How old is the earth?

[Skipjack]

And, while that religious nut Reagan was in office, you guys elected a Nazi.

I really liked Reagan for a lot of reasons. He was the right man for the time, the right person to poker play the Russians until they gave up (you need to be a really good actor in order to sell something like SDI and make your opponent believe that you are serious).

you guys elected a Nazi.

I am assuming that you are referring to former UN general secretary Kurt Waldheim. His alleged NS history simply resembled that of any Austrian living at the time (it would be hard to find someone who did not do something during the war, duh.
It was completely blown out of proportion by his political opponents, who also instigated that the US put him on the watchlist (ridiculous).
This cost the US a lot of sympathies in Austria.
Interestingly, Kurt Waldheim was running for the christian conservative party when he became president and the socialists were the ones that made all the fuss about his NS history (them being the ones actively calling former Nazis to join their ranks after the war).

What that video really shows is that a woman, using a child for a political ploy

That part, I do actually agree on. I personally did not like how she literally coached the child for this.

This does not change his reply, though.

[AcesHigh]

Einstein also said he considered nationalism "the measles of mankind".

he didnt believe in a personal god and considered the Bible and the Talmud to be a collection of childish tales and myths.

he was more of an agnostic, believing in a transcendental force that created the cosmos, but not the god of human religions, who care about its subjects and answers to prays.

so what? He also had severe problems in coming to terms with quantic theory. Einstein is still a product of the early 20th century. His philosophical views about god existing or not hold as much importance to me as his philosophical views about nationalism probably trouble Diogenes sleep.

[seedload]

And, while that religious nut Reagan was in office, you guys elected a Nazi.

I really liked Reagan for a lot of reasons. He was the right man for the time, the right person to poker play the Russians until they gave up (you need to be a really good actor in order to sell something like SDI and make your opponent believe that you are serious).

Not exactly a glowing review of the man:)

Anyway, that was my whole point. You liked Reagan even though he believed in teaching creationism. The good trumps the meaningless bad.

[Skipjack]

Not exactly a glowing review of the man:)

Uhm, you wont ever hear me say anything better about any politician...

[Diogenes]

And, while that religious nut Reagan was in office, you guys elected a Nazi.

I really liked Reagan for a lot of reasons. He was the right man for the time, the right person to poker play the Russians until they gave up (you need to be a really good actor in order to sell something like SDI and make your opponent believe that you are serious).

you guys elected a Nazi.

I am assuming that you are referring to former UN general secretary Kurt Waldheim. His alleged NS history simply resembled that of any Austrian living at the time (it would be hard to find someone who did not do something during the war, duh.
It was completely blown out of proportion by his political opponents, who also instigated that the US put him on the watchlist (ridiculous).
This cost the US a lot of sympathies in Austria.
Interestingly, Kurt Waldheim was running for the christian conservative party when he became president and the socialists were the ones that made all the fuss about his NS history (them being the ones actively calling former Nazis to join their ranks after the war).

What that video really shows is that a woman, using a child for a political ploy

That part, I do actually agree on. I personally did not like how she literally coached the child for this.

This does not change his reply, though.

Why did you start this thread?


http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2 ... perry.html

[Diogenes]

And, while that religious nut Reagan was in office, you guys elected a Nazi.

I really liked Reagan for a lot of reasons. He was the right man for the time, the right person to poker play the Russians until they gave up (you need to be a really good actor in order to sell something like SDI and make your opponent believe that you are serious).

Not exactly a glowing review of the man:)

Anyway, that was my whole point. You liked Reagan even though he believed in teaching creationism. The good trumps the meaningless bad.

It is often overlooked that the issue of Abolition started in the Churches among the religious. People do no realize how much of tolerance in modern society is entirely the product of Christian principles becoming widespread and adopted.

I can't wait to see all the Secular Europeans bowing three times a day because they had such strong objections to Christianity.

[KitemanSA]

That is why the Doors on American Outhouses traditionally featured the symbols of the star and the crescent.

You are the only one I've heard say that. This is what is more often cited for that design feature.

Probably the most recognizable symbol associated symbol with the traditional outhouse building is the familiar crescent moon carved into the privy door. Actually, the symbol is an ancient one, and was a sign for womanhood in colonial days and on the frontier. Its male counterpart, Sol, was either a star or a sun burst design also on the door. Since most male outhouses fell into disrepair rather quickly they seldom survived; while the female ones were better maintained, and were eventually used by both sexes. Although you can find outhouses still standing with the crescent moon, the original meaning for gender identification was lost by the later nineteenth century in most areas of the country.

[...] The moon that is often found on the outhouse door stands for the ancient sign- luna- or womanhood. When the outhouse was first invented people needed these signs to discern which was the men's or women's bathroom-for most people couldn't read. Soon, however, the men's became rundown or was very unkempt and not maintained. So everybody just used the women's bathroom, and the men's sunburst or sol sign was forgotten. The moon sign was kept and is also used as a vent.

[ScottL]

I really liked Reagan for a lot of reasons. He was the right man for the time, the right person to poker play the Russians until they gave up (you need to be a really good actor in order to sell something like SDI and make your opponent believe that you are serious).

Not exactly a glowing review of the man:)

Anyway, that was my whole point. You liked Reagan even though he believed in teaching creationism. The good trumps the meaningless bad.

It is often overlooked that the issue of Abolition started in the Churches among the religious. People do no realize how much of tolerance in modern society is entirely the product of Christian principles becoming widespread and adopted.

I can't wait to see all the Secular Europeans bowing three times a day because they had such strong objections to Christianity.

Maybe with Quakers, but slavery was an active topic in the old testament and was considered perfectly fine, but then again so was ownership of women. Religion will evolve with the times whether willingly or forced.

[Diogenes]

That is why the Doors on American Outhouses traditionally featured the symbols of the star and the crescent.

You are the only one I've heard say that. This is what is more often cited for that design feature.

Probably the most recognizable symbol associated symbol with the traditional outhouse building is the familiar crescent moon carved into the privy door. Actually, the symbol is an ancient one, and was a sign for womanhood in colonial days and on the frontier. Its male counterpart, Sol, was either a star or a sun burst design also on the door. Since most male outhouses fell into disrepair rather quickly they seldom survived; while the female ones were better maintained, and were eventually used by both sexes. Although you can find outhouses still standing with the crescent moon, the original meaning for gender identification was lost by the later nineteenth century in most areas of the country.

[...] The moon that is often found on the outhouse door stands for the ancient sign- luna- or womanhood. When the outhouse was first invented people needed these signs to discern which was the men's or women's bathroom-for most people couldn't read. Soon, however, the men's became rundown or was very unkempt and not maintained. So everybody just used the women's bathroom, and the men's sunburst or sol sign was forgotten. The moon sign was kept and is also used as a vent.

I intend for my comment regarding Islam and outhouses to be somewhat tongue in cheek. I find it an amusing theory, and so i'm fond of posting about it. It isn't my theory.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/was-symb ... cans-anger

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts ... ymbol.html

Regardless of the reason, it seems to work.

[Diogenes]

It is often overlooked that the issue of Abolition started in the Churches among the religious. People do no realize how much of tolerance in modern society is entirely the product of Christian principles becoming widespread and adopted.

I can't wait to see all the Secular Europeans bowing three times a day because they had such strong objections to Christianity.

Maybe with Quakers, but slavery was an active topic in the old testament and was considered perfectly fine, but then again so was ownership of women. Religion will evolve with the times whether willingly or forced.

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

[ScottL]

It is often overlooked that the issue of Abolition started in the Churches among the religious. People do no realize how much of tolerance in modern society is entirely the product of Christian principles becoming widespread and adopted.

I can't wait to see all the Secular Europeans bowing three times a day because they had such strong objections to Christianity.

Maybe with Quakers, but slavery was an active topic in the old testament and was considered perfectly fine, but then again so was ownership of women. Religion will evolve with the times whether willingly or forced.

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Congratulations on quoting and making bold text! What I said is still true, Christianity as per the Old Testament condoned slavery. Obviously that view has changed due to the abolitionist movement. So once again congratulations on finding wikipedia and the bold button.

[Diogenes]

Maybe with Quakers, but slavery was an active topic in the old testament and was considered perfectly fine, but then again so was ownership of women. Religion will evolve with the times whether willingly or forced.

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilberforce

Congratulations on quoting and making bold text! What I said is still true, Christianity as per the Old Testament condoned slavery. Obviously that view has changed due to the abolitionist movement. So once again congratulations on finding wikipedia and the bold button.

Just trying to reinforce a point. Atheists are fond of urging society to rid itself of it's Christian trappings, but It has long been my belief that the only reason Atheists have found a gentle society where they can advocate their notions is because they are living in the remnants of a sea of Christian philosophy. The Romans, the Greeks or the Egyptians would have simply killed them.

I think that a society based strictly on secularism will wither and die. (As Europe is doing.)


I am fond of this quote from Burke:

"The use of force alone is but temporary. It may subdue for a moment; but it does not remove the necessity of subduing again: and a nation is not governed, which is perpetually to be conquered."

Though it may be a misapplication of it's original meaning, it can be interpreted to mean that the force of law cannot be everywhere, and that for a societal system to work, individuals must agree to it. Individuals must be convinced to constrain their own bad behavior for their common good.

[Skipjack]

Just trying to reinforce a point. Atheists are fond of urging society to rid itself of it's Christian trappings,

Not just christian, but any religion, really.

but It has long been my belief that the only reason Atheists have found a gentle society where they can advocate their notions is because they are living in the remnants of a sea of Christian philosophy.

No, they are living in a society where religion has lost in importance, mainly due to scientific discovery. Christianity has done a very bad job at adapting itself to the changing world, actually. This is also why it is loosing ground to rapidly. I am sure that the catholic church would still happily kill "heretics" as it did 600 years ago, if given the chance and the support by the general population.

The Romans, the Greeks or the Egyptians would have simply killed them.

Uhm, Hypatia?

I think that a society based strictly on secularism will wither and die. (As Europe is doing.)

China? Not looking that way right now.
Europe is degrading due to socialism. Socialism to someone who thinks like me (I would probably better call myelf an anti ideologist instead of an atheist) is really just another religion, though without a god.
The mechanisms are the same as with any other religion though.
It is based on something that someone wrote with more or less good intentions in mind. This is regarded as an eternal unchangeable truth, dogmas. These are usually based on already outdated knowledge by the time they were written, but nevertheless its believers keep ignoring scientific facts (or find all sorts of excuses) that contradicts these dogmas. They even fight these facts with all means.
It requires its believers to spread the gospel (e.g. communist world revolution, evangelization, etc) and convince others of it, often with brutality (communist world revolution, evangeliztion), even if that obviously contradicts the gospel (but there is always some good excuse for that).
The religious leaders are reveered and quite often rich and sometimes dont live what they preach (Stalin, Pope, Popoff neither of them was/is a pauper). I could keep that list going for a while.
Almost all religions and ideologies follow this very same pattern with smaller variations.
So to me, they are all the same and I oppose them all.

[Skipjack]

Just trying to reinforce a point. Atheists are fond of urging society to rid itself of it's Christian trappings,

Not just christian, but any religion, really.

but It has long been my belief that the only reason Atheists have found a gentle society where they can advocate their notions is because they are living in the remnants of a sea of Christian philosophy.

No, they are living in a society where religion has lost in importance, mainly due to scientific discovery. Christianity has done a very bad job at adapting itself to the changing world, actually. This is also why it is loosing ground to rapidly. I am sure that the catholic church would still happily kill "heretics" as it did 600 years ago, if given the chance and the support by the general population.

The Romans, the Greeks or the Egyptians would have simply killed them.

Uhm, Hypatia? She was not killed by a Greek or Roman mob, but by a Christian mob (not that the Greeks or Romans were always perfect, mind you, there were just as many religious fanatics among them also).

I think that a society based strictly on secularism will wither and die. (As Europe is doing.)

China? Not looking that way right now.
Europe is degrading due to socialism. Socialism to someone who thinks like me (I would probably better call myelf an anti ideologist instead of an atheist) is really just another religion, though without a god.
The mechanisms are the same as with any other religion though.
It is based on something that someone wrote with more or less good intentions in mind. This is regarded as an eternal unchangeable truth, dogmas. These are usually based on already outdated knowledge by the time they were written, but nevertheless its believers keep ignoring scientific facts (or find all sorts of excuses) that contradicts these dogmas. They even fight these facts with all means.
It requires its believers to spread the gospel (e.g. communist world revolution, evangelization, etc) and convince others of it, often with brutality (communist world revolution, evangeliztion), even if that obviously contradicts the gospel (but there is always some good excuse for that).
The religious leaders are reveered and quite often rich and sometimes dont live what they preach (Stalin, Pope, Popoff neither of them was/is a pauper). I could keep that list going for a while.
Almost all religions and ideologies follow this very same pattern with smaller variations.
So to me, they are all the same and I oppose them all.

[Diogenes]

Just trying to reinforce a point. Atheists are fond of urging society to rid itself of it's Christian trappings,

Not just christian, but any religion, really.

but It has long been my belief that the only reason Atheists have found a gentle society where they can advocate their notions is because they are living in the remnants of a sea of Christian philosophy.

No, they are living in a society where religion has lost in importance, mainly due to scientific discovery.

And this is where I laugh. How do they know? I dare say that they will soon find out what is the importance of that thing which they have been so intent on dismantling.

Christianity has done a very bad job at adapting itself to the changing world, actually. This is also why it is loosing ground to rapidly. I am sure that the catholic church would still happily kill "heretics" as it did 600 years ago, if given the chance and the support by the general population.

Some change is good. Some change is bad. I think the kind of change you are asking for is bad.

The Romans, the Greeks or the Egyptians would have simply killed them.

Uhm, Hypatia?

Yes, exactly like that.

I think that a society based strictly on secularism will wither and die. (As Europe is doing.)

China? Not looking that way right now.

Look closer.

Europe is degrading due to socialism. Socialism to someone who thinks like me (I would probably better call myself an anti ideologist instead of an atheist) is really just another religion, though without a god.
The mechanisms are the same as with any other religion though.
It is based on something that someone wrote with more or less good intentions in mind. This is regarded as an eternal unchangeable truth, dogmas. These are usually based on already outdated knowledge by the time they were written, but nevertheless its believers keep ignoring scientific facts (or find all sorts of excuses) that contradicts these dogmas. They even fight these facts with all means.
It requires its believers to spread the gospel (e.g. communist world revolution, evangelization, etc) and convince others of it, often with brutality (communist world revolution, evangeliztion), even if that obviously contradicts the gospel (but there is always some good excuse for that).
The religious leaders are reveered and quite often rich and sometimes dont live what they preach (Stalin, Pope, Popoff neither of them was/is a pauper). I could keep that list going for a while.
Almost all religions and ideologies follow this very same pattern with smaller variations.
So to me, they are all the same and I oppose them all.

Right. Imagine yourself being an explorer who suddenly finds a native tribe intent upon eating you. At the last moment you pull out a cigarette lighter and make a fire, the result of which is the natives immediately begin bowing and apologizing for having bothered you; obviously a servant of the gods.

Do you think it is in your best interest to explain to them that there are no gods and it is merely a scientific invention of no great complexity?

I dare say that is not unlike the position that atheists are actually in. The difference is the explorer knows better than to explain a reality which will get him killed.