Religion Debates and Discussions

Ya I meant sympathetic, and yeah I was mainly referring to dogs

 

No, you actually seem to have missed the context.
Originally, Gehenna said:

Notice that he's talking about about 'atheist regimes', and 'religion-based movements'. Yes we can be quite picky now and say that this comparison uses no clear definition of an 'atheist regime' (nor a 'religion-based movement), but anyway, SquishyCalvin pointed out that the US is a 'christian nation'. Many of the (economic) refugees going to the US were actually going because their particular way of understanding/practicing religion wasn't widely accepted and they wanted a new chance. Many of the people actually going to the US 400/300 years ago were, a bit extremly speaking, religious outcasts.
Look, I don't know terribly much about the US since I don't live there, but if about 90% of all people who went to the US were religious and the president usually swears on the bible before being inaugurated, I think we can call the US a 'christian nation' and even a 'religion-based movement' because of that.
There's a lot of countries where swearing on the bible is very common practice (although not necessarily required), whereas there's probably no country in which presidents or higher politicians swear to not believe in god.
SquishyCalvin never claimed that the US was causing religious wars, he just said that the US as a christian nation caused many wars and deaths to prove gehenna incorrect.
Also in the original statemant of gehenna, there was never the talk of wars being fought for a religious reason, only who caused more deaths, atheist nations or religious nations.
That's why I thought actually mentioning that there were no wars I know of which were being fought in the name of atheism might be useful, because SquishyCalvin probably intended his statement to contradict to the one gehenna made.
Yes, you're right, not every war the US has ever been part of has to do with religion, but that wasn't what was originally discussed anyway.
Did I miss the context now?

 

I appreciate you taking the time to try and tell me that what I said was wrong, but unfortunately, you quoted the wrong thing. I was replying to this:

And while you might debate that Squishy was implying something else to nullify Gehenna's point, from my point of view it sounded as if he was accusing the U.S of causing wars with religion, and such.

Well, then you can read the article then. Especially since in this case, the word is interchangeable as dogs could be "feeling" either. I don't really believe they do.

I am not sure if any of us in this whole debate have used the reasoning that we "felt him". Also if you look back a few pages on this thread then you will see how GlobalistCuck has no intention of learning. Most of his posts are just him trying to force his point with little to no reasoning.

 

I was giving an example of an extremely powerful country, which is Christian, killing a lot of people worldwide over a long period of time. The point being, terrible actions are not limited to atheist countries

I wouldn't say "learning" but listening to viewpoints that disagree with his own in anything approaching a respectful manner.

 

I don't know if the mistake is on my side (I don't seem to have indicated enough that I referenced to Gehenna's OP which started the 'religious war' stuff because SquishyCalvin referenced to it and you referenced to SquishyCalvin) but anyway, at least in my second post I tried to make it pretty clear:

As @SquishyCalvin mentioned just about a few minutes before I started writing this, he never said that the US started religious wars. Also Gehenna never said anything about religious wars directly, only about religious or atheist people going into wars/causing deaths.

 

Correct

Not necessarily correct.

^
|
|

For whatever reason, there is a huge amount of disinformation spread about this. Strong Atheism is a belief held by very few.
I thought we were past this.

This is kind of weird to think about, but it's actually really hard to kill a person, psychologically. As far as I am aware, in order to actually be able to kill a person, it requires one to associate that person to a lower class, a deserving position. You essentially have to remove the inherent 'humanity' of a person to get others to kill them.

It also just so happens that this makes it exceptionally easy for religions to allow people to kill; you have a pre-built infidel in the texts that allows justification in the mind of the religious by dehumanizing the victim.

It's also why it's really hard to use anything coming close to atheism to justify a murder; since it's not a system of belief it's not got any ability to dehumanize.

Historically, deaths that are considered by the religious to be of atheistic cause are generally done under the justification of an idealology like communism of facism, which aren't incompatible with religion and aren't directly a cause of unbelief.

Just food for thought; just about the only thing that allows humanity to kill is the belief that the victim is inferior or deserving, and religions and ideologies can, are, and will continue to allow this.

 

The holy crusades!!!

 

And I was wondering why my pms went silent :L

An agnostic believes in god, they just do not know who/what it is.

 

No, an agnostic is unsure whether he/she believes in "god".
He/she is semi-religious/semi-atheist.

 

Who here shares the beliefs of Ken Ham that the Earth is relatively young? I am just wondering.

 

no, you are reading 1 person writing about thousands of people witnessing a miracle, not thousands of people writing about the miracle they witnessed.

 

Please watch these,

, and

 

this is why Christianity is called a 'faith' not a science

 

And you didn't watch it, right?

The issue is when religions try to co-opt science.

Edit: or attempt to use science to prove god.