Perversion of Liberty

[Daisy]

if you prefer to be dominated by doctrines instead of rational thought, then those people up there are right. However history has clearly shown where christianity rules things go down the crapper therefore I prefer the philosphies of the age of enlightenment that cleaned house with all the christian nonsense and which by the way were the main influence of the founding fathers. Gimme Jefferson and Franklin over a Jay or Madison anytime.

Um... Most Enlightenment thinkers felt that Christianity and reason/science/logic/etc. didn't have to be in conflict, but rather could exist together.

Thinking that The Enlightenment was a 'secularist' period is misinformed.

 

[JewishHobbit]

why is it so damn hard for you people to leave others the **** alone and not try to influence their lives? Get it we don't care about your **** practice what you want but don't try to force us to do the same, cause otherwise you risk civil war.

Sorry, but isn't it you whose been attacking me with all the harsh words this whole time (though granted I've responded a time or two). All I've been doing is defending my beliefs. I guess this all goes back to that hypocrite thing.

And sorry, but your civil war comment is ******ed.

 

[Emrys]

Have you read the quotes or are you too arrogant because you supposedly KNOW they were secularists, etc. and nothing, not even the words from their own lips, can change that?

I have read most of their texts when I did my courses on the "Early Republic" with a butt load of analysis and intertextual comparison with philosphers like Kant, Rousseau etc and the conclusion is, they intended for the US to be a secular state, Peroid.

 

[jaguarr]

Um... Most Enlightenment thinkers felt that Christianity and reason/science/logic/etc. didn't have to be in conflict, but rather could exist together.

Thinking that The Enlightenment was a 'secularist' period is misinformed.

jag

 

[cass]

I have read most of their texts when I did my courses on the "Early Republic" with a butt load of analysis and intertextual comparison with philosphers like Kant, Rousseau etc and the conclusion is, they intended for the US to be a secular state, Peroid.

So yeah, it is arrogance then.

 

[Daisy]

There's a difference - I'm usually provoked, and the target of my confrontation usually asks for it.

From your point of view 'you're provoked' and the target 'asks for it'. Perhaps, however, as others see it, you're exceptionally easily provoked?

 

[jaguarr]

There's a difference - I'm usually provoked, and the target of my confrontation usually asks for it.

How is that any different from what Wilhelm perceived in your comments? I've tried to have civil discussions with you before only to have you resort to trying to make it personal or insulting for no real reason.

jag

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

There's a difference - I'm usually provoked, and the target of my confrontation usually asks for it.

heh, you mean they explicitly say, "Hey lazur! after reading my post, could you respond arrogantly and confrontationally? kthx"
lol, I've never seen that before.

If you mean "They ask for it" in that figurative way? Then, so were you when you said that we don't practice Freedom of Religion.
and, if you think we practice freedon FROM religion...that's weird because I'm confronted with offensive, agressive proseltyzers LITERALLY every single day. No joke, no exaggeration. so, again with the balderdash.

 

[Emrys]

Sorry, but isn't it you whose been attacking me with all the harsh words this whole time (though granted I've responded a time or two). All I've been doing is defending my beliefs. I guess this all goes back to that hypocrite thing.

And sorry, but your civil war comment is ******ed.

Oh I wouldn't mind taking up arms and defending mondernism, against the backward religionism of christians

I'm clearly atheist, secularist and an enemy of every abrahamic religion. I discriminate daily against members of said religions and consider it impossible to live peacefully with them. I would be more than ready to take care of them if they ever tried to codify their religion into law and I would be happiest if they somehow just dissapear from the face of the earth. Make of it what you want

 

[Daisy]

I have read most of their texts when I did my courses on the "Early Republic" with a butt load of analysis and intertextual comparison with philosphers like Kant, Rousseau etc and the conclusion is, they intended for the US to be a secular state, Peroid.

Your conclusion... and perhaps that of your professor.

It's by no means an agreed upon thesis among historians.

 

[Emrys]

So yeah, it is arrogance then.

Consider it what you want most scholars agree with it.

 

[maxwell's demon]

There's a difference - I'm usually provoked, and the target of my confrontation usually asks for it.

lazur? i love ya, but you've there've been NUMEROUS times when your FIRST post in a thread has been inflammatory towards me.
Now maybe you can claim past grievances or something, but come on, give some of us poor liberservatives a second chance, is all i'm sayin'. just like i gave you one, buddy.

edit: woah. everyone seemed to jump on the reply-bandwagon here. sorry i was so late!

 

[jaguarr]

Oh I wouldn't mind taking up arms and defending mondernism, against the backward religionism of christians

I'm clearly atheist, secularist and an enemy of every abrahamic religion. I discriminate daily against members of said religions and consider it impossible to live peacefully with them. I would be more than ready to take care of them if they ever tried to codify their religion into law and I would be happiest if they somehow just dissapear from the face of the earth. Make of it what you want

Then you're simply exasperating the problem rather than helping to solve it, man. (And that's coming from someone who's on your side, I'd like to remind you.)

jag

 

[Addendum]

Oh I wouldn't mind taking up arms and defending mondernism, against the backward religionism of christians

I'm clearly atheist, secularist and an enemy of every abrahamic religion. I discriminate daily against members of said religions and consider it impossible to live peacefully with them. I would be more than ready to take care of them if they ever tried to codify their religion into law and I would be happiest if they somehow just dissapear from the face of the earth. Make of it what you want

The above is an embarrasment to the atheist community and doesn't represent the views of other atheists

 

[Emrys]

Your conclusion... and perhaps that of your professor.

It's by no means an agreed upon thesis among historians.

if you say so*shrugs* I know what I have read from various historians on the topic andnwhat to expect from the texts themselves, fact is, the founding fathers intended for a state build on secular principles even if they believed in a deity.

 

[Emrys]

The above is an embarrasment to the atheist community and doesn't represent the views of other atheists

Of course, it's only my view and my view alone.

I don't speak for other atheists.

 

[Daisy]

Oh I wouldn't mind taking up arms and defending mondernism, against the backward religionism of christians

I'm clearly atheist, secularist and an enemy of every abrahamic religion. I discriminate daily against members of said religions and consider it impossible to live peacefully with them. I would be more than ready to take care of them if they ever tried to codify their religion into law and I would be happiest if they somehow just dissapear from the face of the earth. Make of it what you want

Perhaps we should just lock you and your ilk, and them and their ilk all up in a big stadium and gas you all.

Then the rest of us 'live and let live"-ers can get on with our peaceful work.

 

[JewishHobbit]

The difference is, a guy standing on a bridge, it's plain to see that as far as our perception of reality goes, it's a guy, on a bridge, about to jump off.

But what you're talking about, there is no physical evidence for it at all. You might believe in it, but hey, there are people that believe George Bush is posessed by a reptilian demon from the fourth dimension.*shrug*

I can see your point, but remember that my argument before was about thinking from a christian's mindset to understand their point of view. I can see that from a non-christian's point of view that it is annoying (I'm as annoyed by Jehova's Witnesses and Mormans as anyone, so I can see the point with christians as well), I'm just trying to give you an idea of what it's like in the christian's mindset. In my mind, if a person isn't following christ, it's the equivlent of someone committing suicide... both equal a horrible end result that can be prevented if you can just get to them in time. Now I will say that there is a way to go about it without annoying people, it's just the trick of finding that path.

That's why (and I can't believe you never see this), what I say is true.
There is no real choice if you aren't given any evidence and are just told to believe what you're being told.
The only way it's a fair choice is if God takes everyone to Heaven and then to Hell, and THEN asks them to choose, because then they KNOW it's real. Until then...you say people will go to Hell if they don't believe what you believe. Well so do the Muslims, and the Mormons, and any number of religious people.
So what? People believe a lot of crazy stuff.

And as always, I still think you're just choosing to ignore the evidense that He has given you. It's in the bible, and people talk to you about it constantly on here, let alone out in the real world.

I can see your argument regarding differant faiths and their beliefs, but that's when I say that you stop 'insulting' and 'belittling' religion, and start checking into them. Don't just read the books, but talk to the people. Figure out what the belief has done for them, why was it proven true to them? Don't go in with a negative mindset, because God's not going to reveal himself to you if you don't want him to... and if by chance he does (as ha happened in the past) chances are you either won't recongize it, or will make excuses for it.

See, I won't lie to anyone. I never did the spiritual search because I never felt the need. I became a christian when I was younger and I have been through enough where I know that it's real. To me, there is no question. God's shown me that he is real in a variety of ways, but he doesn't just go do that. It took faith and searching, and then he showed me he was real. Now the doubting guessing game isn't even a part of life.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I think Emrys is a plant from the 700 Club, sent to discredit Atheists and Hedonists.

 

[Emrys]

Then you're simply exasperating the problem rather than helping to solve it, man. (And that's coming from someone who's on your side, I'd like to remind you.)

jag

I know that problem is I believe it has come to a point where it can only be solved with a bang so to speak. There will never be reconcilliation

 

[Daisy]

if you say so*shrugs* I know what I have read from various historians on the topic andnwhat to expect from the texts themselves, fact is, the founding fathers intended for a state build on secular principles even if they believed in a deity.

No, it is not a 'fact'. It's an opinon based on facts.

 

[cass]

Consider it what you want most scholars agree with it.

You've become a true, hypocritical joke in this thread.

 

[Emrys]

Perhaps we should just lock you and your ilk, and them and their ilk all up in a big stadium and gas you all.

Then the rest of us 'live and let live"-ers can get on with our peaceful work.

actually, that would be a good idea

 

[maxwell's demon]

Consider it what you want most scholars agree with it.

and scholars are *known* for their incapacity to see their own group-think failures. question everything, i say. nothing's written in stone.

 

[Emrys]

You've become a true, hypocritical joke in this thread.

I have never said I'm not a hypocrite, but I'm a hypocrite for the other side, call it cosmic balance.