• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

EgoffTib said:
It's not fake. Hit up GodHatesFags.com. It's an actual church.

As to atheists being nutty, some are. I dislike ANYONE who manipulates children and brainwashes them, regardless of religious affiliation.
Click to expand...

So then why did you make your claim in this thread that appeared to apply to anyone religious?



Well I should have inserted "claim" into that sentence.
Click to expand...



yah you should have. I've been having fun with it for weeks! :lol::mrgreen:
 
dclxvinoise said:
So then why do we have freedom of religion? I'm sure there are a fair amount of people who don't think that we should have it and that we should have one nationally recognized religion: theirs.
Click to expand...

Why have freedom of religion if we're going to have freedom of religion?

Your question doesn't follow.

The fist amendment establishes freedom of religion by preventing a state religion or a church with municipal authority from imposing on your beliefs and practices.

This in no way means that the beliefs and practices of the people can not or should not be reflected as art on buildings or currency.

dclxvinoise said:
The fact is that it can be debated back and forth what the founding fathers intended. But until either one of us can get an actual interview or response from one of the founding fathers as to what their original intentions are we aren't going to know. My only point is that the answers aren't going to come from a conservative political commentator or a liberal one for that matter.
Click to expand...

Even though credible, verifiable answers did come from a conservative, you're going to claim that they can't come from a conservative....this also doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
So then why did you make your claim in this thread that appeared to apply to anyone religious?
Click to expand...

It seems to be more prevalent with those of faith. This is merely my observation.



yah you should have. I've been having fun with it for weeks! :lol::mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I know you have! Bastard... :mrgreen:
 
EgoffTib said:
It seems to be more prevalent with those of faith. This is merely my observation.
Click to expand...

Lets see. I remember david dinkins and the "Rainbow coalition" trying to teach 5 year olds about gay sex....

Wouldn't you consider an entire city administration and its minions doing something like this "extreme"? :lol:


Look at the communists. These athiests are responsible for over 100 million deaths last century.




I know you have! Bastard... :mrgreen:
Click to expand...



It was like single player tether ball... how could I lose. :rofl
 
Jerry said:
Why have freedom of religion if we're going to have freedom of religion?

Your question doesn't follow.

The fist amendment establishes freedom of religion by preventing a state religion or a church with municipal authority from imposing on your beliefs and practices.

This in no way means that the beliefs and practices of the people can not or should not be reflected as art on buildings or currency.
Click to expand...

Well, that must be how it is interpreted by some people because it comes up as an issue constantly. Now I know you'd like to think that your interpretation is the correct one, but these people believe theirs is just as strongly and they probably have just as many Jefferson quotes to back it up as you do. What I'm saying is that it's obviously open to interpretation otherwise it wouldn't come up as an issue time and time again.

Even though credible, verifiable answers did come from a conservative, you're going to claim that they can't come from a conservative....this also doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

They are credible and verifiable to you simply because you are also a Conservative. Would you be promoting a similar book that was written by a Liberal political commentator? I'd wager that you wouldn't even read a book like that in the first place.
 
EgoffTib said:
It seems to be more prevalent with those of faith. This is merely my observation.
Click to expand...

Ahh yes, and because political correctness demands that we lie and claim that no faith or religion is better then any other, that they are all the same, we can therefore conclude that faith=bad.

The truth is, some faiths are superior to others. Superiority can be measured by how consistent one practices according to the doctrine and how much the practices prove to be beneficial to both the individual and society.

Lesser religions will serve the individual primarily and largely disregard the community. This results in less stable and less productive societies.

"God hates fags" is hardly consistent with the doctrine nor does it first serve the community.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Christmas has been cancelled. The war is over. Go home and be with your families.


//satire
 
Jerry said:
Ahh yes, and because political correctness demands that we lie and claim that no faith or religion is better then any other, that they are all the same, we can therefore conclude that faith=bad.
Click to expand...

Faith isn't bad, but no faith is superior to any other. Though, many believers in each of these faiths tend to think so. It still doesn't make it true.

The truth is, some faiths are superior to others. Superiority can be measured by how consistent one practices according to the doctrine and how much the practices prove to be beneficial to both the individual and society.
Click to expand...

And that is based on opinion, which is subjective.

Lesser religions will serve the individual primarily and largely disregard the community. This results in less stable and less productive societies.

"God hates fags" is hardly consistent with the doctrine nor does it first serve the community.
Click to expand...

It does to those who attend the Westboro Baptist Church. Their interpretation of the Bible backs up their beliefs.
 
dclxvinoise said:
Well, that must be how it is interpreted by some people because it comes up as an issue constantly. Now I know you'd like to think that your interpretation is the correct one, but these people believe theirs is just as strongly and they probably have just as many Jefferson quotes to back it up as you do. What I'm saying is that it's obviously open to interpretation otherwise it wouldn't come up as an issue time and time again.

They are credible and verifiable to you simply because you are also a Conservative. Would you be promoting a similar book that was written by a Liberal political commentator? I'd wager that you wouldn't even read a book like that in the first place.
Click to expand...

It's credible and verifiable because the sources are universally trusted can be independently checked for accuracy.

Your continued assertions of bias interpretation are still without merit.
 
Jerry said:
It's credible and verifiable because the sources are universally trusted can be independently checked for accuracy.

Your continued assertions of bias interpretation are still without merit.
Click to expand...

And yours that there is no bias are without merit too considering that you are also a Conservative.

There's a difference here between what you are saying and what I'm saying. I'm saying that both sides are full of **** and are only trying to serve their own agendas. You are essentially saying that one side is full of **** and trying to serve their own agenda and that your side isn't. I think it's arrogant of you or anyone to try and interpret the original meaning that our founding fathers intended and state that your interpretation is fact and that everyone else is wrong.
 
dclxvinoise said:
And yours that there is no bias are without merit too considering that you are also a Conservative.
Click to expand...

This sentence makes no sense.

dclxvinoise said:
There's a difference here between what you are saying and what I'm saying. I'm saying that both sides are full of **** and are only trying to serve their own agendas. You are essentially saying that one side is full of **** and trying to serve their own agenda and that your side isn't. I think it's arrogant of you or anyone to try and interpret the original meaning that our founding fathers intended and state that your interpretation is fact and that everyone else is wrong.
Click to expand...

Uh ohh...starting in with the personal insults...your argument is cracking up...oh wait, you haven't really made an argument....at least I took a position and gave sources...but anyway: You seem to be hung up on this notion that the object of concern is vague and subject to interpretation. The act was clear, it's words exact...congress recognized religion and this did not violate the 1st amendment. There's nothing to interpret.

Now if you truly have a counter argument I suggest you show how my source is wrong.
 
Jerry said:
This sentence makes no sense.

Uh ohh...starting in with the personal insults...your argument is cracking up...oh wait, you haven't really made an argument....at least I took a position and gave sources...but anyway: You seem to be hung up on this notion that the object of concern is vague and subject to interpretation. The act was clear, it's words exact...congress recognized religion and this did not violate the 1st amendment. There's nothing to interpret.

Now if you truly have a counter argument I suggest you show how my source is wrong.
Click to expand...

Well, it's pointless having a discussion with you then because regardless you are going to think your source is credible because he's got a Conservative lean. So there's really nothing further to discuss.
 
Jerry said:
Now if you truly have a counter argument I suggest you show how my source is wrong.
Click to expand...

Didn't the SCOTUS rule that the 10 commandments display in front of a State's supreme court had to be taken down?
 
dclxvinoise said:
Well, it's pointless having a discussion with you then because regardless you are going to think your source is credible because he's got a Conservative lean. So there's really nothing further to discuss.
Click to expand...

The Library of Congress is not conservative :lol:

w/e :2wave:
 
Jerry said:
The Library of Congress is not conservative :lol:

w/e :2wave:
Click to expand...

Your source isn't the Library of Congress. It's a Conservative political commentator. Nice try, though.
 
Ikari said:
Didn't the SCOTUS rule that the 10 commandments display in front of a State's supreme court had to be taken down?
Click to expand...

The Founding Fathers were in SCOTUS?
 
dclxvinoise said:
Your source isn't the Library of Congress. It's a Conservative political commentator. Nice try, though.
Click to expand...

At no point did anyone claim that the act was passed by a political commentator.

His argument is true because we can verify his sources. You claimed that those sources, being the Library of Congress, were conservative biased.

Nice try though :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
At no point did anyone claim that the act was passed by a political commentator.

Nice try though :2wave:
Click to expand...

I never said that the act was passed by a political commentator. I'm saying that your original post was about a book written by a political commentator. That's the source I'm referring to. If the source of proof is truly the Library of Congress then why not cut out the middle man? Why do we need a Conservative political commentator to tell us what their original intentions were if it's all there in black and white?
 
Jerry said:
The Founding Fathers were in SCOTUS?
Click to expand...

K, so you're not going to answer the question. Fine.

The founding fathers wanted a lot of things, Jefferson wanted routine revolution against the government (I happen to think this one should be done), many wanted laws to naturally expire after a certain number of years (in theory a good idea, but in practice would probably produce omnibills with lots of hidden laws). But this is our Republic, and the nature of what We the People want and desire changes. During the heyday of absolute Christian dominance, yeah there were what you said. But what's acceptable and what's not changes with time. The founders owned slaves, so unambiguously claiming that because the founders did it makes it right isn't a complete argument. I happen to like a lot of what the founders said, especially the anti-federalists (whom oddly enough were federalists in the true sense of the word). But what's political philosophy and what is public pressure/accepted norm are two different things. And the pressures and accepted norms change with the generations. Things aren't stagnate. Yes the founders did some of these things, they had religious holidays and evoked the name of gods in relation to politics. But that was then and this is now, the accepted norm isn't one of total and absolute Christian dominance anymore and the government, including the SCOTUS the body which currently has power to interpret the Constitution, has stated that it is no longer applicable.
 
dclxvinoise said:
I never said that the act was passed by a political commentator. I'm saying that your original post was about a book written by a political commentator. That's the source I'm referring to.
Click to expand...

Then you are referring to the wrong source.

Keep up.

dclxvinoise said:
If the source of proof is truly the Library of Congress then why not cut out the middle man?
Click to expand...

Lack of sufficient time and a word program for editing on my end.

dclxvinoise said:
Why do we need a Conservative political commentator to tell us what their original intentions were if it's all there in black and white?
Click to expand...

Why do we need teachers who are demonstratably correct on a topic to teach us about that topic?

That can't be a serious question.
 
LaMidRighter said:
I didn't know that, thought it was just the outermost extreme of Atheism that practiced the attempt at eliminating religion, had never heard of anti-theism before. I have heard however that many of the socialist and communist movements of the 1900's practiced this anti-theism because they learned that if a populace doesn't believe in god overall they tend to be more easily controlled and more prone to fear and dependence of government.
Click to expand...
Heard it from who, Rev hellhound? See I heard that Lenin realized he could control the masses BECAUSE of religion. Take away peoples religion and they need someone to tell them what is right or wrong and lead them.
 
Slippery Slope said:
Heard it from who, Rev hellhound? See I heard that Lenin realized he could control the masses BECAUSE of religion. Take away peoples religion and they need someone to tell them what is right or wrong and lead them.
Click to expand...




So the communists did not try to stamp out religion now? Is this your claim? :roll::rofl
 
EgoffTib said:
Most atheists are interested in religion
Click to expand...
I think it comes out of an interest in learning. I mean, learning something other than what the bible says. All of my atheist friends have college degrees and stacks of books but, living here in the south now, I've only seen a few fundamentalist xians with more than a bible (or a few) and a few other fundy xian books on being more fundy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom