Print

[gronned]

In my country(Sweden) there's a big debate now whether we should allow gay marriage or not. I'd assume it'll be a fairly easy win pro gay marriage.

I just wonder what your opinions on the matter is.

Personally I'm very ambivalent(as usual) on the matter. Because in a sense, I really can't even see why it's on the agenda at all. Why do gay people want to be married at all? It's honestly beyond me.
AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.

But as I'm not a christian(atheist) and generally of full support for homosexuals in society, I'd definitely be pro gay marriage. As the church is such a powerful institution, and being officially against homosexuals it automatically works as a discriminative force against gay people even outside the religion, which I find very sad.

For me though there's "personally" even a third aspect. I dislike every theist religion and I'd do as much as I can trying to wipe them out. I don't show much or any respect for these religions, apart from possibly the practitioners of them.  So, in a sense, this is a win-win-situation. If the gay people are allowed marriage, the priest may get pissed, and if I'm lucky, they won't exercise their job as expected, therefore potentially weakening the religion. But, if the gay people are being rejected marriage, I definitely think there will be a fairly strong number of people fleeing the religion. The only downside to that is that it may become a too narrow-minded religion, where people will take things to the extreme.

The reason I dislike most religions is mostly because of the extremism some will take, particularly Islam right now, even though christians and christian terrorism scares me too(IRA).

The only religion I'm not really against is Buddhism, as it's an atheist "religion" without extremism (maybe among "regular" buddhists, but not real dhamma-preaching buddhists). I find it hard to dislike religions that genuinely preach non-violence.

[PhatIrishBastard]

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM)

Personally I'm very ambivalent(as usual) on the matter. Because in a sense, I really can't even see why it's on the agenda at all. Why do gay people want to be married at all? It's honestly beyond me.
AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.

The GOD doesn't like anyone objection is a little off base. GOD loves everyone, there are just people who choose not to love GOD.

I imagine you probably would find it hard to sacrifice your only son for a bunch of undeserving liars, thieves, and killers (the 12 tribe variety) not to mention the Gentiles, commonly referred to as dogs by the Hebrews (the afforementioned undeserving liars, thieves, and killers).

This concept has often escaped my full understanding at times, yet I still have as yet not to grasp the evolve from apes myth. Given the utter lack of archaeological evidence.  But this argument is rooted more within Satan than scientific discovery.  

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM)

But as I'm not a christian(atheist) and generally of full support for homosexuals in society, I'd definitely be pro gay marriage. As the church is such a powerful institution, and being officially against homosexuals it automatically works as a discriminative force against gay people even outside the religion, which I find very sad.

I call myself Christian, and after watching a well publicized documentary(years ago) starring Pedro from the Real World who died of AIDS, it only underscored my contempt of homosexuality.

I wouldn't wish the lifestyle, upon my worst enemy. But with that said I wouldnt tie one to a fence post and beat him to death either. I take as much issue with these people as with gays.

AIDS was born from the homosexual movement. You may not be old enough to remember the G.R.I.D. days (Gay Related Immuno Deficiency). GRID was the unpolitically correct first name of AIDS, in the years before its urban mythification   .      

"And the Band Played on", is a good read on the origins of HIV/AIDS and its spread. I forget the movie production name, it may have same title.

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM)

For me though there's "personally" even a third aspect. I dislike every theist religion and I'd do as much as I can trying to wipe them out. I don't show much or any respect for these religions, apart from possibly the practitioners of them.  So, in a sense, this is a win-win-situation. If the gay people are allowed marriage, the priest may get pissed, and if I'm lucky, they won't exercise their job as expected, therefore potentially weakening the religion. But, if the gay people are being rejected marriage, I definitely think there will be a fairly strong number of people fleeing the religion. The only downside to that is that it may become a too narrow-minded religion, where people will take things to the extreme.

IMO marriage is an act between man and woman. If I can marry another man why cant I marry my pet parrot. You really don't want to open that can of worms.

If you still believe anything a priest tells you in the year 2007, you deserve what you get  (i.e. C ck in you bum).

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 08:05 PM)

The reason I dislike most religions is mostly because of the extremism some will take, particularly Islam right now, even though christians and christian terrorism scares me too(IRA).

Cmon ,now you mean the Britons have the sole copyright on religious demagogy.  Where would the world be without those that exploited men, women, and children just because (St. Ides, Paul, The Virgin Mary, Judas,, Rudulph Guliani) told them. We wouldnt have cable TV, spam, xbox 360, or meth whores.


P.S.  I cant believe they have not put the McCann's on the rack to find that little girls body.  Clumps of her hair in the trunk of the rental car, that they rented weeks after her "disappearance"      

[gronned]

QUOTE(PhatIrishBastard @ Oct 23 2007, 07:41 PM)

The GOD doesn't like anyone objection is a little off base. GOD loves everyone, there are just people who choose not to love GOD.

Yeah, if one seriously believe they choose their sexuality, I'd agree. But I doubt you question your heterosexual urge, just as homosexuals don't. Who'd ever choose being gay when you know how badly society will treat you?

QUOTE

This concept has often escaped my full understanding at times, yet I still have as yet not to grasp the evolve from apes myth. Given the utter lack of archaeological evidence.  But this argument is rooted more within Satan than scientific discovery.

How convenient.. What you're saying here is actually the full answer to why people believe in God(s) in the first place. When we can't find the answer to a tough question, we "always" find abstract explanations(God/satan), in order to ease our minds, I guess. However the ape "myth" is pretty hard to deny, and as much as people had to accept the earth is round, everyone eventually WILL have to believe in the theory of evolution.

QUOTE

I call myself Christian, and after watching a well publicized documentary(years ago) starring Pedro from the Real World who died of AIDS, it only underscored my contempt of homosexuality.

I wouldn't wish the lifestyle, upon my worst enemy. But with that said I wouldnt tie one to a fence post and beat him to death either. I take as much issue with these people as with gays.

AIDS was born from the homosexual movement. You may not be old enough to remember the G.R.I.D. days (Gay Related Immuno Deficiency). GRID was the unpolitically correct first name of AIDS, in the years before its urban mythification   .      

It wasn't changed because of it's politically incorrect name but because of the fact it was proved to spread among heterosexuals as well.. Most people having HIV/AIDS are certainly not gay.

QUOTE

IMO marriage is an act between man and woman. If I can marry another man why cant I marry my pet parrot. You really don't want to open that can of worms.

Mutual consent. A gay couple would most likely be of mutual consent. And in a sense, I don't really think I'd have an issue with you having sex with an animal, if you could PROVE mutual consent, which may be a tougher issue. If you actually would have sex with animals, I guess you'd have few human friends though =)

QUOTE

If you still believe anything a priest tells you in the year 2007, you deserve what you get  (i.e. C ck in you bum).

So you skip sermon too? I bet God loves you =)

QUOTE

P.S.  I cant believe they have not put the McCann's on the rack to find that little girls body.  Clumps of her hair in the trunk of the rental car, that they rented weeks after her "disappearance"  

Figure you took it up as I made a topic on it... Personally, I actually am one of the few that believe they're innocent, but I honestly don't give a shit  

[crackfeen]

i'm not participating in this discussion because frankly..  i don't see why people have aproblem with it.. anyways this caught my eye and i just wanted to share my views...

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 09:05 PM)

AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.

what people have to understand... the bible is written by men.. not god... now.. as a fictional tale, is it not at all possible that the authors contributed their own ideas and beliefs?
and i'm pretty sure before it was written, it was a collection of stories that were spread by word-of-mouth advertising... and eventually recorded... like an intercity game of telephone

an excerpt from the bible of uncyclopedia... "And Oral Roberts withdrew from the minge and let his spunk fall upon the ground, and his sin was great."

[gronned]

QUOTE(crackfeen @ Oct 23 2007, 11:58 PM)

i'm not participating in this discussion because frankly..  i don't see why people have aproblem with it.. anyways this caught my eye and i just wanted to share my views...

what people have to understand... the bible is written by men.. not god... now.. as a fictional tale, is it not at all possible that the authors contributed their own ideas and beliefs?
and i'm pretty sure before it was written, it was a collection of stories that were spread by word-of-mouth advertising... and eventually recorded... like an intercity game of telephone

Yeah, of course. Probably fairly little has to do with what Jesus himself really thought. The last parts of the bible was written approximately 110 years after Jesus died. How many stories haven't changed within a week among our own friends? Think what more than 100 years would do. Christianity could've remained a cult or most likely just vanished, but sadly it became mainstream because of Constantine.

Some morons, quite a huge amount of people, take this BS for real which is a proof of how incredibly naive and easily controlled humans are. Humans fall for everything if the rhetoric is only performed well enough. Look at Hitler with the help of Göbbels, talk about easily manipulating a whole people.

Josef Göbbels himself said: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - which is simply what the bible is all about - a 2000 year old lie that's now reached two billion people.

[damam]

This too caught my eye . . .

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 22 2007, 02:05 PM)

AFAIK the bible is quite clear of what it thinks of gay people, so why they think they should have any right to be part of a marriage supported by the bible is not only stupid, but very illogical. God doesn't like them, deal with it.

Actually the "Old Testament" is quite clear on homosexuality.  As are most churches.  But Christianity and the new testament is very very very unclear on how it feels about homosexuality.  When Christ came and died for us, he also abolished the majority of the laws in the torah.  Most people take the pivot point to be Acts 10:15 - When G-d commanded peter to eat of all foods because he has made everything clean.  This has far greater implications that I wont get into here.  Basically, unless one of the apostles re-affirmed a law in leviticus it is generally considered to be null and void.  For example, circumcision is no longer practiced nor do we stone adulters.  Most people believe that Paul re-affirmed that homosexuality is out of line in I Corinthians 6:9-10 and in Romans 1:27.  But that is pretty unclear.  In Romans 1:27 it sounds more like he was actually talking about pederasty and extra-marital affairs, not homosexuality perse.  In I Corinthians 6:9-10, the texts were almost certainly mis-translated.  The words used were very obscure, and the translator probably took a guess.  Even today we dont exactly know the meaning of the words.  We have a gist of what he was trying to say, but not absolute certainty, but most importantly we know he was not talking about homosexuality.  

Also, christ never talked about homosexuality. . .  and that should speak volumes.

my view on gay marriage:
The implications of a state recognized gay marriage may be different for sweden, but I have no problems with civil gay marriage in theory.  Some things are really quite basic and quite justifiable such as wanting to be at the bedside of your lover as they die (something only given to married couples).  
I definitely believe that the law should not force churches to do this sort of service.  If the sect in question believes its wrong, then leave them alone.
The details I am really worried about is when it concerns children.  Before I had my daughter, i really could not have cared less, however watching her grow up has firmly changed my mind.  I now believe that the absolute best enviroment for a child is to have in-house role models from both sexes ie a man and a woman.  I am a bit torn on this though, because obviously any loving home whether it be a single parent or a gay couple is better than the foster system.  Once gay marriage becomes amended, we may not be able to legally select heterosexual couples over homosexual couples for child placement simply because all things being equael they are homosexual.  I have problems with that.

[gronned]

QUOTE(damam @ Oct 25 2007, 12:13 AM)

Actually the "Old Testament" is quite clear on homosexuality.  As are most churches.  But Christianity and the new testament is very very very unclear on how it feels about homosexuality.  When Christ came and died for us, he also abolished the majority of the laws in the torah.  Most people take the pivot point to be Acts 10:15 - When G-d commanded peter to eat of all foods because he has made everything clean.  This has far greater implications that I wont get into here.  Basically, unless one of the apostles re-affirmed a law in leviticus it is generally considered to be null and void.  For example, circumcision is no longer practiced nor do we stone adulters.  Most people believe that Paul re-affirmed that homosexuality is out of line in I Corinthians 6:9-10 and in Romans 1:27.  But that is pretty unclear.  In Romans 1:27 it sounds more like he was actually talking about pederasty and extra-marital affairs, not homosexuality perse.  In I Corinthians 6:9-10, the texts were almost certainly mis-translated.  The words used were very obscure, and the translator probably took a guess.  Even today we dont exactly know the meaning of the words.  We have a gist of what he was trying to say, but not absolute certainty, but most importantly we know he was not talking about homosexuality.  

I've never read the bible, so I don't know. Despite the old testament being before jesus lived, isn't it as holy as the new testament for christians? If it says homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't it be a sin then? And even if the new testament actually is unclear on the matter, it doesn't really have to matter as most practitioners(virtually all I know, at least) seem to think christianity officially is against homosexuality.

QUOTE

Also, christ never talked about homosexuality. . .  and that should speak volumes.

Well, if he never cared to bring up such a controversial matter, I also think it speaks volume - of his  homophobia. Jesus talked about everything he felt important, but left out homosexuality which was a big no no back then?!? If he didn't dislike them, he obviously must have been a chicken not daring to bring the matter up. Hope you don't get angry with me, but from my p.o.v. I can only draw that conclusion.

QUOTE

my view on gay marriage:
The implications of a state recognized gay marriage may be different for sweden, but I have no problems with civil gay marriage in theory.  Some things are really quite basic and quite justifiable such as wanting to be at the bedside of your lover as they die (something only given to married couples).  
I definitely believe that the law should not force churches to do this sort of service.  If the sect in question believes its wrong, then leave them alone.
The details I am really worried about is when it concerns children.  Before I had my daughter, i really could not have cared less, however watching her grow up has firmly changed my mind.  I now believe that the absolute best enviroment for a child is to have in-house role models from both sexes ie a man and a woman.  I am a bit torn on this though, because obviously any loving home whether it be a single parent or a gay couple is better than the foster system.  Once gay marriage becomes amended, we may not be able to legally select heterosexual couples over homosexual couples for child placement simply because all things being equael they are homosexual.  I have problems with that.

I agree on most points, and I'm also a bit unclear on the adoption issue. But I think I heard of a study saying there really only were positive things about having gay parents.. If I also remember correctly it was feminists who had done the study, so it probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously heaps of gay couples would like to adopt a kid, but I'm very skeptical, of numerous reasons.

[PhatIrishBastard]

QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)

When G-d commanded peter to eat of all foods because he has made everything clean.  This has far greater implications that I wont get into here.  Basically, unless one of the apostles re-affirmed a law in leviticus it is generally considered to be null and void.  

No not really within the context of what was happening this intervention it is quite unambiguous.

God gave Peter the vision you speak about as an Olive branch to Greeks, Hebrews were very bigoted towards Greeks and many of the apostles were viewed hypocritically for recognizing Greek culture.

When challenged by the synagogue's of Satan, with their piety for the Laws of Moses, Jesus states he came to complete the Old Testament Laws not abolish them.

Funny as soon as i read this I thought of Romans 1:24-27, not by name but by message.

QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)

But that is pretty unclear.  In Romans 1:27 it sounds more like he was actually talking about pederasty and extra-marital affairs, not homosexuality perse.  
Also, christ never talked about homosexuality. . .  and that should speak volumes.

QUOTE

Romans 24:
Therefore God also gave them up to cleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,...

QUOTE

Romans 26:
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

QUOTE

Romans 27:
Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the women, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

This is how my KJV New Test. reads. You be the judge, appears crystal clear to me.

QUOTE

Romans 24:
......who exchanged the truth of God for the lie,...

Go read it for yourself and develop your own informed opinion.

QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)

For example, circumcision is no longer practiced nor do we stone adulters.  

[Secret] I am circumsized[/secret]

QUOTE(damam @ Oct 24 2007, 05:13 PM)

hate crime legislation:
Idaho as a whole is very anti-"hate crime" legislation for numerous reasons. Probably the biggest reason being that their is a general belief that segragating a group out and giving them an elevated status in the eyes of the law only serves to promote inequality as a whole in the community at large.

As Ghandi said, "It is not possible to achieve equality and tolerance by instituting policies of preference and exclusion. The result will only be more preference and more exclusion."

Not my words but my belief, I tend to apply this principle across the full spectrum, not just when it suits my agenda.

The truth and not the lie, can be applied to all of society. You can "will it a maximum."  

I guess using your logic we should ignore the old testament and O.T. prophesy that has yet to pass also.  

[cerealkillajme]

I'm atheist and I do agree with the bible is just a book written by a man, just like any other book. I feel the bile is just a book for teaching morals and right from wrong, nothing more.

I personally don't have a problem with homosexuals as long as they respect the rules (like not hitting on a heterosexual, swear I could have killed a guy one night for a comment he made to me, grrrr). One of my best friends for 10 or so years is a lesbian as well, so I certainly don't hate them.

My view on gay marriage though is that a marriage is a union between 2 people, not strictly a man and a woman. If 2 people love each other and both agree they want to be married, I see no reason to deny them of that. Yes marriage may be a religious thing and I'm atheist, but I do celebrate the traditions and holidays that my parents raised me on and since marriage is tied to our legal system in so many ways I feel marriage should not be denied to any couple that both agree to marriage.

Just think of how many ways that homosexuals are being screwed if they can't be married.

No spouse coverage with insurance
No tax break for a married couple
As stated above, no seeing your spouse on their deathbed
Can you imagine your partner is hurt and just arrived at the hospital and they deny you being able to see them by saying "i'm sorry, only family members allowed"
You have to do something for your spouse and you go there and they won't let you do w/e it is cause "you need to be married"
And I'm sure there are thousands of other things they get screwed on that I can't think of now.

To me 2 homosexuals getting married is no different than a black and white couple, a fat and skinny couple, a blonde and a brunette couple, a green eyes and brown eyes couple, etc. The one thing all those couple share in common is that they love each other, and in my eyes, that's all that really matters.

And it's funny how our society changes over the years. Now we look back and can't believe segregation took place, that women didn't have equal rights only 50 years ago, and several other things. We'll probably look back 50 years from now and be astonished that gays were not given equal rights (if and when they are given equal rights).

I do have to say (even with my very open view to gay marriage) that I don't really know how to feel about a homosexual couple adopting a child. I'm not really going to get into that as I haven't really thought much about it.

[damam]

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 25 2007, 08:18 AM)

I've never read the bible, so I don't know. Despite the old testament being before jesus lived, isn't it as holy as the new testament for christians? If it says homosexuality is a sin, shouldn't it be a sin then? And even if the new testament actually is unclear on the matter, it doesn't really have to matter as most practitioners(virtually all I know, at least) seem to think christianity officially is against homosexuality.

no its not on equael grounds.  if it were, people would still live by the laws of liviticus.  granted however, most christians are anti-homosexual.

QUOTE(gronned @ Oct 25 2007, 08:18 AM)

 Well, if he never cared to bring up such a controversial matter, I also think it speaks volume - of his  homophobia. Jesus talked about everything he felt important, but left out homosexuality which was a big no no back then?!? If he didn't dislike them, he obviously must have been a chicken not daring to bring the matter up. Hope you don't get angry with me, but from my p.o.v. I can only draw that conclusion.
I agree on most points, and I'm also a bit unclear on the adoption issue. But I think I heard of a study saying there really only were positive things about having gay parents.. If I also remember correctly it was feminists who had done the study, so it probably shouldn't be taken seriously. Obviously heaps of gay couples would like to adopt a kid, but I'm very skeptical, of numerous reasons.

that is a very ethnocentric p.o.v.  just because it is controversial today, does not mean it was controversial back then or controversial in his social milieu.  quiet simply put, there may have been no matter to bring up.

@PhatIrishBastard
i know that many would like to believe that the KJV is the end all - but that is not the case.  I trust the KJV so far as it is accurately traslated.  When it comes to Romans 1:24-27, paul is not condemning homosexuality, he is condemning extramarital affairs.  The same with onan.  G-d was condemning being unobedient - not masterbation.  that is my oppinion.  "para physin" in particular.  if it truly meant that than g-d would be unnatural (Romans 11:24)  

as for the rest of what you said - I suppose i could be hypicrital their, but you will have to say more to show me my error

[gronned]

QUOTE(damam @ Nov 17 2007, 01:29 AM)

no its not on equael grounds.  if it were, people would still live by the laws of liviticus.  granted however, most christians are anti-homosexual.
that is a very ethnocentric p.o.v.  just because it is controversial today, does not mean it was controversial back then or controversial in his social milieu.  quiet simply put, there may have been no matter to bring up.

I still think it's a tad strange he didn't mention it, considering Jesus was God he must've known it'd become a major topic today at least(in a preemptive effect =)).

A really interesting book I'm reading now is Richard Dawkins "The God delusion". I bet you've at least heard of it. Apart from his annoyingly narcissistic views of his own opinions, he really has something to say on the matter. I met a lady who didn't want to read it because she claimed it was a tool Satan used to flirt with her. That's her standard, convenient comment whenever someone challenges her faith, yet she's always trying to get me to read the bible...

[damam]

QUOTE(gronned @ Nov 17 2007, 12:17 AM)

A really interesting book I'm reading now is Richard Dawkins "The God delusion". I bet you've at least heard of it. Apart from his annoyingly narcissistic views of his own opinions, he really has something to say on the matter. I met a lady who didn't want to read it because she claimed it was a tool Satan used to flirt with her. That's her standard, convenient comment whenever someone challenges her faith, yet she's always trying to get me to read the bible...

Have not read it.   i have probably read a two dozen or so like it though.  I am also familiar with "the selfish gene" by Richard Dawkins (read it in college).  

QUOTE(gronned @ Nov 17 2007, 12:17 AM)

Apart from his annoyingly narcissistic views of his own opinions

i think that this is reason enough to believe that atheism wont solve anything either.  Also, I believe that South Park did a really good response to "The God delusion" called "Go God Go".   Its a two part series.  Its really pretty funny.  Find a means of watching it at all costs.

your friend seems a bit strange . . .  

[gronned]

Haha, the southpark episodes were pretty funny!

I don't know in what way they'd make anyone feel it was constructive criticism as to why God(s) should exist though. The only interesting part was why anything would be better if there were no religions.

Personally though, I'm certain the world would be more at peace without any religions. Muslim suicide bombers would never exist, because first off there's no heaven for them and secondly they won't be isolated with 72 girls that don't know shit about sex.

What can I say, I'm not comfortable with the thought of dying and then there's nothing of me, but making up ludicrous ideas of what could happen when I die is not the solution.

Millions upon millions of people have been killed in the name of religion.
I thought religions were there to save people, not kill them. And when religion is the biggest threat to my life, I will not accept that muslims want to kill me because I don't believe in their bullshit.

It's important the smartest people are outspoken with their atheism, because they're the ones that have influence over the common man. E.g. people still seem to think Einstein was religious, which is actually a big problem. So you have to convert to atheism Damam =) I promise you, you won't lose any morals by converting, atheists are nice people too!

Please read the book as it's the most elaborate book on the matter I've come across.

[damam]

i have no doubts that atheist are swell people too.  I was an atheist, after all, for most of my life (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

however, i think that the world would be just as violent without religion.  That was part of the point of the South Park episode.  And I agree with it.  Science and logic without compassion can be used to justify some really horrendous things.

The greatest killers of the last century stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, and other totalitarians all tended towards atheistic beliefs.  Thats not a condemnation of atheism.  Only a suggestion that it would not lead to the green fields, sunshine, and flowers that you are seeking.

sure we may not have jihadi bombers, but we would probably have something else in its place (eco-terrorists?).  And in comparison to stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc their impact on ending human lives has been negligable.

This post has been edited by damam: Nov 26 2007, 12:57 AM

[crackfeen]

QUOTE(damam @ Nov 25 2007, 06:45 PM)

i have no doubts that atheist are swell people too.  I was an atheist, after all, for most of my life

however, i think that the world would be just as violent without religion.  That was part of the point of the South Park episode.  And I agree with it.  Science and logic without compassion can be used to justify some really horrendous things.

The greatest killers of the last century stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, and other totalitarians all tended towards atheistic beliefs.  Thats not a condemnation of atheism.  Only a suggestion that it would not lead to the green fields, sunshine, and flowers that you are seeking.

sure we may not have jihadi bombers, but we would probably have something else in its place (eco-terrorists?).  And in comparison to stalin, hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc their impact on ending human lives has been negligable.

science and logic without compassion? what happened to the compassion? do athiests feel no compassion? come now spud junior... what would spud senior think about this... you don't need religion for general empathy.. but you need a balance between logic and emotion....
are you sure that we want peace? how do you feel about overpopulation?