Freedom of religion includes that you dont choose for others their religion. Even if they contain some of your DNA.
ie. You still haven't figured out that you're the one with the burden of proof, not the Atheists.
No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.
Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless". It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.
2000-year old superstitions are not a basis for modern government: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
Anyway, remember this rule: good atheist > atheist jerk.
Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless". It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.And so is atheism. The danger is the dogma and the urge of some people to enforce their view point on others. It's symmetric in this respect as well.
Anyway, remember this rule: good atheist > atheist jerk.
ie. You still haven't figured out that you're the one with the burden of proof, not the Atheists.
No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.
Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless". It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.
2000-year old superstitions are not a basis for modern government: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
...A much more important point is: Is religion harmless?Of course not.
...
...
I did say that religion is not harmless. Specially the churches and organizations that surround it.
...
ie. You still haven't figured out that you're the one with the burden of proof, not the Atheists.
No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.
Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless". It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.
2000-year old superstitions are not a basis for modern government: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
No burden of proof whatsoever. He can live his life the way he chooses and believe whatever he wants without a permission from anybody else. Feel free to do the same.Repeat after me: "Religion isn't harmless". It's not like collecting test gear or being gay or whatever.
Already did, but I guess your English reading comprehension skills might not be great.
as for Jesus being real, most scholars agree that he was a real person in history.
In general it's accepted that he was a man that actually existed.
But the core of the texts is undisputed.
Edit: If you are not from the US we do have a saying that states:
"Clean up your own backyard before you go knocking on your neighbor's door"
PS: Remember this rule: good person > jerk. No need to bring 'atheism' into it.
Freedom of religion includes that you dont choose for others their religion. Even if they contain some of your DNA.
Well, so Dave should be imprisoned for teaching his son electronics because he is choosing a hobby/profession for him.
I hope that you are just trolling here.
I would prefer any day of the week a believer than mind his own business over an atheist with ideology like yours.
PS: Remember this rule: good person > jerk. No need to bring 'atheism' into it.
Perfect! You are now ready to receive the second rule:
good_believer > atheist_jerk
... You call me a jerk.
mod: and compare me with terrorists.
... You call me a jerk.No, I didn't.
Nope, nothing to do with my "agenda".
No other lobby group gets to open the senate parliament every day with their propaganda:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/aso/so050
I have no problem with religious groups petitioning parliament etc in the same way that any other group has the right to, it's in fact their right, and I'll fight for that right.
But when they get special treatment like that, special "respect", and the ability to reinforce their doctrine at every parliament session, that crap has to stop.
There are still a few that follow the "Christ myth theory" among those scholars, but there are not many on that camp. In general it's accepted that he was a man that actually existed. Of course that doesn't mean that all that is said about him is true, because historical texts have been modified and embellished by the Church. But the core of the texts is undisputed.
http://www.opencircuits.com/Main_Page free as in beer
http://www.opencircuits.com/Main_Page free as in beerI didn't see much stoning recently in the name of Christianity.
Many say that the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.
Many say that the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.Christianity is not; Judaism is. That's the same people that won't ride on an elevator with regenerative braking on a Saturday because they consider that is doing work.
Many say that the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.Christianity is not; Judaism is. That's the same people that won't ride on an elevator with regenerative braking on a Saturday because they consider that is doing work.
Many say that the islam is a violent religion.. But christianity and the bibel is full of commandmens to stone and kill people for varius resons.Christianity is not; Judaism is. That's the same people that won't ride on an elevator with regenerative braking on a Saturday because they consider that is doing work.
Didn't see recently many stoning in the name of Judaism either.
Ehh no.. today they use american made machinegus and helicopters, thanksetc... plus killing children...
Anyways, I do follow the man, not the churches that formed around him.
Anyways, I do follow the man, not the churches that formed around him.
How can you "follow the man" when the only information about "the man" was written at least several generations after his death?
Not a single word from the holy book came from him.
Sorry, as much as you might like to think you are, you aren't following "the man" but the words of people several generations after him that didn't even know him.