Yzermandius19

Unless you think living even worse than African American slaves is a good thing, then there is no reason to support Catholic rule over Protestant rule

the Druids were cannabals and practiced human sacrifice the other religions are newer and before them the world was a lot less decent, especially the Jews you only think they are universal and obvious to all because these religions helped make them so

you are following their example, not the other way around you live in their culture, they don't live in yours all the secular ideas you hold dear were adopted and pushed hardest by Christians you simply stole their good ideas and take credit for their work as if you came up with the idea first, when the atheists were in fact late to the party, not the host

2) your explanation is nonsense, it is so the experts agree is dictionary definition appeal to authority fallacy 4) throwing stones from your glass house is not advisable

atheist authoritarians are the norm and the live and let live atheists are few and far between, at that level of politics anyway the atheists who don't wish to impose their atheism on theists don't have much taste for politics apparently atheists who act like God doesn't exist are the bad apples of the bunch atheists who act like God does exist are the good apples the good apples have already internalized a lot of Judeo-Christian cultural values and act accordingly whether they admit it and give credit to the religious underpinings of their moral code or not what name they choose to call themselves is neither here nor there

a useful "fairy tale" that shouldn't be imposed nor should it be imposed on when the Atheists get the reigns though it is imposed on, in genocidal fashion time and time again the most successful nations on the planet aren't majority atheist, they are mostly majority Christian with Protestant nations being run notably better than their Catholic counterparts the Catholic nations being run better than their Orthodox counterparts and the Orthodox nations being run better than their non-Christian counterparts I don't think that is a coincidence, there are very few outliers and there isn't even one majority atheist outlier that is a shining example worthy of emulation all the evidence points against a godless world being a better world

and the Irish would have been treated worse under Catholic rule look at the nations who lived under British rule and compare them to nations who lived under French or Spanish rule life under the Protestant rule was better than life under Catholic rule, even for Catholics those under British rule faired far better historically, and are much better off today than those living under French or Spanish rule I'm both Irish and Catholic myself, difference is, I know my history you have to compare Britain to it's actual competition, to properly put life under British rule into context not against some perfect standard that has never been achieved while ignoring the alternatives

it's a better world for atheists too no one kills more atheists than atheists, no one impedes on the rights of atheists like atheists a world with less religion has shown to be a more murderous one, time and time again religious wars are a nothingburger by comparison to the damage done with atheists in charge you can claim that isn't the case until you are blue in the face but the historical record indicates otherwise if religion is just a fairy tale, it's a very useful fairy tale, and no good reason to do away with it, regardless

you said they need to pay more and offered no evidence they weren't paying enough just an appeal to authority, to base your claim on I offered evidence they already pay more than their fair share yet you still cling to your confirmation bias in the face of actual evidence

Irish history would have been much worse if not for the Enlightenment brought to them by the Protestants in Britain that wouldn't have happened if James II had beaten William III Protestant liberal democracy is good for business, Catholic autocracy is not the Catholics have lived better under Protestant rule, than they ever did under Catholics ironic yet true any reasonable Catholic who knows their history can admit that the unreasonable or unknowledgeable Catholics cling to tribalism in the face of the historical record and merely tunnel vision on the injustices Catholics suffered under Protestant rule rather than examine the bigger picture and weigh that against the upside of Protestant rule

precisely MH is doing just that so he doesn't have to think for himself he just takes the word of the "authority" on faith because they are saying what he feels is true even if the facts don't reflect his feelings he doesn't change his mind he clings to the feels and retreats to logical fallacies thinking they are rock solid arguments

appeal to authority is a fallacy that scores negative points here are some facts for you the top 1% earn 25% of the income in America and pays 40% of all the taxes in America the top 1% pays 27% of their income in taxes the bottom 50% pays 4% of their income in taxes yet you think the wealthy need to pay more? maybe you should rethink that stance and not put your faith into people who claim to be experts while virtue signaling they should pay more yet nothing is stopping them from paying more they just want the competition to pay more, or they won't do it and you fall for it

It was in Germany too and Weimar Germany was most progressive nation on the planet the rights of minorities were in ascendence then came Adolf Hitler to fill the increasingly godless void you can say, I don't think so, all you want but you don't think so, because you don't know your history it was on the wane in Russia, then came Stalin it was on the wane in China, then came Mao it was on the wane in Cambodia, then came Pol Pot it was on the wane in France, then came The Terror, brought by the French Revolution, resulting in Napoleon religion waning too much, does not go well historically speaking just as Nietzsche predicted once you kill God, what fills that void is over a hundred million killed in the 20th century by the "ubermensch" who kill more than the religious they claim to be superior to, by several orders of magnitude be careful what you wish for a religious world is cushy and comfortable compared to a godless one

strawman city many of the best scientists in the world are Christians and majority Christian nations are the most scientifically advanced nations in the world the idea that science and religion are incompatible is a myth a myth pushed by atheists who want to claim a moral and intellectual high ground they do not deserve

that reason is trash argument ad populum appeal to authority both logical fallacies other people say it's a good idea and they are "experts" get better if they want to give the government more money, nothing is stopping them they simply want their competition taxed more and you are so uninformed that you buy into it because it plays to your confirmation bias

the truth hurts facts don't care about your feelings I am relaxed, you're the one getting hysterical when someone doesn't agree with you

taking their word for it makes no sense since you have no good reason to take their word for it if you had a good reason, that would be a different story clearly you don't care about making sense though

it already is Canada has fallen to woke

you know nothing, Michael Hardner whether you refuse to admit it or not your lack of knowledge on the matter has been exposed

nah they won't pack it, some who supported it will change their minds, once they know it will be on their heads it's political suicide they can't rid of the filibuster without a filibuster proof majority anyway it's not going to happen

I suggest you back off your claim that they should pay more or aren't paying their fair share then since you clearly don't know what you're talking about on this one and are simply stating an uninformed gut feeling opinion

too scared to set the goalposts eh? typical

I'll take either figure from the crowd who thinks they need to pay more to make it fair I just want y'all to set the goalposts so you can't move it after

13.4% more than the percentage already pay or 13.4% of the taxes, which would be a significant reduction?

then how can you say they should pay more when you have no idea what constitutes a fair share? if they should pay more, how much more? shit or get off the pot