SkyHigh

No sir, I gave you a definition of atheism, you claimed it was incorrect with no supporting evidence other than random YouTube videos. Again please provide any actual credible source to substantiate your assertion that atheism is a religion.

And there's where we differ, I get my information from credible, recognized sources you get yours from random YouTube poets, who's delusional?

My delusions????? Please provide me with any definition from a credible recognized source that uses idol for atheism

Therfore by your own definition, atheism can not be a religion. And regarding the rest of my post, I'll take your non response as capitulation. Sincerely SH

Geezs, you are so dishonest. I gave specific passages to support my claim, you tried to ignore them, by evoking the new testament by quoting jesus(golden rule), but you're so ignorant to your own holy book you don't even know that jesus was quoting Leviticus. Not to mention you still confuse Hawking and Dawkins(listening to an hour of a debate is a far cry from understanding their perspective) two men very different not only in there field of study, but also in their public personas and when yoy say things like the big bang was an explosion you just prove you know nothing about science. When you claim to already know the truth, you are by definition not open minded, and when you judge others to be evil, well lets just say that if your god exist we'll see each other in hell, but until then I will not engage any further with some as willfully ignorant as you

1. How some random people choose to express their atheism is of no consequence to me. Do you think these supposed pastors speak for an entire philosophy? Do you think these random people speak for atheism as a whole the same way the Pope speaks for Catholicism, or how the bishop of Canterbury speaks for the church of England, or better yet do you think the Pope speaks for all Christians? Of course not. 2. Nope, just the answer to one question, is there a god. You either believe there is one(theist) or you don't(A theist) 3. Dogma is defined(merriam webster) as 1a. Somthing held as an established opinion especially a definite authoritative tenet b.a code of such tenets c. A point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. 2. A doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church. Please provide concrete examples of the doctrines of atheism. 4. Of course we all follow rules, the difference, mine can evolve, whilst yours are based on an unchanging book written thousands of years ago. 5,6. Not really sure what you're trying to say, but I'll give it my best shot. Yes all people live under moral and ethical guidelines, personally im a secular humanist, which apparently you (and the data) agree is superior by your statement that "atheists nations are more peaceful and law abiding then the god nations" 7. Again irrelevant 8. Please define "religion" as you understand it. Cheers SH

When you imply I'm somehow demonic or evil, the conversation is over. I'll leave you with some food for thought, you should really at least attempt to understand others perspectives and not simply those who agree with you. Ken ham, eric hovind, ray comfort, etc... are con artists. Try reading anything by Dr. Bart Ehrman, or maybe "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking, or "the god delusion" by Richard Dawkins. At least then you won't sound so silly when you talk about people you've clearly never studied.

With all due respect, your knowledge of the bible seems comparable to your understanding of science, wanting. So lets get specific. We could do this same exercise for many of the immoral actions of God in the bible, but lets stick with slavery. Please explain the love thy neighbor part of verses like Exodus 21 or Leviticus 25 and why a moral god wouldn't simply write thou shall not own people as property? Again, the real question is why do we care what the bible says at all? I have read multiple versions of the bible (en deux langues, I was raised by a french Catholic mother and a fundamental baptist father) and am more versed in the text than most professed Christians. The fact that there are as many interpretations as there are people that have read it, to me prove there is no truth in this work of fiction

Atheism is not a religion, it is simply the answer to one specific question. Atheists have no dogmas, no rules to follow, no supernatural deities, no sanctified places, no prophecies, no ethical guidelines, no necessary organization, and I could go on.

Even though definitions have nothing to do with country of origin here you go. Capitalism: the ability to create capital through privately owned industry based on individual intellectual property. Socialism: means of production controled by government, but still compatible with democracy and personal liberty. I.e property rights Communism: complete control of the economy including all property, and requires revolutionary acts. Now for definitions of more complex political or economic systems, country of origin can be important. I.e. mixed economy or social democracy, how would you define these terms comrade?

First off, when you say things like "the slime in a pond" or that the Big Bang was an "explosion", you're just showing you ignorance of the scientific method, and to what science actually advocats (even putting aside the fact you confused Steven Hawkins with Richard Dawkins) When it comes to morals, secular humanity is by far a better system, the "God" of the bible is an immoral thug that condones slavery, rape and genocide. Finally the bible, why would an ancient book conceived by ignorant bronze age farmers, that contains numerous historical and scientific errors be a reliable reference?

Not "nitpicking" at all This is the same issue ive been trying to adress since being chastised for a response i gave, in which no explanation was given If you feel moderating based on your own personal political view point is acceptable that is your prerogative. I on the other hand take offense when a "moderator" not only decides what he considers relevant to the discussion, but purposefully creates a new "tread" intentionally choosing words ( i say intentionally because i don't question his intelligence or command of language) to disparage not only my comment but an entire people. My interjection here was to adress the hypocrisy of someone asking people to not use abbreviations to describe adherents of a particular political party at the risk of being offensive, yet refers to the history of one of the founding people's of this country, with a word "récit" that ostensibly refers to short stories often fictional. If one can't separate their own political bias from their ability to moderate, they should be removed as a moderator, the fact he's been allowed to continue this long just shows (me at least) that the administration has zero desire for a forum where a true exchange of ideas can take place

Oh, so you do speak french. This is again the perfect example of how this forum, and you specifically are ridiculous partisan hacks You have a problem with people using abbreviations because they may be politically charged, yet see no problem using "récit" to describe a flourishing people's and nation. You and this "political forum" are a joke

Not close enough? I was responding to someone who's whole shtick is the supremacy of the British Empire, who then envoked Nova Scotia ( you might not be aware, but the Acadian people were deported by the British from Nova Scotia) How is that not germain to the topic? The crux of my point (that you didn't touch on) was the use of them term "récit". Again either you speak french and deliberately chose a dismissive word to undercut a founding nation of Canada, or you don't speak french and couldn't be bothered to do anything more than a Google search, indirectly dismissing an entire peoples. If you feel the need to direct conversations into threads that only conform to your political and historical view point maybe you shouldn't be moderating a "political forum" Though I appreciate the sentiment, it does not seem to comport to reality. Or maybe we just have different definitions of the word "Welcome"

First off, I must thank you, it's always satisfying when my assumptions are confirmed by the relevant parties themselves, and by using your attempt to appease those whom you support ( i.e. Argus or Dougie) when their ridiculous, ignorant rantings are challenged by "creating" a completely new thread indirectly(at best) accusing (me in this case) of "thread high-jacking" Ridiculous, and here's why. First, in a thread call somthing like "was canada better before" ( im paraphrasing, but thats close enough) the statement was made that Nova Scotia or Nova scotianers was or were great pre confederation, i asked which people or people's he was referring to. How is that in anyway off topic? Now you obviously how no understanding or knowledge of the Acadian people, which in turn implies you have little knowledge of Canadian history as a whole, for if you did you wouldn't A; fail to understand that by evoking nova Scotia you are necessarily envoking the Acadians, as they were the original europeans to settle there and B; would never use a word as insignificant as "récit" to resume the history of the oldest nation to have existed and still exist on Canadian territory, two choices as to word selection 1; you don't have a working knowledge of French, you simply did a Google translate and are ignorant to the nuance of the language and can't be bothered, or 2; you do have a working knowledge of French and purposefully and deliberately chose to use flippant terminology to try to somehow discredit or insult me. Which is it? Either way, it confirms everything I've said to you or Greg. I came here in good faith, to have fruitful and productive exchanges with people that may or may not agree with me, and to improve my ability to communicate through the written medium. What i found was a select few people dominating a forum that have no interest in fruitful productive conversation, make no attempt at good faith arguments, and an "administration" the not only condones it but actively encourages it. My best guess is that you(the administration) want no, crave partisan hackery, and that from both side of the political spectrum, you want those that are simply here to bloaviate incoherent personal opinions, maybe im to nuanced for your simple minds. I see no other way to explain why you continuously allowed numerous interlocutors to impute my values, intelligence, morals etc.... Yet I ask someone to clarify a comment im a thread high jacker? Seriously? Im sure the fact that the very next comment i made after calling you out on you bullshit was flagged is a coincidence, or maybe just maybe it further proof your a bias hack I stopped posting here because A: intelligent, honest, epistemologicaly sound interlocutors are few and far between, and B the obvious bias in moderating by you. Though I would come on time by time simply to laugh at the growing ignorance you all call a "political forum", to make an analogy the intellectual equivalent to "man gets hit in nuts by a football". Low and behold, i come on today to see you've chose to use your attempt to protect your people, by branding me a thread high jacker, for responding directly to one of your aforementioned buddies post, as an example of your preferred way of handling such situations, again this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that YOU are just another bad faith actor among the plethorain in this forum. Based on past history you'll most likely simply ignore this and go about your life practicing the same willful ignorance, but im honestly willing to discuss this in mature manner, if you so choose. I am aware this message was fueled with much frustration but from my perspective that frustration is completely justified, from my point of view the new thread you created was a personal attack, and i believe both the time line of events(this happened right after i questioned your ability to be impartial) and the substance of my posts in the original thread support this. Thoughts?????

Im sure I'll get "reprimanded" for speaking out of turn again, and im sure you won't even acknowledge this response, but i grow more and more tired of the lack of productive discourse of this forum anyway. So here goes How is asking what he means by "Nova Scotia traditions" by inquiring about the deportation of the first "nation" to settle in Canada. Particularly when he is defending a British interpretation of said history that the Queen herself apologized for? Or is the truth you now have a personal bias against me and will interject when you feel im one upping someone you agree with?

Much like you'd need to already be a sociopath for violence in music or video games to trigger something, seeing two dudes kiss has never caused me to question my love of boobs

Ive spoken at the ceremonies in Grand-pré, I know the history of your morally bankrupt coward ancestors

As always your selective memory and ability to cherry pick history would almost be commendable if it were not so intellectually and morally dishonest. Read a bit about acadians will you. Here's a couple quick facts to start you out. They tried to get the Acadians to sign somthing pledging to take up arms for the English knowing a war was coming and only after the Acadians refused( because they just wanted to farm, hardly presenting as an "enemy") did they start planning the deportation They literally had to put the women and children on boats and threaten them if that doesn't show fear i don't kniw what does

So your people were the ones so afraid of the Acadians, they put the women and children on boats in secret and threatened to burn them if the men didn't get on board? Ya definitely sounds like a heritage to be proud of and want to conserve

Well that's the thing, they didn't. Or maybe their developed immune systems allowed them to drink the water. It's us "Europeans" that need such heavily treated water. My girls half sister from Mexico can drink tap water here, we drink bottled water there

You mean the Acadian traditions developed by being the first that settled there, or the scared British tradition that threatened the women and children to deport them?

If you think seeing a same sex couple kissing on a poster or tv wiil turn people gay, maybe you should take some time to reflect on your own sexuality. You sound confused

Hey now, no need to disparage goalies

Apologies, I thought the lobbyist comment was directed at me.