You believe what you believe and that is that.
You can easily simplify things -- but you can easily complicate them as well. In this case you seemed to be a "let it be" thing and to be quite frank that attitude is incredibly annoying and stupid. If you've a problem with something and reasonably so in this case you should have every right to try and change that - the "it is how it is" ideology is pathetic and lazy as far as I'm concerned... it's not impossible to actually change it -- so do what you can to change it in the best way possible.
But looking at it from a neutral perspective, it is just another religion.
That's also wrong -- Atheism is not a religion, it's the lack of belief in a deity.
But is it really tied together per definition?
The "
rimarily" bit was meant to indicate that.
Atheism isn't bad, but its not a religion, its the lack thereof.
... From what I get -- you're saying religion is good?
And the wars like the one in Iraq for oil is necessary for resources.
Let me just say what your equation is through what you just said:
Oil > Human Lives
Is that correct or incorrect?
Precisely. If everybody believed in Atheism, it would lead to a reduction of war
Doubtful.
Well, not so much "doubtful" as it is "we don't know" -- it's hypothetical at best, but for that to happen, there are some options that could delve into horrendous things happening.
Firstly could be a stupendous reintroduction of a legal system that is still slightly based on religion in some areas.
Others is resources and currency.
Others is different philosophical beliefs.
And etc.
Same as I said further back in this message.
The foundation of the war was not sensible. Self-defense? Of course that's sensible, there's no dispute, but the attack in the first place is non sensical.
But that is not religion that is what I mean about wars making more sense with the absence of religion...
The war in Iraq is definitely religiously based and furthermore religiously driven. The war for oil is not the primary goal -- it's the incentive that makes them carry out what they're doing now I would imagine -- and even so it's wrong.
And is very condescending theist piont of view with out evidence just mocking and therefore isn't a proper argument, just childish taunting of atheism.
He didn't say he supported what he posted.
I'm not implying that you run by that, just that that text script should be told to the guy who wrote it his lack of an argument and his stupidity, and then being shot in the face for discrimination against atheists.
...
Relax... really.
To him I say that anyone can do that. To him I say that I can do that about religion: for example...
You're both inciting a flame war and going off topic -- relax.
Not nice, is it people? No... Precisely... It is still discrimination even if it is against atheists too. I put it into context...
Yours was a poor simplification of a story -- not the people. It can be representative of the people -- like how I would be very weary of Scientologists (no, it does not bare that much relation to Science), but anyone capable of deriving that are able to determine how stupid the simplifications are -- those who aren't don't have an opinion worth listening to honestly.
Its like religion, neither decide your morals, so I don't see how either could be good or bad.
Religion does decide your morals -- and if you go against it you can't really be considered religious. There can be different moral situations that are not mentioned in the Bible and etc that you must apply your own judgement to but in a religious context that means that either the old morals have no real grounds (even though they don't anyway) or the new morals are because God put zero-zero-zero effort (being as he's all powerful it would take zero effort to do this) or rather put an effort into NOT guiding "us".
What a benevolent and magnificant being!
Atheism is the lack of something -- essentially, it's nothing. As a result, it's not a deciding factor but a determination of what you are -- an atheist is someone who does not have a belief in a deity. Simple. You can draw implications from that but nonetheless no other information is given and Atheists don't stand united in the slightest -- no one and nothing is representative of Atheism.
And therefore trying to judge the entirety on one Atheist, or any number really, is silly at best.
Judging Christians is also difficult, considering all have differing knowledge, contexts and etc for their belief -- they all follow the same thing because if they don't then it's too difficult to actually call it Christianity but they don't know what they follow for the most part. If they do follow some of the things that they're not aware of -- primary example being The Crusades where they done so in the name of God (however had political motivations) and used religion as a fuel for Manpower, God PUT IN EFFORT to show that he does not condone these acts.
And being the almighty being with divine judgement -- of course that's the right thing to do. If he is not an almighty being with divine judgement to you then you're not a Christian.
That is fair logic, and it shows the flaw in Christians and Christianity on a whole -- and that is disregarding the fact that Christianity is not proven already.
- H
