But for you to mock the faithful by calling their beliefs "fairytales" is okay, right?

Are you telling me that my my parents, and especially my immigrant Italian grandparents, who were literally moved to tears by the beauty of religious imagery should be mocked for believing in fairytales? Or me? Or my wife and children? Have I ever mocked you?

So typical. Liberals love to call everyone else "hateful." Until you don't agree with their belief system. Then they become as hateful as anyone on the far right.

You're every bit the extremist as the people you're vilifying. You just don't know it because, like them, it's your way or the highway.

I've been avoiding weighing in because I made a vow to not partake in religious debates, because they never end well. My debates with Ivy last year became borderline ugly, and I came to the conclusion that there's no point in arguing religion with someone who believes so completely in his faith. He's entitled as much to his beliefs as I am to my lack of belief. I tried to convince myself that my goal was to inform rather than try to change people's belief system to my own, but in reality, pointing out how foolish I thought his belief system to be was my way of trying to change his mind.

I disagree with people like Ivy, but I respect him and his beliefs. That didn't always come through during our debates, but that kind of proves my first point. It's pointless to have this argument, because our stances on the topic are unwavering, and it leads to nothing but frustration, which eventually leads to flaming and name calling.

My stance: live and let live.

I'm a Christian. I do believe in God although at one point in my life I was skeptical.

I have my own views on Christianity and what I should do regarding my faith, but I don't let it offend me if others disagree or don't believe the same. Religion is tricky, so I keep it out of most conversations and debates. At the same time I couldn't care less what someone else is: Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Pastafarian, atheist, I don't care. I try to be very live and let live. My only problem is when people use their faith/non-faith to tell other what they should and should not do. This goes for anyone. Religious nuts and secular atheists included.

Yes, going in circles proved to be pointless



Probably a good idea.

I've said it a million times. Religion and politics shouldn't even be debated because no one ever changes anyone else's mind. Ever.

And with those two topics in mind (religion and politics), what threads get the ugliest here? The threads about the religious right.

Two birds with one stone. All hate from both sides. And I ain't lecturing. I'm guilty of it myself at times. But being a centrist I get it from everyone, so I'm fucked either way .

I feel you there PB. Being a centrist myself I've caught flak from both sides. It's effing ridiculous

I agree with this and with what Pizzaboy says to.

I must say though that at least this discussion seems rather calm and civil compared to what I used to see on internet; for example, when the admin takes parts in debates, chooses his "favorite" users and simply either closes the mouth to everybody who disagrees, or slanders and insults them. Here at least the forum administration lets breathe by keeping neutral in there aren't personal attacks and insults.
On some other forums, no (not organized crime ones, just others): it's really annoying to be treated like inferior just because you cross the local "favorite" users who get a "carte blanche" to insult whoever they want in the name of homosexuality (or in name of anti-homosexuality, religion, atheism, politics or whatever) and you can't even reply because the admin protects them and bans you for "harassing nice people" as he puts it.

I am religious and it's very tiresome to be constantly pointed out at a the "bad guy" or "ignorant" as if they themselves were better.

My friends are mostly statist find me too conservative, my family say I am too liberal and I am radical, can't win. In my mind I am moderate. Extreme left and extreme right really make it difficult to have a efficient government (oxymoron)



Since I am probably agnostic I could have come off that way but, not my intention.

But I didn't mean you or anybody in this thread. As I pointed out, the discussion here is ok in my opinion, I was talking about other forums where the debates were rather unfair in my opinion, due to insults and condescending attitude. I said this just to underline that, as Pizzaboy says, politics and religion are a delicate topic and can often bring to personal attacks (here it's not the case, at least yet).

I'm more than happy to leave religion completely out of this issue. It's the ones in support of gay marriage who keep bringing religion into the debate. They think if others are against gay marriage because of religion, that somehow makes their opinion on the issue meaningless or irrelevant.

However, as I keep saying, whatever reason people are against gay marriage for - religious or otherwise - doesn't matter. The issue is a Constitutional one. It's indeed a stretch to argue there is anything in the Constitution that would give the federal government the authority to usurp the rights of the individual states on this matter. That's what it all boils down to. But it seems some gay marriage supporters on this site prefer to cloud the issue by bringing religion and other things into it.

PB, you got slightly offended by my comment and I should really, for the sake of clarity, offer an explanation to you, and everyone possibly offended.

However any individual finds hope, comfort etc is none of my business, if it happens to be through religion, then cool, Ive no issue with ANY personal beliefs, as long as they don't interupt my life. I know many people with a religious faith who are not interested in "spreading the word" and theres no issue at all.

I do get annoyed, however, when those personal beliefs (only beliefs remember) are impressed on others as "the truth" and the subsequent (and usually embarrassed) threats of eternal torture follow. And thats the real issue...religion, by its very nature and doctrines demands its membership to spread the word....why?? Because those that dont believe are morally inept sinners who need saved or punished. Whilst religion has recently had to recant some disgusting and horrific views on woman, ethnic minorities and gays (to name but a few) all specifically formed from highly dubious stories (not fairy!), legend and myths, it still always tries, and struggles, to maintain the higher moral ground. At least stories and myths can be usually "misinterpreted" and somewhat awkwardly excused (although thats wearing thin now) however, actual events with (hold your breath) "eye witness accounts", as we're assured most of the bible is, simply can't be. Why would god wait (at minimum) 100,000 years, witnessing all the death, destruction, struggle and wars by our earliest ancestors, then after 98,000 years or so, decide he will intervene? And only then by placing a man in a non-descript village in bronze age palestine who would then spread his message- by word of mouth- around the world. Why not china for instance, where people were already so advanced as to have been writing books.....seems a little risky. But again, people of faith use the trump card, God knew....

Take the Hitchens test and "Name one ethical statement made, or action performed, by a believer, that could not have been uttered or done by a non-believer".

The flip side, name as many horrific deeds as you like carried out in the name of religion which couldnt/wouldnt be done by a non-believer. As an example, in Iran its illegal to execute a virgin for a crime, because of their religious beliefs. So the Iranian National guard will regularly and normally, carry out rape, then execute the woman...totally barbaric....theres many, many more Im sure anyone could think of.

To desribe any atheiest as an "extremist" is just unfair and wrong, its an embarrising word which naturally attaches itself to religion. you'll never hear of bombings, beheadings, rapes, mutilatiions, threats, wars, instructions of any kind or crime carried out in the name of atheism. Why? Because there's no need to "spread the word", its obvious and without any insecurity to the majority - evidence and reason are the only tools required.

People are correct when they say you should never debate religion-religion is fresh air - invisible and open to any interpretation, just a shame it cant be used only for what it really excels at, personal, private comfort. To mix in politics with the private intention of debasing any civil right cause completely shameful and embarrising to most of those with a privately held faith.

Ivy, you are obviously entirely against gay marriage because of your religious beliefs, so you must realise that to try and put forward an unbiased, constitutional argument against it, might sometimes be met with some scepticism by others.

Im not stamping my feet and lighting a match in favour of it, but "live and let live"?

well, religion being discussed on a forum is always war, but, I can understand others viewpoints. however I am a Christian and a devout believer in the lord jesus Christ. but. I never argue the point.

my belief is really a simple one, my church. my bible. my religion, is everything jesus Christ ever said. Ive made myself a little book of everything he ever said, and he is my man. as far as non- believers go who cares about them.

Christianity is a religion based on faith, you either accept it on faith or not. I do. end of story.

Binnie, I respect everything you just said

thank you fergie.

If a state has a population of 100 people, 75 of those people have a belief that marriage is this or that and life should be lived one way, they don't have a right to vote and force the remaining 25 to live according to what they believe. You(just the word I am using not you) do not have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their life just because you do not feel they have legitimate rights(you can marry whoever you want they can marry whoever they want, those are equal rights). The federal government can step is when one group wants to restrict (based on religion, you can say it has nothing to do with it but lets not kid ourselves) individual liberty.

Religion is not used to cloud the subject it is the basis for why people are against it. A state forcing the religious beliefs of part the constituents on how life should be lived is not allowed. People are forcing a religious agenda on people they hide behind the fact that the constitution does not say; "Marriage is between two consenting adults, opposite sex or same sex."

The Constitution didn't explicitly say "Men and women are allowed to vote." people used that as an excuse to prohibit women from voting. When left up to the state for example New Jersey constitution stated only white male citizens over the age of 21 could vote. Were they stretching "Equal protection under that law" with the Nineteenth Amendment? Those darn activist judges want to give the same rights as everyone else.

The Constitution never said "No man, women or child can be slaves." If left to the States we would still have slavery. Anti abolitionist actually used the Bible as justification for slavery(kind of similar on how the Bible is used to hold "other" people down), just an example of how bigotry hides behind religion and then used to influence law. I can not believe those activists judges allowed the Thirteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment to boot.

Well to be fair a number of atheists regimes have committed horrendous acts:
Mao Tse-tung
V.I. Lenin and Joseph Stalin
Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge
Ho Chi Min
Adolf Hitler (he said he was Catholic but that's a load of bull)
Suharto in Indonesia



Exactly

Well said Dude, religion (and its weird ongoing obsession with strangers sex lives), is the basis of this particular political argument. There's no clouding of any issue, its simply a bigoted view hidden behind the constitution, hidden behind religion.

I think theres a few broken windows in glass houses that need repaired....

Previous point Dude, Your right, but every one had fairly extreme views running, at best, tandem with atheism, I don't think anyone would say atheism was the basis of their crimes

Yeah that is true, good point.

Although, admittedly, Im no expert on each of them...

Now, if that were my religious belief you had just dared to questioned, 8 or 9 increasingly aggressive posts would have been exchanged and one or both of us would have been suspended...! THATS the difference between atheism and religion...

Fergie, you go around mocking and making all sorts of claims against "religion" (in quotes because each religion is different), yet make special pleading when it comes to your own belief system. Craig Stephen Hicks of North Carolina just murdered a young Muslim couple that just got married and the sister of the bride. He is a militant atheist who strongly believes in mocking all beliefs that aren't his, a la Richard Dawkins. What about Communist governments? They are and were atheist and persecute religious believers. The Soviet Union even had a group called League of Militant Atheists that not only engaged in propaganda, but aided the government in murdering priests and other believers. They also used to mock believers. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Militant_Atheists. I suggest you read "The Black Book of Communism" and "Democide" for just how many atrocities were committed in the name of atheism. Or read "Persecuted for Christ" by Richard Wurmbrand who describes horrific torture that he personally experienced and witnessed. The idea the "we atheists" don't do bad things is just the "no true Scotsman" fallacy (I didn't name this fallacy, so no insult to Scotsmen LOL).

Again, you claim that it's wrong for religious people to evangelize, but it's somehow okay for you to mock and make a lot of assertions without evidence. Mockery appears to be the atheistic form of evangelism, a case of a double-standard while you won't respond to the question on why it is wrong for religious people to evangelize, other than you not liking it.

Certainly something to be said for that. People don't like having their beliefs critiqued, which is fair. Trying to show someone an alternative way to look at something is a dangerous game to play.

Faithful, Im honestly not mocking religion, or at least trying not to. Ive said nearly a dozen times now, I completely get the personal/private faith advantage, its the wider, mainstream rape and abuse of that ideal, and subsequent power, that disgusts me.

1st example of some random madman...1 case proves your point? Ill give you a1000 more examples of people who are religious/argueably sane.

2nd point, Im not a communist! Your mixing ideals up, not for the first time ive experienced that in this conversation.. (No offence taken with the scots comment btw!)

I try not to mock, ok I do slightly, but to say I do that without evidence somehow places religion in the camp of having proved something. The comfort I got at 2-8 years old around Christmas when I knew santa was coming was amazing...be good and this is your reward, be bad and this is what will happen...its smalltown religion. I suppose this just carries on with religion.

My base point is that you cant give someone, or a group of people, power who "believe" in scriptures etc and the doodlings of how ever many people throughout the ages who changed its meaning on a whim..

You don't have to defend anything to me. Just be consistent, and I'll just agree to disagree where applicable.


I'm Catholic. Catholics don't proselytize, ring doorbells or hand out literature at the airport.

You see, I agree that people shouldn't try to convert other people. But then you post this, which tells me that you're not above trying to spread the word of Atheism:


Just asking me to "take the test" is trying to change my position. Would you take a test on the words of Christ or Moses?

So let's not pretend that it's all one way. There are Atheist fanatics in this world. Even the Dude has acknowledged as much. And Hitchens was one of them. That he conned a gazillion "followers" into buying his books and "spreading the word" only strengthens my argument.

It's not like his book proceeds went to charity. He was a snake oil salesman in the same vein as Right Wing preachers who put out three books a year.

I, as a non-believer, am willing to listen and respect some religious views and understand the importance of personal faith and the comfort it brings, Ive said so in nearly every single post on this thread...show me a religious person who would afford me the same compromise?

You see, I write out a thoughtful post, and you come back with this. You just lumped EVERY religious person in this world into the same mold. Including me.

I don't give a fuck if you believe or not, which affords you the very compromise which you just implied that I wasn't willing to give you.

PB, I just posted there before I read yours...again, Ive been consistent in personal faith throughout.

Maybe you don't, but a fair amount of religions who are apparently correct do proselytize, and they tell everyone about it

Im not trying to convert you, just make you think-my ultimate goal isn't to convert you to some light or whatever else and Ive no derogatory opinion of you because you believe, flip it round and most believers feel the opposite

Dude mentioned some dictators, and he is correct they were atheists, but you cant be gleeful about that? We both agreed straight after it?

Why wouldn't Hitchens sell his books for profit? He wrote around a dozen and a few were based on religion. I do understand it cant be nice to think he's writing that about your belief but they are all a fair retort to religion, you should read them PB-I was forced into RE classes when I was young so you could at least agreeably read a Hitchens book!

Re your last post, THATS what happens with religion, you get lumped in with all the rest amongst non believers-I made the point in some other thread that gay people must be pissed off being lumped in with the "LBGT" acronym.

Ill say it once again, Ive no issue with you and everyone who has a private faith-as soon as we discuss it though, it suddenly becomes a threat. Dude came back with some dictator names and I could've got completely pissed off because he's somehow insulted my belief, but no, we discuss and move on..