Originally posted by rwingettthe dark ages?
The point is that atheists are among the fastest growing segments of the world population and that they will continue to grow. The various sundry religions of the world are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of its populace. It is only a matter of time before their superstitious and supernatural falderal becomes increasingly less common. The Dark Ages are finally coming to an end.
is your opinion theists are inferior beings? that they cannot function properly or they will at a lower rate than an atheist?
is your opinion religion is the sole responsible of the dark ages? is your opinion religion hasn't accomplish anything good? is your opinion that atheism has only accomplished good things? do you label everything as black and white? and when and if you do, do you bother to think for more than 2 seconds of the logic behind your actions or is it an automated response?
Originally posted by Zahlanziby your argument, scientologists should and will get hung until they number a billion or so.
so the fact that people don't get hung anymore because they are atheist has what to do with there being so many atheists? (ignoring the fact he still hasn't produced some info on how the study was made)
by your argument, scientologists should and will get hung until they number a billion or so. it has nothing to do that we in general are more tolerant of different ideas.
What on earth are you talking about?!
it has nothing to do that we in general are more tolerant of different ideas
That's the point i was making. Ideas that can be freely expressed nowadays, in the UK anyways, were punishable by death a few hundred years ago.
Originally posted by Proper Knobits a pity that he offered no defence, although i do not think that he was atheistic, simply anti trinitarian, for the evidence of his irreligious charges, stem from those of the prosecution. That he should carry a bible, is perhaps indicative of this, however, i do agree that it is a very real and sad indictment against the Scottish clergy, many of whom of course are Calvinistic in their outlook, and who , like Calvin himself, had other men murdered on the same pretext. Shame on them, for they are as far removed from Christ as one gets! where is the compassion? where is the mercy? ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing!
Sorry i forget to post the website.
http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/thomasaikenhead.html
Originally posted by ZahlanziTheists are inferior beings, yes. They are to humanity what Gollum is to Hobbits. They are mentally stunted, knuckle dragging, superstitious, anti-intellectual holdovers from the stygian depths of the dark ages.
the dark ages?
is your opinion theists are inferior beings? that they cannot function properly or they will at a lower rate than an atheist?
is your opinion religion is the sole responsible of the dark ages? is your opinion religion hasn't accomplish anything good? is your opinion that atheism has only accomplished good things? do you label everythin ...[text shortened]... think for more than 2 seconds of the logic behind your actions or is it an automated response?
While religion has accomplished some good things, the balance sheet is overwhelmingly negative. And if the world's religions insist in remaining stuck in antiquity then they are dooming themselves to obsolescence. If, on the other hand, they are willing to modernize themselves into the 21st century then perhaps they could be rehabilitated to some good use. But that doesn't appear likely.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAt the time 'atheism' didn't necessarily mean what it means today. Someone who didn't practice the 'right' religion was frequently branded as an atheist. So while he may have been called an atheist in his time (I don't know), we would not recognize him as one today.
its a pity that he offered no defence, although i do not think that he was atheistic, simply anti trinitarian, for the evidence of his irreligious charges, stem from those of the prosecution. That he should carry a bible, is perhaps indicative of this, however, i do agree that it is a very real and sad indictment against the Scottish clergy, many of ...[text shortened]... one gets! where is the compassion? where is the mercy? ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing!
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingetti see, so hes not really a fully fledged atheist, just a forerunner.
At the time 'atheism' didn't necessarily mean what it means today. Someone who didn't practice the 'right' religion was frequently branded as an atheist. So while he may have been called an atheist in his time (I don't know), we would not recognize him as one today.
Originally posted by rwingettthe usual delusional propaganda of the bitter and contorted atheist, notice the similarity to this statement, taken from the freedom from religion web site
Theists are inferior beings, yes. They are to humanity what Gollum is to Hobbits. They are mentally stunted, knuckle dragging, superstitious, anti-intellectual holdovers from the stygian depths of the dark ages.
While religion has accomplished some good things, the balance sheet is overwhelmingly negative. And if the world's religions insist in remainin ...[text shortened]... ury then perhaps they could be rehabilitated to some good use. But that doesn't appear likely.
"The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform, for humane treatment of the mentally ill, for abolition of capital punishment, for women's right to vote, for death with dignity for the terminally ill, and for the right to choose contraception, sterilization and abortion have been freethinkers, just as they were the first to call for an end to slavery."
is it true? anyone care to comment?
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_social_errors.htm
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThe FFRF is a fine group. I, myself, am a member. The point they are making is largely true. While those pushing for change have often included religious individuals, the organized churches themselves have uniformly stood in the way of progress at every age and at every level. The churches are always the last to accept any change to the status quo.
the usual delusional propaganda of the bitter and contorted atheist, notice the similarity to this statement, taken from the freedom from religion web site
"The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion. In modern times the first to speak out for prison reform ...[text shortened]... true? anyone care to comment?
http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/atheist_social_errors.htm
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingettyour case rests on the simple designation between church and religious individual. it is not a true statement in the least, for many of the early reformers were clearly and evidently religious persons, not so called 'free from religion', but motivated by it to be of some use to their fellow human beings. Did you not visit, the atheismexposed site for the list of religious persons who have contributed in a very great way to social reform? If this is indeed true then the statement is erroneous and you as a member have a duty to re word it, in the name of honesty.
The FFRF is a fine group. I, myself, am a member. The point they are making is largely true. While those pushing for change have often included religious individuals, the organized churches themselves have uniformly stood in the way of progress at every age and at every level. The churches are always the last to accept any change to the status quo.
not only that, i hold that a move towards secularism has benefited us not in the slightest, but on the contrary, a purely materialistic outlook has fomented more social ills that it can claim to have amended. The new temples are simply the Sunday shopping malls, the new hymns are simply the advertising jingles, and the new mode of service is simply to go there and engage in so called 'shopping therapy'. Yes, its all about me! so much for progress!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOf course I didn't waste my time looking at your stilted propaganda. My point remains that although there are religious individuals who are agents for change, the established churches never are.
your case rests on the simple designation between church and religious individual. it is not a true statement in the least, for many of the early reformers were clearly and evidently religious persons, not so called 'free from religion', but motivated by it to be of some use to their fellow human beings. Did you not visit, the atheismexposed site f ...[text shortened]... re and engage in so called 'shopping therapy'. Yes, its all about me! so much for progress!
Your attempt to confuse naturalism with consumerism through the dual meaning of 'materialism' is disingenuous. Secularism is not synonymous with avarice any more than religiosity is synonymous with asceticism.