don't.
You almost got it right: I'm intolerant of people who would force their unsubstantiated beliefs on me, or anyone else. Don't want gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Want to set into law that others can't have them either? I say get your fatwa out of here!
Think about what you posted. You suggest that I can't speak about what Religious groups have done and are doing without having a Religious group of my own. Or did you mean to say that it's wrong to hold the members/supporters of a group responsible for the actions of the group as a whole?
Why do you need a religious group? You are saying you don't have one, yet seem to be intolerant of those that do.
Why do you need a religious group? You are saying you don't have one, yet seem to be intolerant of those that do.
So who is forcing a religion on you? Certainly not me.
You yourself are offering proof that intolerance would exist if religion did not, and where there's enough intolerance you'll find conflict. Find a million organized people who believe as strongly as you do and the chance of a "war" against that group you don't like just went up. Heck a handful of folks in a neighborhood can create a "war", looting, shooting, burning cars.... no religion needed.
So who is forcing a religion on you? Certainly not me.
You yourself are offering proof that intolerance would exist if religion did not, and where there's enough intolerance you'll find conflict. Find a million organized people who believe as strongly as you do and the chance of a "war" against that group you don't like just went up. Heck a handful of folks in a neighborhood can create a "war", looting, shooting, burning cars.... no religion needed.
You're obfuscating. There's nothing wrong with intolerance by itself. Be intolerant of murders, rapists, drug cartels, and Religious zealots who would force their beliefs on others. That is not only not wrong, but desirable.
Well, we know which side of the fence you stand on.
I wonder if you have ANY CLUE that terrorists and people like you have exactly the same reasoning justifying their right to kill, maim, or indirectly profit from other people's suffering. I'd expect not, though, given your righteous indignation (of course terrorists don't have any righteous indignation, right? /s) Reminder: if they can kill us, it is because according to them we are criminals to the word of their God, which justifies any evil they can bestow on us, and any profit they can take out of it.
According to them, they have zero responsibility to the people their "paradise" would stem off. According to you, you have zero responsibility to the people whose hardships your happy life stems of. See the similarity?
As to "fucking rich"... we are fucking rich. They are poor, and that's partly our "responsibility" (a word that a lot of first-worlders apply to their successes, and others' failures, but rarely the other way around, weirdly).
A few interesting facts about the impacts of natural disasters on populations: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en. I do expect you to read them your way, though. Numbers don't lie, but you can always interpret.
Refugees have both. Sorry to burst your bubble, honey bunny.
The purpose of a gun is to deliver a bullet to its intended target. It may be used either offensively or defensively.
Yes, and the intended target is a living being. All too often, a human being. Paper targets exist for practice, so you can be expert at it when you take aim at a living being. By the way, I'm not anti-gun. I just recognize that the current gun debate is just a marketing ploy by the gun industry. Having sold more guns than there are people in the U.S., they need to stir up controversy to stimulate more sales. They don't care who they sell them to.
You're obfuscating. There's nothing wrong with intolerance by itself. Be intolerant of murders, rapists, drug cartels, and Religious zealots who would force their beliefs on others. That is not only not wrong, but desirable.
So back to organized religion again.
Personally I see your arguments as simply a vendetta against a group that you have no tolerance for, and ascribing most of the worlds ills to it Just a tiny bit of research on your part should offer enough evidence that religion is not the primary reason for most armed conflicts, so your intolerance for it wouldn't be simply it the source for all wars. It isn't. So why are you so vehemently opposed to an entire group of people you don't know believing something you don't? Are you any different from a non-religious person that hates some political party, or some economic group, or some persons of a different sexual persuasion? Or even sillier, your choice of mobile OS. None of those require "religion" to be hateful.
The purpose of a gun is to deliver a bullet to its intended target. It may be used either offensively or defensively.
Hmmm, while you COULD argue that some guns are designed for pure sport, the fact would remain that MOST guns are designed for killing animals or humans. That is their "purpose". Whether you carry them to offensively kill/maim a person or to defensively kill/maim someone is of course up to you, but the gun itself is a tool of aggression, designed to break through the soft skin of someone's body and wreak damage inside.
When did this thread about Apple's encryption being efficient turn into an argument on guns being dangerous?
So back to organized religion again. Personally I see your arguments as simply a vendetta against a group that you have no tolerance for. Just a tiny bit of research on your part should offer enough evidence that religion is not the primary reason for most armed conflicts, so your intolerance for it wouldn't be simply it the source for all wars. It isn't. So why are you so vehemently opposed to an entire group of people you don't know believing something you don't? Are you any different from a non-religious person that hates some political party, or some economic group, or some persons of a different sexual persuasion? Or even sillier, your choice of mobile OS. None of those require "religion" to be hateful.
Wow. Maybe you're just not capable of grasping this. I don't care what any religious group believes until they start trying to change public policy to reflect their beliefs above others. In that case, we should all be intolerant.
I haven't claimed that Religion starts all wars. Only that it has started many wars, from the Crusades, to much of the conflict in the Middle East.
Wow. Maybe you're just not capable of grasping this. I don't care what any religious group believes until they start trying to change public policy to reflect their beliefs above others. In that case, we should all be intolerant.
I haven't claimed that Religion starts all wars. Only that it has started many wars, from the Crusades, to much of the conflict in the Middle East.
So then why the fixation on the "evils of organized religion"? Isn't racism and nationalism even more likely to lead to warfare?
Wow. Maybe you're just not capable of grasping this. I don't care what any religious group believes until they start trying to change public policy to reflect their beliefs above others. In that case, we should all be intolerant.
So when groups aligned with organized religion supported laws eliminating slavery during the US Civil War, even putting themselves in danger to help southern slaves escape you would have "preached" intolerance of their efforts? The fact that Christian pacifists would have us avoid all violence, and would propose changes to government policies to that end would be another of those efforts you believe we should be intolerant of?
As I said in my first post, and that you've been arguing against since, those big and broad brush strokes are needed if you want to paint an entire group with the same claims.
Dug deep for that one, didn't you! Yes, one religious sect did manage to come up on the right side of history. Congratulations! Now explain how that makes up for hundreds of years of slavery based on the same basic religion.
Yeah, a well known and powerful political organization! /s
As a foil to the Christian Right, I have no problem with them. Take away the Right however, and it's only a matter of time before their dogma becomes a problem.
Comments
:rolleyes:
You almost sound intolerant of those that believe in something you don't.
Huh?
Think about what you posted. You suggest that I can't speak about what Religious groups have done and are doing without having a Religious group of my own. Or did you mean to say that it's wrong to hold the members/supporters of a group responsible for the actions of the group as a whole?
Huh?
You almost sound intolerant of those that believe in something you don't.
You almost got it right: I'm intolerant of people who would force their unsubstantiated beliefs on me, or anyone else. Don't want gay marriage? Don't get gay married. Don't want an abortion? Don't have one. Want to set into law that others can't have them either? I say get your fatwa out of here!
You yourself are offering proof that intolerance would exist if religion did not, and where there's enough intolerance you'll find conflict. Find a million organized people who believe as strongly as you do and the chance of a "war" against that group you don't like just went up. Heck a handful of folks in a neighborhood can create a "war", looting, shooting, burning cars.... no religion needed.
Yeah, they have neither. Sorry.
Stop this bullshit.
Oh, that’s fucking rich.
And you call religious people deluded...
Yeah, no, see, the fact that A GENOCIDE HAD BEEN PERFORMED on Christians prior to the Crusades is a pretty important detail.
So who is forcing a religion on you? Certainly not me.
You yourself are offering proof that intolerance would exist if religion did not, and where there's enough intolerance you'll find conflict. Find a million organized people who believe as strongly as you do and the chance of a "war" against that group you don't like just went up. Heck a handful of folks in a neighborhood can create a "war", looting, shooting, burning cars.... no religion needed.
You're obfuscating. There's nothing wrong with intolerance by itself. Be intolerant of murders, rapists, drug cartels, and Religious zealots who would force their beliefs on others. That is not only not wrong, but desirable.
Yeah, they have neither. Sorry.
Stop this bullshit.
Oh, that’s fucking rich.
Well, we know which side of the fence you stand on.
I wonder if you have ANY CLUE that terrorists and people like you have exactly the same reasoning justifying their right to kill, maim, or indirectly profit from other people's suffering. I'd expect not, though, given your righteous indignation (of course terrorists don't have any righteous indignation, right? /s) Reminder: if they can kill us, it is because according to them we are criminals to the word of their God, which justifies any evil they can bestow on us, and any profit they can take out of it.
According to them, they have zero responsibility to the people their "paradise" would stem off. According to you, you have zero responsibility to the people whose hardships your happy life stems of. See the similarity?
As to "fucking rich"... we are fucking rich. They are poor, and that's partly our "responsibility" (a word that a lot of first-worlders apply to their successes, and others' failures, but rarely the other way around, weirdly).
A few interesting facts about the impacts of natural disasters on populations: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en. I do expect you to read them your way, though. Numbers don't lie, but you can always interpret.
Refugees have both. Sorry to burst your bubble, honey bunny.
The purpose of a gun is to deliver a bullet to its intended target. It may be used either offensively or defensively.
The purpose of a gun is to deliver a bullet to its intended target. It may be used either offensively or defensively.
Yes, and the intended target is a living being. All too often, a human being. Paper targets exist for practice, so you can be expert at it when you take aim at a living being. By the way, I'm not anti-gun. I just recognize that the current gun debate is just a marketing ploy by the gun industry. Having sold more guns than there are people in the U.S., they need to stir up controversy to stimulate more sales. They don't care who they sell them to.
Personally I see your arguments as simply a vendetta against a group that you have no tolerance for, and ascribing most of the worlds ills to it Just a tiny bit of research on your part should offer enough evidence that religion is not the primary reason for most armed conflicts, so your intolerance for it wouldn't be simply it the source for all wars. It isn't. So why are you so vehemently opposed to an entire group of people you don't know believing something you don't? Are you any different from a non-religious person that hates some political party, or some economic group, or some persons of a different sexual persuasion? Or even sillier, your choice of mobile OS. None of those require "religion" to be hateful.
No. Cars and trucks, like iPhones, are not made for killing.
Good point. The purpose of guns is to bring violent death, from a distance, with minimal risk. It places them in a very specific category.
Some countries believe it is a true right of man to carry them, others believe should be heavily controlled.
The ones who go for control have lower death-by-gun rates.
Anything else than pure facts is just personal beliefs.
The purpose of a gun is to deliver a bullet to its intended target. It may be used either offensively or defensively.
Hmmm, while you COULD argue that some guns are designed for pure sport, the fact would remain that MOST guns are designed for killing animals or humans. That is their "purpose". Whether you carry them to offensively kill/maim a person or to defensively kill/maim someone is of course up to you, but the gun itself is a tool of aggression, designed to break through the soft skin of someone's body and wreak damage inside.
When did this thread about Apple's encryption being efficient turn into an argument on guns being dangerous?
So back to organized religion again. Personally I see your arguments as simply a vendetta against a group that you have no tolerance for. Just a tiny bit of research on your part should offer enough evidence that religion is not the primary reason for most armed conflicts, so your intolerance for it wouldn't be simply it the source for all wars. It isn't. So why are you so vehemently opposed to an entire group of people you don't know believing something you don't? Are you any different from a non-religious person that hates some political party, or some economic group, or some persons of a different sexual persuasion? Or even sillier, your choice of mobile OS. None of those require "religion" to be hateful.
Wow. Maybe you're just not capable of grasping this. I don't care what any religious group believes until they start trying to change public policy to reflect their beliefs above others. In that case, we should all be intolerant.
I haven't claimed that Religion starts all wars. Only that it has started many wars, from the Crusades, to much of the conflict in the Middle East.
So then why the fixation on the "evils of organized religion"? Isn't racism and nationalism even more likely to lead to warfare?
Because both racism and nationalism are easily incorporated into religion. It's no accident that the Christian Right votes the way they do.
Even the push for back doors to encryption has a faith-based, anti-science, anti-fact, tinge to it!
As I said in my first post, and that you've been arguing against since, those big and broad brush strokes are needed if you want to paint an entire group with the same claims.
http://www.thechristianleft.org/
By the way, nice use of "hair of the dog" as an argument. Logic much?
Racism and nationalism is bad. Some racists and nationalists are religious. Therefor all who have religious beliefs are bad.
Dug deep for that one, didn't you! Yes, one religious sect did manage to come up on the right side of history. Congratulations! Now explain how that makes up for hundreds of years of slavery based on the same basic religion.
Same with the Christian Left?
http://www.thechristianleft.org/
Yeah, a well known and powerful political organization! /s
As a foil to the Christian Right, I have no problem with them. Take away the Right however, and it's only a matter of time before their dogma becomes a problem.