14 May 12
Originally posted by sonhouseYou can be one of those "elite" for you are being called. Pay attention and make this life count. Don't reject the One who really loves you. Don't give up. You can win! HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord!
See, here is the problem, not everyone gets that call or heeds that call. That is what makes it elite. It is a lose lose situation.
14 May 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat difference is there, really, between judging someone on their race, appearance or their religion?
Actually judging someone based on what they believe (and consequently how they act) seems to me
to be the best and only viable way of judging someone.
If not on what they believe and why and thus how they live what else are left with to judge people with?
Appearance?
Race?
All of these boil down to prejudice if you judge anyone based on these things.
"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -- Martin Luther King
Maybe it is telling that you cannot imagine what else to judge a person by except their religion.
Oh, you can sugar coat it all you want. But this is what you are doing. And equating a person's character to their choice of religion is simply a non-starter, no matter how you slice it.
14 May 12
Oh, and by the way, GF, I'm tired of arguing the difference between blind faith and informed faith with you, because you do not accept one of these, and think all faith is the other, no matter what I say about it. Fine. Have it your way. Your non-acceptance doesn't change my beliefs or my philosophy, but you knew that.
You continually try to narrowly define my philosophy in your narrow world-view. You have your own reality which does not match mine and you insist on shoe-horning my philosophy into it, and then reject it because it does not fit, nor does it even make sense to you. Well, no kidding. You also judge me based on my beliefs. When I first came to this forum I railed mightily against the atheist tide here and I even started to judge people here because of this. I have stopped doing this. I can now have a conversation with atheists without becoming shrill and unpleasant, like I did at first. But as my judging of people based on their religion or non-religion has waned, I now find others' judging of me based on my beliefs, especially my "Revelation"-based beliefs, increasing. So be it. Decisions have consequences, and let them live with their decisions. You can define my beliefs by your own definitions all you want. I don't. I'm just happy with the knowledge that your seemingly impenetrable shield of logic you justify yourself by is not homogenized throughout. Flaws in a foundation will eventually show in the facade, but just keep on varnishing that thing down every day and you'll never notice.
14 May 12
2 edits
Originally posted by Suzianne
What difference is there, really, between judging someone on their race, appearance or their religion?
All of these boil down to prejudice if you judge anyone based on these things.
"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -- Martin Luther King
Maybe it is telling that you c ...[text shortened]... 's character to their choice of religion is simply a non-starter, no matter how you slice it.
What difference is there, really, between judging someone on their race, appearance or their religion?
answer:
being a race or having a particular appearance doesn't cause nor encourage one to commit atrocities.
Religion can for once you convince yourself of one absurd belief then it comes easier to convince yourself of others some of which may cause you to commit atrocities.
Two reminders:
1, planes being flown into tall buildings ( ring any bells? )
2, The Nazis ( who were mainly theists including Hitler )
"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." -- Martin Luther King
the Nazis killed blacks. They were theists. Most atheists would be less likely to be racist than most theists because they generally not so prone to having absurd beliefs like theists do.
14 May 12
1 edit
Originally posted by humyI deny this on the face of it.What difference is there, really, between judging someone on their race, appearance or their religion?
answer:
being a race or having a particular appearance doesn't cause nor encourage one to commit atrocities.
Religion can for once you convince yourself of one absurd belief then it comes easier to convince yourself of others some of whi ...[text shortened]... o tall buildings ( ring any bells? )
2, The Nazis ( who were mainly theists including Hitler )
Why? I have a powerful faith and strong beliefs. I haven't committed any atrocities lately (I don't think so, anyways).
People who commit atrocities are evil. Period. It is absurd to blame their religion for it. The weakness is their own, they own it fully. Religion matters not. It is a fallacious argument.
By the way, I included that MLK quote in my post to GF because he asked what else should one use to judge people and my answer was simply the content of their character. All other criteria are bogus.
14 May 12
Originally posted by Suzianne
I deny this on the face of it.
Why? I have a powerful faith and strong beliefs. I haven't committed any atrocities lately (I don't think so, anyways).
People who commit atrocities are evil. Period. It is absurd to blame their religion for it. The weakness is their own, they own it fully. Religion matters not. It is a fallacious argument.
By ...[text shortened]... people and my answer was simply the content of their character. All other criteria are bogus.
I haven't committed any atrocities lately
but other people that have 'faith' certianly have.
People who commit atrocities are evil. Period. It is absurd to blame their religion for it.
and yet we have statistical evidence that theists are more likely to commit atrocities of various kinds than theists.
For example: http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
15 May 12
Originally posted by Suziannequiet a bit. race isn't a choice. there is some choice involved in appearance and religion is complete choice.
What difference is there, really, between judging someone on their race, appearance or their religion?
so, if a person lets himself go and goes about dirty then i will judge his appearance.
likewise, if a person chooses to adore and worship a psychotic lunatic like the biblegod, then i will think less of that person.
15 May 12
Originally posted by humyMaybe you should educate yourself by reading up on race riots.What difference is there, really, between judging someone on their race, appearance or their religion?
answer:
being a race or having a particular appearance doesn't cause nor encourage one to commit atrocities.
Religion can for once you convince yourself of one absurd belief then it comes easier to convince yourself of others some of whi ...[text shortened]... an most theists because they generally not so prone to having absurd beliefs like theists do.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_riot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_race_riots
15 May 12
Originally posted by humyAtheists are a minority and should commit less crimes than the religious. However, the crimes of Christians pale in comparison to the horrendously heinous crimes of proponents of atheism who just in the 20th Century alone committed unparalleled crimes. The followers of Stalin and Mao killed at least 100 million people in a 70 year time span and this was done directly at the direction of those atheist dictators in the name of Communist atheism and, of course, this doesn’t even count second rate atheist dictators such as Pol Pot who killed more than 2 million people in just a 3-year period. Which belief system would this suggest is the one that is truly inherently violent?I haven't committed any atrocities lately
but other people that have 'faith' certianly have.
People who commit atrocities are evil. Period. It is absurd to blame their religion for it.
and yet we have statistical evidence that theists are more likely to commit atrocities of various kinds than theists.
For example: http://www.atheismresource.com/2010/atheist-dont-commit-as-much-crime-as-the-religious-do
15 May 12
Originally posted by VoidSpiritThis just shows how corrupt your mind has become.
quiet a bit. race isn't a choice. there is some choice involved in appearance and religion is complete choice.
so, if a person lets himself go and goes about dirty then i will judge his appearance.
likewise, if a person chooses to adore and worship a psychotic lunatic like the biblegod, then i will think less of that person.
15 May 12
Originally posted by RJHindsMost of the people you mentioned there were religious:
Atheists are a minority and should commit less crimes than the religious. However, the crimes of Christians pale in comparison to the horrendously heinous crimes of proponents of atheism who just in the 20th Century alone committed unparalleled crimes. The followers of Stalin and Mao killed at least 100 million people in a 70 year time span and this was do ...[text shortened]... year period. Which belief system would this suggest is the one that is truly inherently violent?
The followers of Stalin and Mao
http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=334%3Awere-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists
“...Josef Stalin's "very religious" mother named him after St. Joseph, and wanted him to become a priest. Stalin himself supposedly claimed that his father had been a priest, and he was purportedly "damaged by violence" while being "raised in a poor priest-ridden household." As a youth, Stalin spent five years in a Greek Orthodox seminary, after which he purportedly renounced his religion. In his later years, Stalin apparently embraced Christianity once more. As Stalin biographer Edvard Radinsky remarks, "During his mysterious retreat [of June 1941] the ex-seminarist had decided to involve the aid of the God he had rejected." Radinsky likewise chronicles a number of religious comrades in Stalin's immediate circle. It is evident that, whether for good or bad, religion played a significant role in Stalin's life.
…
Mao was not religious. But he was one of the very few people that committed atrocities that were not religious.
Most murders throughout history have overwhelmingly been done by the religious.
such as Pol Pot
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=146614&page=6#post_2855655
“...Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada BUDDHIST ...” (my emphasis)
15 May 12
Originally posted by RJHinds1+1=2
Do you have any idea what would make the atmosphere rotate. I have studied some physics in the past. But I don't recall anything about this. It certianly seems that the earth must be spinning or something is moving. But that video has got me stumped. You would probably say, that is not surprising for a moron like me, right?
Shall we start there RJ?
-m. 😉
15 May 12
Originally posted by humyTheravada Buddhists are not communist....
Most of the people you mentioned there were religious:
The followers of Stalin and Mao
http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=334%3Awere-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists
“...Josef Stalin's "very religious" mother named him after St. Joseph, and wanted him to become a priest. Stalin himself supposed ...[text shortened]...
“...Pol Pot himself was a communist and Theravada [b]BUDDHIST ...” (my emphasis)[/b]
Pol Pot was communist.
I can demonstrate numerous pages, websites and studies from the likes of Yale, Harvard, Oxbridge and so forth that, after lengthy study, show that Pol Pot was not a representative of Buddhism, but merely a zombified communist on the take from both China and USA.....
You can also find for yourself, but don't include Pol Pot nor Stalin nor Mao, in arrogance, as symbols of truth that exemplify Theravada Buddhism..... shame on you RJ!
-m. ðŸ˜