Mr.Canada Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Canada has laws that we all must abide by, regardless of religion. Canada's laws must be based on reason, not religion of any type (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Aboriginal spirituality). Within the universal laws that Canada has passed, if a cultural or religious group wants to arbitrate their disputes using a form of restitution that makes sense to them, fine. Just don't expect to apply that form of restitution to people who are not part of that cultural group. So you're ok with Muslims having Sharia Law that allows women being beaten or stoned to death as long as they only do it within the Muslim community? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 So why do you characterize Christianity as feeling threatened by atheism? Just because you saw a sign in front of a church that offended you, which is a pretty inaccurate description of the Christian faith, by the way.But the thing is, atheism opposes all faiths. Muslims would call you an infidel and are one of the biggest faiths out there, yet you don't spend any time opposing them on this thread. I have a theory that many who end up becoming atheists once had a bad experience in the church. It may explain the fixation on Christianity, but I could be wrong. Edit: On looking back over this thread, kimmy feels somewhat the same, maybe I'm onto something I see I have you mixed up with Melanie, who started the thread, sorry for the confusion. I wasn't really offended by the church's sign so much as it made me think. It seemed to me that the church had no problem expressing intolerance towards atheism, when they could never get away with expressing such intolerance towards other groups. Yes, Muslims would call me an infidel. I may not have spent time opposing them in this thread, but that was because it was a church who had the sign out front, not a mosque. Don't worry, I have an equal disbelief in Allah as in God (and Zeus, and Odin, and Osiris, and.....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 So you're ok with Muslims having Sharia Law that allows women being beaten or stoned to death as long as they only do it within the Muslim community? Can you read? I said within Canada's laws. I even put it in bold, for your benefit. Is it within Canada's laws for a woman to be beaten or stoned to death? Sometimes I think you are stoned when you are posting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Can you read? I said within Canada's laws. I even put it in bold, for your benefit. Is it within Canada's laws for a woman to be beaten or stoned to death? Sometimes I think you are stoned when you are posting! You don't think this would end there? It wouldn't. People never ever stop pushing for more and more and more. Perpetual victims looking for something to be offended by. The UK did this and now look at the mess they have with these Muslims. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Can you read? I said within Canada's laws. I even put it in bold, for your benefit. Is it within Canada's laws for a woman to be beaten or stoned to death? Sometimes I think you are stoned when you are posting! Ouuch! Why is it that us so-called enlightened westeners assume that every Muslim male beats his wife and burns his daughters to death? This is humanly impossible. Per capita - I would safely say that abuse of woman is the same world wide dispite the culture. The problem with Sharia law is that it might actually contain some just measures - where as our family law system has rotted into a corrupt mess....a woman in a rage can stab her husband and some lunitic female appointed twit of a judge will order that the husband who bled on the white carpet pay to get it cleaned. Frankly we do not need Sharia - we need to reform our own existing system - IF we do NOT reform - this will open the door to Sharia ---it's our choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Atheists aren't going to turn believers into atheists nor will believers turn atheists to their side so what's the point of even discussing it. It's a complete waste of time. I'm not trying to win any recruits. I'm trying find new knowledge and understanding of alleged truisms that I have seen very little evidence to support. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 You don't think this would end there? It wouldn't. People never ever stop pushing for more and more and more. Perpetual victims looking for something to be offended by. The UK did this and now look at the mess they have with these Muslims. You are perpetually looking for something to slander Muslims with. Do you really think that Canada is about to say, "Oh, ok, you can go ahead and beat and stone women to death, we don't mind"? Regardless of their religion, they are Canadian women, and Canadian law applies. If there is something within their culture that they want to use as a guide for their behaviour, and it doesn't contravene any Canadian laws, I have no problem with them doing it. This goes for any religion, including Christianity. But don't try to apply it to the rest of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The UK did this and now look at the mess they have with these Muslims. The UK allows women to be beaten and stoned to death? huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 The UK allows women to be beaten and stoned to death? huh? Men and woman should love each other - if they as so oppressed and crazed by the system that they grow to hate and detest each other - then this condition is what the state wants - If they wanted men and woman to get along they would create an atmosphere that is condusive to happiness - apparently they want us seperate and fighting...and to remain a non-threat to the utlitiarian government that really does not care if we kill each other - In fact they encourage it - welcome to the stupid machine...what a stinky system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Men and woman should love each other - if they as so oppressed and crazed by the system that they grow to hate and detest each other - then this condition is what the state wants - If they wanted men and woman to get along they would create an atmosphere that is condusive to happiness - apparently they want us seperate and fighting...and to remain a non-threat to the utlitiarian government that really does not care if we kill each other - In fact they encourage it - welcome to the stupid machine...what a stinky system.Try cracking a grammar textbook. Your posts are nearly incomprehensible. I'm sure you have some pretty good points to make; but, your writing is terribly ineffective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Try cracking a grammar textbook. Your posts are nearly incomprehensible. I'm sure you have some pretty good points to make; but, your writing is terribly ineffective. If you decipher any of his stuff, you'll soon realize you're better off not knowing what he's talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 If you decipher any of his stuff, you'll soon realize you're better off not knowing what he's talking about. Something we can agree on. Oleg's posts are not spaced out enough or at all and he uses "-" in place of a "." which doesn't help. Many may dislike my pov but at least I'm clear in making my pov...hehe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 So you're ok with Muslims having Sharia Law that allows women being beaten or stoned to death as long as they only do it within the Muslim community? Typical mr.C... LYING about the meaning of what other people say by changing it into something nobody in their right mind would conclude when teading it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Typical mr.C... LYING about the meaning of what other people say by changing it into something nobody in their right mind would conclude when teading it. This is what allowing Sharia LAw will lead to. These people will push for more and more and more until we're a Muslim State. At that time I will lead the Christian armies into battle in the streets to reclaim our land. Like in the Gang's of New York. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted February 5, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 This is what allowing Sharia LAw will lead to. These people will push for more and more and more until we're a Muslim State. At that time I will lead the Christian armies into battle in the streets to reclaim our land. Like in the Gang's of New York. I have a better idea. Lets not have Christians or Muslims deciding what will be law in Canada. Remove religion from the public sphere completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 At that time I will lead the Christian armies into battle in the streets to reclaim our land. I hope you aren't serious, but just in case, I'm going to save this one for future reference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I hope you aren't serious, but just in case, I'm going to save this one for future reference. lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I think common ground *might* be found in something as simple as mutual respect for other peoples' opinions. Ok, yes, those are great examples of issues that rational people can discuss. You're the one using words like "specious nonsense", not me. I don't even think that Darwinian notions are entirely wrong, or can't be part of a universe that was created by God. But if we did get into serious debate, I strongly suspect it would end with you reiterating that I'm infantile/specious/believe in fairies, etc. I chose that subject matter quite pointedly, because it actually does directly challenge the source of reverence/divinity/sense of deity. One MIGHT say that 'real God' can co-exist with exploration of a neurological quirk driving the invention of gods and worship activity-- but it's a bit like insisting that that the pretty assistant disappeared into ether via real magic, even as you explore the trapdoor mechanism in the back of the box. It is, after all, POSSIBLE that neither magician nor assistant knew or cared that the trapdoor happenned to be there... --------- Now, Chris, I'm sorry if my choice of words comes off as dismissive-- I was aiming for 'clear and direct', not 'rude' -- but it's hilariously ironic that the devolution to mutual 'You are not capable of carrying on this conversation.' happened that fast, even between folks who are attempting to do it. Was that-- one sentence each for us both to have given, and taken offense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 So let me get this straight, you admit to knowing very little about evolution, but still feel qualified to declare it insufficient for some vague properties of life. I admit to nothing of the sort. I said I'm not an expert NOT that I know "very little". In your last two posts you've ignored my main point and focussed on some phrase that you didn't like. Come on ToadBrother, you're better than that! My point ws that the atheist/christian non-discussion is characterized by un-necessary polarization on both sides, and that personally, I don't see evolution and Christianity as necessarily contradictory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 Atheists aren't going to turn believers into atheists nor will believers turn atheists to their side so what's the point of even discussing it. It's a complete waste of time. Discussing anything with you is a waste of time. I'm not sure why we bother. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I also find it interesting-disappointing, but interesting and illustrative- that the use of the word 'Darwinian' was not at all communicative-- as in, I used it to have one meaning, and you interpreted it through your own baggage, to give it entirely different implications, priorities, and in the end, meaning, so it became an instant unretrievable digression to nowhere. I meant nothing more than 'driven by survival advantage'. And you replied to it with 'I don't even think that Darwinian notions are entirely wrong....' (Say what?!) Again I ask, "Where is the common ground?" Even our language is rendered gobbledegook by the difference in our world views! 'Being polite and respectful to each other' doesn't overcome that utter failure to grasp the others perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I’m an atheist because of the illogic of religion. It just seems silly (or perhaps cruel) to me to think that somewhere in the vastness of the universe there is a being who created this world, pretty much on a whim, and is using it as some sort of social experiment. “I’m going to make a world and tell everyone on it they have to try their best to please me, but I’m not going to tell them how to do that. I’ll give contradictory and misleading information so that everyone thinks they know what I want, which will cause them all to hate each other and fight in my name every day – which will be really funny because it will be against all the teachings they actually do agree on! And, I will tell them that the few years they have on that planet, and how they spend them, will determine whether they are blessed with happiness or cursed with pain for the rest of eternity. Ok, that was fun… what’s next?” I agree with you. I wouldn't be a Christian if I thought that's what it was about. Of course, that isn’t the only version of religion out there; each person defines their relationship with their personal god in their own way. You have stated you are a Christian; Canadien has stated he/she is a Christian; Mr. Canada has stated he is a Christian. Yet the beliefs you are declaring are so widely divergent, I have to ask… what is a Christian? Whose reality (see poem) would actually please the god you each claim to believe in? How do you know? Excellent points. Of course, if you ask 1000 Christians, you'll probably get 1000 slightly (or very) different viewpoints about what is important in Christianity. Again, if you ask 1000 atheists, you'll find that they also have different views, as well as different grounds for their beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris in KW Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 I also find it interesting-disappointing, but interesting and illustrative- that the use of the word 'Darwinian' was not at all communicative......I meant nothing more than 'driven by survival advantage'. I'm not arguing with your definition -- I agree, that's what it means. Btw, I already responded to ToadBrother's attack of my use of the phrase "Darwinian notion". He didn't like the fact that I called an accepted law of science a "notion". Read my post in reponse to ToadBrother... that was my main point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 You do not see evolution and Christianity as necessarily contradictory. In light of the specific subject proposed-- exploration of an evolutionary source of mans wanton invention of deities-- that's a very VERY cheap copout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted February 5, 2009 Report Share Posted February 5, 2009 You do not see evolution and Christianity as necessarily contradictory.In light of the specific subject proposed-- exploration of an evolutionary source of mans wanton invention of deities-- that's a very VERY cheap copout. I've said this before here but I'll say it again. A billion years is but a second to God. I believe in creationism and I also believe in evolution. You see I believe that evolution was God's tool for creating man as he did in Genesis. God did this so that we would be better able to understand His great works in order to better serve Him. Time and space to God is not the same as we see and measure it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.