whitout religions: abortions wasn't that big of a deal, stamcell research wold be allowed.
This sentence dictates that religion in general causes so and so problem, for example as you stated, prevents stemcell research. Religion. You didn't specify. That was clear cut generalizing.
stoped by religions (namely christians)
Not only are you still generalizing, but you zoomed in on a particular religion (Christianity), which doesn't do it justice at all given the hundreds of denominations.
why must we remember that all the time if some other christians think that all not god believers (atheists) have choosen for satan?
Here you're stereotyping that Christians think all non-believers have chosen Satan. This is most definitely not the case.
You didn't specify. That was clear cut generalizing.
like i said befor. i use general terms to shorten sentences. i know there are always lots of difference but i was talking about how it effects the world scale. if we talk about that then we don't take all personal believes whit it. we take 2 sides for it or against it (or no meaning) and then dived people in groups. those groups act as 1. 1 of those groups is the religion whit all cristians in it. that those people all have slight differences in ideas does not get callculated in how the religion is accting on a world scale. (danm i'm just explaining the basics of partys/groups now xD )
so if we talk about world scale effects we don't calculated personal believes. and whit we, i mean you and me aswell as how the goverment works. we always use general terms because it's faster. ofcours we know there are lots of exceptions but thats not how the group itself ects. for example is it normale to say that "fireman are brave" but that surly wont be ALLWAYS true.
Here you're stereotyping that Christians think all non-believers have chosen Satan. This is most definitely not the case.
i didn't see it fast enoufg but i stated in my dubble post that i said "...remember that all the time if some other christians think th...
i use general terms to shorten sentences. i know there are always lots of difference but i was talking about how it effects the world scale. if we talk about that then we don't take all personal believes whit it. we take 2 sides for it or against it (or no meaning) and then dived people in groups.
This is just placing everything into black or white, which makes not for a healthy debate, or logical argument.
1 of those groups is the religion whit all cristians in it.
Which can be split into a few sub groups, to make it more fair. It's not like we should micro manage everything, but acknowledge that there are multiple grey areas.
that those people all have slight differences in ideas does not get callculated in how the religion is accting on a world scale.
This is worrisome if you can only see two sides of the coin.
This is just placing everything into black or white, which makes not for a healthy debate, or logical argument.
it is how we should talk about it if we discuss "World events, politics, religion, etc.
wich seem the be where we are now.
Which can be split into a few sub groups, to make it more fair. It's not like we should micro manage everything, but acknowledge that there are multiple grey areas.
then dispatch the name of being a christian. get a new name for your own personal believes. you say your part of the christian religion then you have to go whit how your "leaders"(sometimes real leaders as in politics and sometimes only piritual leaders) act and their effect on the world.
This is worrisome if you can only see two sides of the coin.
it's not seeing only 2 sides. it is talking about only 2 sides. when i'm in "the tavern" or at friends then i talk about the other/blind sides of the coin.
This is just placing everything into black or white, which makes not for a healthy debate
it is, because we don't have to go constantly into details. we use the details for examples but we always keep in mind it's by far not ALWAYS like that. and by stating your own idea at the end. (wich i did) you have still personal believes in a general debate.
and it's logical els we have to go into details all the time. making it even longer to tell what you wanna tell.
it is how we should talk about it if we discuss "World events, politics, religion, etc.
wich seem the be where we are now.
I'm not talking that way, and if you want healthy discussions in this section, dumping things into two categories doesn't cut it.
then dispatch the name of being a christian. get a new name for your own personal believes. you say your part of the christian religion then you have to go whit how your "leaders"(sometimes real leaders as in politics and sometimes only piritual leaders) act and their effect on the world.
It just shows you haven't paid attention to my posts. I stated I was an atheist.
it is, because we don't have to go constantly into details. we use the details for examples but we always keep in mind it's by far not ALWAYS like that. and by stating your own idea at the end. (wich i did) you have still personal believes in a general debate.
A debate without specific evidence is nothing but rhetoric and bluster. Just because it's the simple way out doesn't mean it's the most logical and viable.
It just shows you haven't paid attention to my posts. I stated I was an atheist.
then why do you cry for the christians? they don't even care that much as you do xD anyway if there was any christian would think like you then i suggest it xD.
A debate without specific evidence is nothing but rhetoric and bluster
we use personal believes like i used the personal believe of some1 stating that all atheists are following satan. because it's personal makes it evidence enoufg to use it as "SOME .... think that" because whit the amount of people we talk about we can also be sure that there is a 2nd person whit the same idea.
then why do you cry for the christians? they don't even care that much as you do xD anyway if there was any christian would think like you then i suggest it xD.
I don't cry for them. I speak up for them, against people who classify them so absolutely.
they don't even care that much as you do xD
Again a generalization. Do you really want me to continue poking holes in your argument?
I don't cry for them. I speak up for them, against people who classify them so absolutely.
Again a generalization. Do you really want me to continue poking holes in your argument?
pffff i can say all what ive said again and you still wont understand. your tiresome. lets just say i'm a rasist then oke? why because i do the same whit countrys. or should i say that your out of my league? xD
pffff i can say all what ive said again and you still wont understand. your tiresome. lets just say i'm a rasist then oke? why because i do the same whit countrys. or should i say that your out of my league? xD
whatever you want. it's your party.
And you never get my point. In a debate, simply dumping people into separate, easily classified group distorts the argument, making it simplified, and not doing it justice.
I think your main point was that later on you did somewhat classify the groups more fairly. This I already acknowledged earlier after you clarified, after prompting from me.
or should i say that your out of my league? xD
If in your twisted confused state you seem to believe so, who am I to deny that?
i do get your point. i got a explenation for that and you didn't get that. instead you stick whit that i generalize evrything and that i think it's only like that. wich is clrearly not what i explained to you.
If in your twisted confused state you seem to believe so, who am I to deny that?
lol i thought it was obvius enoufg sarcasme. but my bad xD
i got a explenation for that and you didn't get that. instead you stick whit that i generalize evrything and that i think it's only like that. wich is clrearly not what i explained to you.
You used the example of Pedo Priests and Inams. That was good. Until later on you contradicted yourself and said in a debate we should generalize and classify to make it simpler for if not, it would be troublesome to cite all details.
My cynical take as an atheist: Hell was created to tame people and put them in line by the authorities.
My Buddhist past (Used to be one): In a way, it's to scare you, but for your own sake? Maybe it's a test, if not any Tom **** or Harry can go to Heaven.
This is a narrowminded view. When I talk about faith, I meant the conviction that there's a light at the end of the tunnel kind of faith. Not a blind faith that God will solve everything.
All religion requires the blind faith type. Even the belief that there is a light at the end of the tunnel can be a form of blind faith. Anyway yes there are positive things in religion. Off the top of my head there is the sense of community and belonging it brings to people. A very important thing to have for a social animal. However I can't really think of any positive that religion brings that we couldn't get without it, thus not having to bring in all the negative baggage that goes along with religion.
I find it funny how people attack the Abrahamic religions mostly...
It's simply the largest ones that have the most affect on myself and others.
