The land of religious tolerance

[robdawg1]

The fact you took no offense does not change the written statement.

it wasnt an offensive statement

Attacking the messenger also does not change the written statement.

It wasnt an offensive statement

Which is an insult to religious beliefs in itself.

saying the lack of religion is preferrable to a world divided and in conflict over religion is not insulting

Doesnt matter as the belief system of all who believe were to blame.,,,we all believe in one god

since when? Hinduism is polytheistic, Buddhists believe in enlightenment not a deistic creature like a god or goddess, Wiccan believe in the male and female god/goddess, and the list goes on....we don't all believe in the same on God.

 

[robdawg1]

In other word all religions are a fault?
Its an intolerant statement.

aside from your obvious obversion to facts and realistic statistics, you might make a decent lawyer...it's fun to semantically twist a statement beyond recognition of it's original intent to fit your argument isnt it?

 

[The Man]

edit made
God to supreme entity
The rest of your post is redundant and offers nothing to support your argument

 

[The Man]

aside from your obvious obversion to facts and realistic statistics, you might make a decent lawyer...it's fun to semantically twist a statement beyond recognition of it's original intent to fit your argument isnt it?

Unfounded accusation and red herring to avoid the actual reality of the intolerant statement

 

[robdawg1]

In Tims explanation, he states that if religion was replaced with sports....do i need to go into this? will it matter?... and the entire world emphatically supported their teams to the point of violence and murder, then there is division...when the world loses interest in the sports team, and eventually the sport than violence and death subsides, and eventually equilibrium is restored...hoiw is this intolerance...idealistic yes, but intolerant, I dont get it.

 

[robdawg1]

Unfounded accusation and red herring to avoid the actual reality of the intolerant statement

Not at all, simply an observation of your modus operandi...

 

[The Man]

Its plain as day rob

Ahhh, just imagine a world with no religion.

Someday mankind will outgrow this madness but until then we need to put up with crap like this

So tim are you saying the world will be a better place if and when it evolves to atheism as a result of rejecting all other beliefs.

Absolutely

 

[robdawg1]

Apparantly it's clarity to me and your interpretation is very different. where you see intolerance, I see idealism.

 

[The Man]

Back to the shooting thread :thumbup

 

[robdawg1]

I accept your concession! :award:

 

[The Man]

I accept your concession! :award:

I pissed in that cup

 

[robdawg1]

It is the piss of defeat! LOL

 

[The Man]

Night rob...enjoy those dreams

 

[Mercury]

Some good posts and observations.

 

[Minor Axis]

It's tough to take a bullshitter seriously.

This is the best you can come up with? I question your book and you question my motives and my character. Being exposed to the modern GOP, I'm familiar with the tactic.

I never left. I took a break from you and it looks like I'll take another break from YOUR bull shit. Your scripture is weak. I don't laugh at it, I question it. Really- spirits have a single creator? Tell me about it. Better yet, quote some scripture to me. If you want to pretend you know all about where they came from, be my guest. I like the ideas of spirits, but I've never acknowledged or said I believed in them. When I tell you I'm Agnostic, you respond with sarcasm. Your a little man locked into the defense of your theism who treats every critique as an attack (at least my critiques). Hey you forgot to use the word "sophistry" this time or did I miss it?

 

[Stone]

I dont disagree with Tim, nor do i find his position intolerant. his saying that he feels the world would be better off without religion is #1 his view and not pushy on the rest of us, and #2 utopian as without the disagreement on religion most of our current issues in the world would be moot.

But, TM, does your tolerance include Muslims, Buhddists, Jews, Hindis, Wiccan, Druids, and Satanists? I am capable of saying enjoy your own form of worship and i would love to learn about your cultural differences, are you?

nor do i find his position intolerant.

From the aspect of physical imposition, I agree....but philosophically...incredibly so, even to the point of denying the reality that even history records.... specific accounts of atheistic leadership that brought suffering ........This is not a claim or argument that religion has a better 'score card' .......it's a rebuttal of the premise that a one world belief brings betterment........it just brings acceptance of specific concepts, while quest for domination still remains...
........and while conflict and confrontation continues, it merely takes on different aspects.

Tim's argument even included the aspect of sports for conflict.
Taken full course, the only way to insure the concept of 'betterment' confrontational-wise, would be total domination and subjugation of the human character.
I see a lot of conflict getting there ( ) and would a civilization of robots be considered a better condition?

does your tolerance include Muslims, Buhddists, Jews, Hindis, Wiccan, Druids, and Satanists?

For me, as long as there is no imposition against me or society in general, religious beliefs that differ from my own are of no concern.
This is why I have little tolerance for fundamentalism, in general.....from radical fundamentalist Christians to radical Islamicists. And with the general imagery of Satanists, might as well include them in that club .

 

[Stone]

Rejection of all beliefs and then demanding those around you to feel the same way is intolerance. Feeling that everyone is wrong but you and those like you is not intolerance, it is religion!

But arguing, without foundation, that the elimination of differing religious beliefs for the betterment of man....... is intolerance.

 

[Minor Axis]

But arguing, without foundation, that the elimination of differing religious beliefs for the betterment of man....... is intolerance.

That's the problem. There is no reliable foundation to argue about. It's all wishful thinking.

 

[Stone]

How is it reportable, I am a christian and took no offense to that statement. If you take down the defensive shield and put on your intellectual cap, you could see that his statement of "crap" is in regards to the back and forth and violence that has been brought on by religious differences. He also didnt single out any specific religion but religion as a whole. What offense did you find in this that would be reportable?

Also:

in·tol·er·ance

   /ɪnˈtɒlərəns/ Show Spelled[in-tol-er-uhns] Show IPA
noun 1. lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

2. incapacity or indisposition to bear or endure: intolerance to heat.

3. abnormal sensitivity or allergy to a food, drug, etc.

4. an intolerant act.

I am very familiar with what intolerance is, his idea of a utopian world where there is no religion, and thereby no violence or strife as a result of religious differences is not intolerant per the definition, it is in fact, quite the opposite as he hopes for tolerance of everyone without regard to personal beliefs!

This only works if you ignore the character of man and the history written by several specific leaders that attempted such unification as Tim promotes.
The realities were that not only did those that resisted suffer, many of those that accepted the imposed lines of thought also suffered.
Remove religious beliefs, and conflicts and confrontations will continue in other forms of human activity. There is no reason to believe the quest for energy and the conflicts between the have and have-not oil nations will resolve because both reject religious beliefs.......the basis for conflict still exists with the expression of hatred merely taking a different identity.
There is no reason to believe the conflicts between wealthy and poor nations will suddenly abate nor those suffering environmental stress.
Remove all religions and you merely remove one means of expressing hate. It doesn't guarantee hatred and conflict will be resolved.
Like with Tim's reference to sports violence, there will likely be something to take up the slack as rationalization for expressing hatred.

Betterment will only come from mankind collectively.
But the argument of building a civilization of 'wet robots' not exactly the betterment of the human condition.
What's left .....who defines morality and who enforces it?
That's still conflict and confrontation.

 

[Stone]

That's the problem. There is no reliable foundation to argue about. It's all wishful thinking.

If you are referring to the acceptance of atheism on a world scale being a solution for resolving conflict and confrontation.......indeed.