Christians vs Atheist?

[BoarSpear]

As for separation between church and state, tell me again where that is in the constitution?

I never said it was...but since you seem to feel you have a point, its in the same place where it says you have a "right to fair trail" and the "right to privacy."

[The_Judo_Jibboo]

A philosophy or theorum is much different from an organized religion, or even a person's belief structure. A philosophy, say existentialism, has basic tenents and beliefs associated with it that do, in deed, attempt to explain the same abstract concepts that religion attempts to tackle. The difference is in the dogma, the rules, the pretense, the ceremony, etc etc etc.

dogma- a system of principles or tenets; a settled or established opinion, belief or principle.

if that's dogma, then the "basic tenets and beliefs associated with [a philosophy]" that you mentionned are really no different except in that the greater number of people buying into them makes them more resistant to change. the "rules" you mention stem from this and in effect, are part of the dogma itself. i'm not totally clear what you mean by pretense.
it seems a blurry line to me, that an old enough philosophy with enough followers is in essence indistinguishable from a religion. can you not imagine a Church of Existentialism? the problem seems to me to be the institutionalization, not the beliefs.

[jubaji]

Uh he is a world leader who says atheists cant be patriots and shouldn't be citizens.....

Now that is a lie.

[BoarSpear]

Bush is Bush, how can anyone speak for another about the beliefs they hold?

Uh he is a world leader who says atheists cant be patriots and shouldn't be citizens....THAT seems to speak for my beliefs and rights...When leaders allow their religions to START and cultivate wars then they are allowing their beliefs to influence their ability to do their job. When they endanger the lives and survival of a country for their own religious beliefs then the separation of church and state was a lie in the first place and the beliefs of a leader ARE relevant to his ability to do his job.

[BoarSpear]

Excuse me? Reclaim the HOLYLAND? Kill the INFIDELS? Punish the HERETICS? Stone the ADULTERESS? Ever read the book of Joshua? Rape, murder, loot and pillage in the name of Yaweh?

[DickHardman]

Are you telling me Bush is a false Christian world leader?

yup. thats what im saying. he is an extremist.

[BoarSpear]

they say they are christian, they say they believe in god, but their actions speak otherwise. leads me to believe that they too are far away from god.

Are you telling me Bush is a false Christian world leader?

[BoarSpear]

plenty. but i also know of many christians who strive to help others, volunteer at homeless shelters, and genuinely strive to do good things.

Quite a few non Christians do the same thing....Christian churches locally closed their food programs to the homeless...the non believers (local bikers) still feed 'em though.

[jubaji]

No moral compass whatsoever. .

Correct.

Directly in violation of the faith involved? Ok, let's put that to the test-

Catholic doctrine states that the human component of the church may be faslifiable, but the word of God is divine, and therefore infallible. The pope is God's spokesperson on Earth, and therefore, as a mouthpeice of God, is infalible.

Do you really want to get into the nuts and bolts of Catholic doctrine? There are literally libraries full of texts analyzing all this. Suffice to say that the pope is only infallible when he is in fact acting as the spokesman for God. As a human, he is as fallible as anyone else and he'd be the first to tell you so. History bears this out. Simply put, killing people because they aren't Christian is in absolute and direct violation of Christian theology. Killing people because they aren't atheist is in no way shape or form a violation of atheism.

[jubaji]

Excuse me? Reclaim the HOLYLAND? Kill the INFIDELS? ?

You're excused. The point of the Crusades was to 'protect' the sites holy to Christians in the middle east, not to kill all the Muslims. Was it wrong? Long story, but it was (a) not an attempt to kill those who were not Christian and, to the extent it resulted in innocent deaths no matter what their faith (b) in violation of Christian doctrine. It certainly doesn't serve anyone's interests to ignore or deny that it happened though, or to try and talk around both the political and religious aspects of it because it suits someone's agenda.

[Garland]

Ah, but whereas all of those are things directly in violation of the faith involved (completely the opposite of what the faith demands), those instances where people have died because they were not atheist involved no violation of atheism at all. Human beings will always fail. Do you therefore advocate following a call to live a better way than most do, or to have no moral compass whatsoever?

No moral compass whatsoever.

Directly in violation of the faith involved? Ok, let's put that to the test-

Catholic doctrine states that the human component of the church may be faslifiable, but the word of God is divine, and therefore infallible. The pope is God's spokesperson on Earth, and therefore, as a mouthpeice of God, is infalible.

Explain the Crusades, the Inquisition, and Pope Pius looking the other way during the Holocaust using that doctrine. All had the stamp of approval by the papacy, and therefore is done with God's consent.

[Garland]

Well, you don't get to have it both ways. If you insist on that, then I must demand that you recognize the political nature of so-called religious violence in direct violation of the faiths involved. I'll take the same cover as you; they weren't religious, they were political.

Excuse me? Reclaim the HOLYLAND? Kill the INFIDELS? Punish the HERETICS? Stone the ADULTERESS? Ever read the book of Joshua? Rape, murder, loot and pillage in the name of Yaweh?

[Garland]

HOW is it wrong. is it the lack of ceremony and ritual that makes hard determinism not a religion? this is what seems to be put forth by dictionary definitions, that only the formalization distinguishes a "religion" from a plain ole "belief system". do you buy into this? how do you define religion, and how does your definition of philosophy differ? like i said, i'm genuinely curious and i'm not pushing for one answer or another, but whenever i ask this question i get the kind of response you just gave me, plugging the ears and singing "LALALA NOOOOOOO LALALA NOT LISTENING!"

cognitive dissonance is no more valid an argument than to say christianity is not a religion because it contains many influences from other religions and philosophies.

A philosophy or theorum is much different from an organized religion, or even a person's belief structure. A philosophy, say existentialism, has basic tenents and beliefs associated with it that do, in deed, attempt to explain the same abstract concepts that religion attempts to tackle. The difference is in the dogma, the rules, the pretense, the ceremony, etc etc etc.

Cognitive Dissonance as a theorum has no identifiable ties to religion, it can be used to describe religious beliefs and things that challenge them, but other than that, is not influenced by religion.

[jubaji]

So what about our leaders, aren't they Christian? Lies and war under false pretense that cause millions of deaths...isn't Bush afraid of hell?

Political bullshit from Boring. Remember when you were so humiliatingly wrong about the 'secret' members of the Electoral College? Were you lying? Or were you wrong, misinformed, and mistaken? Your poor attempts at playing with words to suit your radical political agenda are risible.

[jubaji]

Yeah, I am....

Well, you don't get to have it both ways. If you insist on that, then I must demand that you recognize the political nature of so-called religious violence in direct violation of the faiths involved. I'll take the same cover as you; they weren't religious, they were political.