Earthling
David Henson
Me thinks the protest too much.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
An Unscientific Theory On Religion Forums
- Thread starter Earthling
- Start date
Me thinks the protest too much.
Earthling
David Henson
I'm not here to defend or deny Christian or religious terrorism.
The Bible calls it's results a "river of blood." And promises to destroy all of it.
Don't make me laugh. You lost credibility in poist #7 of this thread
My approach is to follow results of scientists and engineers, yours seem to be follow YouTube conspiracy videos
You would, you are the one embarrassed for disrespecting the dead with lies and are too ????? to be honest
You made a claim, an insulting claim, and you bottle out of defending that claim by paraphrasing a bronze age book. Wow the personal responsibility is outstanding
Earthling
David Henson
Let's see. You are in France. We are talking about the 911 attacks. The same applies to the London 7/7 attacks. Why so emotionally involved. Were there recent terror attacks in France? There was, wasn't there?
I don't know anything about those. I wouldn't be surprised if they were fake, but I have no idea.
Earthling
David Henson
Not familiar with the term "bottle out" but . . . look. Just do the research. Don't be so childish.
On forums about religion in general? Yes, I think so.
I think that there's plenty of religious discussion online by religious people, but it tends to be on forums devoted to their own religion specifically.
IMO, most religious people aren't really interested in ecumenicalism, so the people most interested in discussing "religion in general" are people on the outside looking in.
ecco
Veteran Member
Which brings us back to my original question:
Who are you to define who or what constitutes a REAL Christian?
Who are you to designate some as apostate?
Who are you to designate some as false prophets ?
I dont care about your ignorance, people died in those "fake" attacks, and what strawman has the county got to do with it?
Why emotional? I'm not, i just cannot stand liars and have little tolerance for deliberate ignorance.
ecco
Veteran Member
Who they? Someone was piloting the plans. They didn't survive.
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
Nope, unless someone makes them 'king,' or 'dictator,' and then I wouldn't hold my breath that we aren't. There is just something about that sort of power...you know the saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I have my own private theory about how this works in theist vs atheist leaders.
...and I would say that their atheism did not STOP the atrocities, either, and isn't that what most strong-minded, 'militant' atheists claim? That the world would be much better off without religion?
I would also say that saying the WORDS "in the name of atheism" isn't required here. Using terms like 'in the name of reason,' or 'for the good of the people,' and terms like 'religion is the opiate of the people," and actions that are aimed at getting rid of religion are done 'in the name of' atheism as surely as any theist has ever proclaimed "in the name of God."
See, the problem here is that atheism is DEFINED BY the fact that there is theism; if it were not for theism, 'atheism' (without, or against) theism simply would not exist. However, theists do not require atheists to exist.
Atheism is, then, a reaction in opposition to theism, as soon as the atheist starts thinking of himself in those terms. "I am an atheist" is defining himself in terms of belief in God...he doesn't have such a belief, but he wouldn't have to SAY so if that belief didn't exist somewhere and in someone. The topic simply wouldn't come up.
So, any act by a leader that is all about getting rid of religion is 'in the name of' atheism, by its very nature. As well, if 'atheism' (or its subsets) could and would solve the world's ills, we wouldn't have this rather nasty history of atheistic governments being murderous, would we? Their brand of atheism would have prevented such things.
Sorry, rambling.
How pathetic, you have no idea who i am, all you know is you insulted the dead, murdered in religious motivated terror attacks.
P.s. no idea? Do some research
dianaiad
Well-Known Member
That's also true of murderous theocracies, except perhaps the Mayans...and I'm not certain about them.
The PROBLEM here is that the atheism of those governments I mention didn't STOP the murders, did it? I have another post here (perhaps the one just above this one) that addresses this in more paragraphs: I won't repeat it here.
Altfish
Veteran Member
You are indeed rambling.
The fact that people are atheists says nothing about the people who make this claim. They may be good, bad, tall, short, bald or full of hair. Atheism is NOT a way of life, it has no creed.
So people who do not believe in a god have done atrocious things, so have people who believe in a god. The difference is that very often the theists do bad things in the name of their god. Atheists usually do it in the name of power, control, oppression, etc.
If you go back to the original post it said "...Militant Sceptic…"; not militant atheist. You and other people have brought the word atheist into this discussion, I'm still talking about sceptics.
Last edited:
ecco
Veteran Member
Just a couple of small examples...
Question: Why did English Protestants kill English Catholics?
Answer: Religion.
Question: Why do Sunnis kill Shiites?
Answer: Religion.
No it didn't. Likewise it wasn't his atheism that was the driving factor in his killings.
It would be one less reason to kill - so, yes.
ecco
Veteran Member
Ouch!
I think you're pretty much right in your impression that atheists (or nontheists, more generally speaking) are more active on RF than theists. But I'd suggest for your consideration the primary reason might be that atheists often enough come better prepared to "do battle" in defense of their believes than theists. That is, they have spent more time than theists thinking in adversarial terms about their beliefs, and so are better prepared to jump right into debating people about them.
I am sure that's no real reflection on how much time either side puts into simply thinking about their beliefs. Theists I've known are mostly just as active as atheists in that way. But theists are not usually as active or adept (at least at first) in defending their views, or sometimes even in attacking views they don't agree with.
Atheists have the advantage here of necessarily going against the majority opinion, even of those near and dear to them. Theists usually have the disadvantage of having mostly experienced being around people who agree with them to at least some substantial extent.
That, and the significant fact that on RF at least, most "in-the-know" theists are intimidated at first by the sheer magnitude of my manly beauty -- which can so understandably be quite overwhelming to anyone who realizes I'm a nontheist. I mean, it's obvious, right? True is beauty. QED: I win every debate I get into -- even those debates I merely seem to lose (which is admittedly nearly every debate I get into).
ecco
Veteran Member
But they are all Christian Bibles. There are no non-christian bibles.
Earthling
David Henson
Before a plane can leave the runway it has to have a public document stating exactly who is on the plane and where they are seated. The documentation for all of the planes had no mention of the people who were allegedly hijackers.
During the Kennedy administration the government proposed a false flag operation where remote control planes were flown into building and blamed on the Cubans, killing American citizens. Kennedy rejected it. It was called Operation Northwoods. Many witnesses on the ground at WTC said the planes weren't commercial airliners, they were military planes which appeared to be customized. At the Pentagon a small plane crashed into the fire shed, just a small distance from where the final impact of a missile appeared to strike a short time later. There was little debris considering a jetliner is supposed to have hit it. The are where the 'plane' hit was too small and there was no sign even of the heavy engine. The area where the 'plane' struck was also under construction so sparsely populated at the time, though a woman who worked there said that it wasn't a plane, it was a missile. She said the FBI later came to here hospital room and made sure that she was aware that it wasn't a missile, it was a plane.
Professional pilots say that a plane couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon as presented by the government and media because the flight maneuvers to do so would be impossible even for an expert pilot. The 911 hijackers were said, by their instructors, to barely be able to fly a small plane.
It was all set up by the government to look like Muslims did it so we would support the war.