In America, atheists are still in the closet

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't define Christianity at all in any form on this thread.
<quoted text>
That is imprecise. It just needs to be disentangled from the lives of unbelievers, not annihilated from the land.
<quoted text>
Yes, that is correct, although that is no longer an issue. As much as they would like to, they are no longer allowed to burn, impale, or twist us. Do you doubt that they would do that if they could?
If so, please name an instance of a Christian theocratic state which had the blessings of government to torture #heretics# that said, "No, that is too horrible a thing to do." I'll bet they burned witches the last day that they could in Salem, and that if you legalized it again tonight, you'd smell them burning downwind tomorrow.
Even without that, Christianity remains psychological terror, mostly on the vulnerable, like children.
Why do you refuse to see that? Why do you speak in support of such a philosophy? They're as monstrous as we allow them to be. It's systemic in their dogma.
Once again, that's not much of an issue any more. We have them largely contained when to comes to inquisitions. But they remain what they have always been - terrorists working within the law.
<quoted text>
Demonstrate otherwise. Show me what we will lose if Christianity disappears from earth tomorrow? They have no good ideas and do nothing of use that secular associations don't do as well or better.
<quoted text>
I don't think so.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Religion speaking. It's so deeply pessimistic. Imagine if I reworded that to describe a mother and her leprechaun pipe dreams for her children.
You're confusing neoconservatism with secular humanism.
I'm a secular humanist, and have no debt crisis, am fiercely independent (can you tell?), and leave only a tiny carbon footprint (I walk everywhere, have bought only 17 tanks of gas since Aug 09, no central air or heat - yes, I'm proud of that).
<quoted text>
I don't care about that. It's American Christianity we're discussing - or that I am, anyway. And their philosophy is deeply divisive, being the principal source of Western atheophobia, homophobia, misogyny, misanthropy, anti-intellectuali sm, anti-scientism, shame, and guilt for starters.
<quoted text>
At its extreme, religion favors torture. And secular humanism does not favor minorities over majorities. It protects the rights of minorities and individuals from the group think of authoritarian doctrine like Christian dogma.

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text> I think when the idiot wrote that original post, he was unaware that four countries make up the UK. He definitely stated the UK has a state religion. When he was called on it, he was unable to admit his error. This is how fundies operate.

water_nymph wrote:

<quoted text>Well, I'm sorry. I'll see what I can do.

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Like most things he comes out with, barefoot hasn't a clue as the majority of the Northern Irish were/are pro-British.
Back in 1912, British liberal politicians who had been committed (for decades) to granting Ireland her independence decided to have another go at granting home rule for Ireland. Of course, the protestant majority in the north did not want to live under the catholic south.
They came together to oppose the British who were about to grant autonomy and home rule to the whole of Ireland. In 1912 nearly half a million people signed the Ulster Covenant to “use all means necessary to defeat the conspiracy to introduce home rule for Ireland”. These people were armed and in January 1913 over 100,000 formed the UVF who were ready to fight the British in their attempts to impose home rule on them.
In March 1914, a British army based in Dublin was ordered to move north to Ulster resulting in what was pretty much an outright mutiny with a brigadier and scores of officers resigning (read about the Curragh Incident). The British sent a battle fleet to the Ulster coast with Churchill saying that they would fight to win any rebellion or civil war.
We’ll never know what would have happened next as the rebellion in the north was stopped dead in its tracks by the Great War.
The UVF reorganised into 36 Ulster divisions and they went off to die in their thousands in the fields of France. Their actions were so heroic and the scale of their casualties was so horrific that the idea of betraying these people by imposing a united Ireland was out of the question.
I'd also like to add that the best part of a quarter of a million Irish volunteered to fight in Kitchener's army. Compare that with the small number who took arms against Britain in the 1916 Easter Rising.
Mind you, Britain messed up when they executed the leaders. Ah well, c'est la vie.

macumazahn wrote:

<quoted text>I know how to start spelling "nemeseseseses" - but not how to stop.

Judged:

1

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
I have that problem with bananananas.

True Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
Alright then, that is a good possibility. So tell me, what is Obama playing at with this support of gay marriage?
I don't expect people to vote based solely on the gay marriage issue, but isn't Obama's stance on gay marriage just part of a wider effort to secure liberalist votes?

Tide with Beach wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think that matters. I think it's more relevant to look at how many copies have been sold recently.
Do you know how to have a conversation?

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
"His breasts are full of milk." - Job 21:24
Oh holy!!

Judged:

2

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't say that I could detect souls, now, did I?

Quarks are just one (of millions) of examples of things that man did not know existed but which obviously did exist.
Not being able to prove such things exist does not mean they do not exist.
Obviously.

Is there extra terrestrial life?

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
What *theoretical* way would you propose to detect souls?
<quoted text>
But not being able, even theoretically to detect it *does* mean it doesn't exist. If the indetectability is not due simply to technological deficiencies, but is due to the actual properties of the 'object', then the object simply doesn't exist.
<quoted text>
I don't know. But I would know how to detect it if it exists. Several different possibilities, in fact.
So, how would you propose, even theoretically, to detect a soul? What technology would be required?

Judged:

1

Darwins Stepchild wrote:

<quoted text>
barefoot's arguments for the existence of souls would work just as well for the existence of fairies.

Judged:

1

1

True Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
You have this notion that given the freedom, Christians would glady burn you and other minorities. That is sensationalist nonsense. Even under Christian theocracies in history, minorities lived under relative peace. You look at the times when things got out of control, and perceive Christian Europe to have been a highly violent, bigoted, dark place. But in reality, those times of war, violence and aggression were few and far between periods of peace.

Perhaps you should read Main Kampf, read all about Hitlers complaints about the church and how despite the state encouraging the extermination of the Jews, the church was not cooperating. While he succeeded in brainwashing many Christians, the churches were a hindrence to Hitler's cleansings, by hiding Jews, cripples and abnormal people and facilitating their escape from Germany.

Judged:

1

1

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
O holy! O so holy! LOL.
Notice how much more holified it is spelled "O" rather than "Oh." References:
O Breath Of Life
O Come, All Ye Faithful
O Come, Let Us Adore Him
O Come, O Come, Emmanuel
O Day Of Rest And Gladness
O For A Closer Walk With God
O, For A Faith That Will Not Shrink
O For A Heart To Praise My God
O For A Thousand Tongues
O God, Our Help In Ages Past
O Happy Day!
O Holy Night!
O How I Love Jesus
O Jesus, I Have Promised
O Little Town Of Bethlehem
O Love That Wilt Not Let Me Go
O Master, Let Me Walk With Thee
O Perfect Love
O Sacred Head, Now Wounded
O Sing A Song Of Bethlehem
O That Will Be Glory
O The Deep, Deep Love Of Jesus
O To Be Like Thee!
O Word Of God Incarnate
O Worship The King
O Zion, Haste
Almost any utterance increases holification by following a few simple rules. You don't "go to," you "goeth." And no "to" but "unto." You "goeth unto the Lord." For maximum holificacity, "you" do nothing. "Ye" do it. Actually, "Ye doeth it." Unto the Lord. Yea, verily!
O so holy! Maybe another exclamation point is in order: O! So holy!

Judged:

1

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
What *theoretical* way would you propose to detect souls?
<quoted text>
But not being able, even theoretically to detect it *does* mean it doesn't exist. If the indetectability is not due simply to technological deficiencies, but is due to the actual properties of the 'object', then the object simply doesn't exist.
<quoted text>
I don't know. But I would know how to detect it if it exists. Several different possibilities, in fact.
So, how would you propose, even theoretically, to detect a soul? What technology would be required?

Hidingfromyou wrote:

<quoted text>
That is totally false. From the dawn of the Christian Empire to the rise of democracy, the Church - and Christians - have been attacking non-Christians where ever they could.
Jews have historically been treated miserably, and gypsies, and look what the Church did to pagans. Then you have hundreds of years of constant warfare between Christian nations that bankrupted them so badly they had to tax the crap out of their own peasants - you have heard of the 100 years war? And all the other myriad and constant wars during the medieval ages?
<quoted text>
Yes, absolutely, some Christians did - and most hate war, I'm sure. But that doesn't mean that war didn't happen or that Christians weren't involved.

True Truth wrote:

isn't Obama's stance on gay marriage just part of a wider effort to secure liberalist votes?

Judged:

1

True Truth wrote:

<quoted text>
You have this notion that given the freedom, Christians would glady burn you and other minorities.

Judged:

1

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
He did and does say the UK has a state religion,