Stop!

[Apex]

Don't think he did.

The point is we have the right to be as big of a-holes as religious people. Albeit, we rarely take it to that extreme.

You totally missed my point.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

I do not favor a government that promotes lack of religious belief. Rather, I favor one that offers no opinions on religious belief at all.

I agree and I also see this as a great benefit to all faiths and sects. Nothing corrupts religious beliefs like political power.

 

[Copernicus]

You totally missed my point.

Apex, it is possible that you totally missed the point of our replies to your point.

 

[Apex]

Apex, it is possible that you totally missed the point of our replies to your point.

Actually I think you misunderstood my point of your point of the point in my reply.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

To Wannabe Yogi,​

I didn't ignore your comment, never actually read it thoroughly.​

I've no problem with the whole "Hate the sin; love the sinner" concept and I don't understand why anyone else would. But I wouldn’t use those terms exactly. I think a better wording would be “No respect for the thought; respect the thinker.”
One can have beliefs, this is fine and appropriate, but when one uses their beliefs as a tool of political and social power to oppress others and promote tyranny, than it is neither fine nor appropriate. I don’t believe someone should use their beliefs as a way of dictating how and/or what a person should believe and how they should behave. I don’t believe in using ones belief as a justification for killing another because they don’t believe what you believe.
Going back to the whole “respect for the thinker” concept, it all boils down to agreeing to disagree on opinions. Unless someone states that their opinions as facts or enforce their beliefs on others there is nothing that can be refuted or proclaimed wrong.​

It should be obvious that Mao calling religion poisonous has nothing to do with my belief that religion is poisonous. Mao used his atheistic beliefs in a way akin to what many religious forces of promoting their beliefs at the cost of others’ safety, rights, and beliefs. Mao’s atheistic views were meant to promote Maoism, anyway, and not atheism. In many religious examples people used their religious beliefs as tools for war-making, pillaging, raping and many other heinous acts. The difference lies in that they used it to promote their beliefs as a whole and not just an aspect of their beliefs, but in any case this is just wrong to do.
I am not sure what your point was in using the example of Mao and how it relates to my belief that religion is poisonous. I’ve never said that we should go around killing the religious, raping their daughters, taking their possessions… I would never do anything to infringe on the rights or safety in others simply because they believe differently than I do. Belief doesn’t matter as much as what one does in the name of the belief.
I am not anti-religious in the sense that I believe that religion should be removed from the world; I don’t think it would be such a bad thing, but that is not the point. I am Anti-religious in the sense that the “benefits” from religion can not only be reached outside of faith, but also may be able to be reached better by secular means. In any case the faults and crimes of religion seem to greatly outweigh their benefits. ​

Laos, the OP asked for me to stop being anti-religious. I said no and the reason why is because I don’t have to. And…? What further reason do I need not to?
Some may equate this to poking someone with a stick and the, when asked to stop, replying “I don’t have to.” But this is not the same. There is a distinct difference. The OP slants into equating being anti-religious with intolerant, which in most cases it is not.​

 

[Copernicus]

I agree and I also see this as a great benefit to all faiths and sects. Nothing corrupts religious beliefs like political power.

This realization is one of the main reasons that Christians bought off on secular government when the Constitution was being ratified. Under the Articles of Confederation (prior to the Constitution), several states had been collecting tithes and distributing them to various religious establishments. The First Amendment "establishment clause" was designed to put an end to the corruption that ensued. But we should remember that religion and government have almost always been intertwined historically. For example, the Catholic Church was established in the Roman Empire as a vehicle for helping emperors to govern. It is very natural for people to want close ties between government and religion, and it is certainly true that many Christians in America today want to see more government support for Christian ideals and traditions.

 

[ChristineES]

I've tried my best over the years to try and understand everyone's point of view. I don't always agree with a person, but I will try to respect another's opinion. At the least, I try to understand and accept that not everyone is going to believe, think, etc like I do. Debating, as I said before, is not my attempt to change someone's mind, but share my opinion while I read (and learn from) others' opinions. It would be fruitless to try to convince an atheist that there is a God or to try and convince a theist there is no God. (Come to think of it, agnostics are the easiest to debate with- )

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

To Wannabe Yogi,

I didn't ignore your comment, never actually read it thoroughly.

I've no problem with the whole "Hate the sin; love the sinner" concept and I don't understand why anyone else would. ​

I going over my comments to you I can see I was rude sorry about that.

 

[Beaudreaux]

I've been surfing a lot of Religious sites for a while now .... and have discovered that religious people , are being hammerred on a lot, despite the fact that they are religious sites ... it seems the non -religious are actively seeking us out !!!

You may not realize it, but you are in a section of RF called "Religious Debates". In this area, we are to discuss our differences. There are other sections of RF where such conversation is not permitted. Perhaps you would enjoy those more.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Well then, from that perspective it is good that you have sites like this , you can fight back, and blame those of us ,that believe in God, for your Lowly position imposed on you by the nation that was founded by Christians .... I think China would welcome you with open arms!

I have a lowly position???? What did I do now?

 

[McBell]

I have a lowly position???? What did I do now?

You must have insulted his invisible sugar daddy.