RicOlie_2

S*7h

S-8h

I presume you mean specific examples?

Because I can give a lot of general ones, and I might be able to find examples of atheists shoving their views down my throat, assuming I can find the comments, but that take some time. They are less publicly active, admittedly, so other than stories like pro-choice activists smuggling jars of crap into a building to dump it on a pro-life convention or something of the sort (they were stopped) there isn't a lot you can find on the news.

I find that agnostics generally only force their pro-choice or pro-gay views on people whereas atheists are more prone to make declarative statements such as "God isn't real" or "Religious people are a bunch of stupid **** and the world would be better of without them" without backing up their views.

I find it sad that writing so much as "God bless" at the end of a comment on an internet article causes a multitude of insults and derogatory comments as well as such declarative statements as I mentioned above. It's a pity that there are so many atheists like that. I'm glad that few people on this forum seem to have that attitude.

Perhaps it isn't so much shoving views down others' throats as attacking views held by other people.

Sorry for the semi-rant. I am not trying to say that atheists and agnostics are bad or anything, just expressing my frustration with people who think they'll convert me to atheism by calling me an immoral idiot.

I'm fine with continuing from there.

Px9e

Me?

EDIT: Sorry if I already asked. ;)

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

...

Islam: Despite what many insist, Islam is certainly not a religion of peace and this is apparent from the Qur'an. I believe in peace (though I think war is necessary sometimes), thus I cannot maintain the ideals of this religion.

...

 You are aware that much from the Qur'an is taken from the bible?
 And regarding this point the bible is as bloody and bloodthirsty as the Qur'an. With both books, it is often more a question of the interpreting priests.

A lot taken from the Bible is warped into a different story or the stories are drawn from different traditions (the latter being just a guess based on what I have read in the Qur'an). A new law of love and peace was given by Christ, so only the Old Testament contains the comparatively violent religion of the Jews/Israelites which was largely due to the way the world was at the time. Their violent behaviour was entirely normal back then. Muslims, at least according to the Qur'an, are still required to kill non-believers.

Also I may add, that inquisition, witch hunting, holy war, and purge the pagan was a catholic invention. Just to mention "Massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy" Night of August the 23rd to August 24th 1572. 

None of which would have been anything but appalling to the members of the early Church. None of those were right, none of those are in accordance with the Catholic religion. Holy wars and massacres are not only allowed in the Qur'an, but are also required.

Oh, not that you think I pick on you, but you seem to be very interesting to discuss with, because, we have both very different sighty, but I would say that we do our best not to insult, but to debate reasons and beliefs.

No worries, I don't feel picked on and I enjoy debating. :)

Personally I am not very religious, so I won'T call anything "god". I would argue, that the things atheists call morality is indeed the same thing as the point poeple of a belief see their god. It is the inner voice wich telling somebody if he is "wrong" or "right".

That has truth in it, but of course I believe that our conscience comes from God, not vice versa.

I really beliefe that Earth with its live on it is just a coincidence, and that we are only a little bit of dust in the whole existence of all. I don't dare to beliefe that we are the most intelligent beeings, also not the most reasonable.

 Though I believe our existence was planned from the beginning, I don't believe we are the most intelligent or reasonable beings. I believe the angels are both more intelligent and more reasonable, and of course that God is infinitely intelligent and reasonable.

I meant insulting people, not making jokes.

I apologize. However, I do think that non-religious in general do cram as much as those who follow a religion.

TV's Frink said:

I can agree with that, if I understood you correctly.  Kinda what the Pope was saying, right?

My wife just reminded my of a (fairly harmless, but still) example of religious cramming.  We have lived in a state where alcohol is sold in the grocery store six days a week, but not on Sundays.  Cram!

 Since your example isn't an example of true Christian spirit, my point still applies. Try to find an example of a true Christian action that you think is truly detrimental to society and bring it here. I can't think of any.

My signature never lies.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

*stuff*

I will just say that non-believer cramming tends to be more inclusive and forgiving in my experience.

 It wouldn't be if Christians (including myself) practiced the spirit of their religion instead of focusing too much on pointless technicalities (relatively pointless, that is).

I'll go back to where you made your error since that gives me a better chance then I have now (I think). Which turn was that? 27?

Oops. I should have used my lance last turn...

I must be missing something... Either that, or you are. Well, I'll see how it goes and hope that I'm not overlooking something obvious.

Nx9g

LOL, what a dumb thread this is!

I think I was pretty bored the night I made it, so I made a thread. :)

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

MrBrown said:

RicOlie_2 said:

Absolutely not. Being black is not a choice.

 So, you say, what you belief is just a choice.

You could stop believing in God and stop being catholic just at the point? Cool... And you just can start believing homosexuality, just equal as being heterosexuality?

What if a job (out of being a priest) wants you to stop living heterosexual acts?

And, to help the employer to see iof the person is of a belief, sexuality or  such thing they don't feel comfortable with, that homosexuals have to wear a rainbow flag, and jews a little star, and islamists a small half-moon, and mormons a little.. uhm.. here I have fo pass, I don't know a fitting symbol important to the mormon belief...

..but, you know.. nothing against these kind of people... it's not to discriminate.. it ius just.. to help normal people see what they are dealing with...

 No, that's not what I mean. I don't think I presented my reasons very well. I think that in a free country, employers should have the right to refuse employment just because they don't like a person. That's all I mean, and I think that the employer in question should be the top dog in the business/organization/other for the rule to qualify. If someone under the head of the business is responsible for employing people, the rule should no longer apply unless the boss also refuses to hire that person. At a certain point even that should be prohibited.

 But this are two kind of socks, and that's the reason, I think the religion and sexuality of a person has nothing to be discussed in a job application discussion:

If the employer doesn't know on this things, and he feels uneasy with the maybe empoyee, this may be a sign, that the applicant may not fit into the business. Thats normally the main reasin for job interviews: testing, if the applicant fits in.

If a employer refuses to give a job to someone, just because he has another religion, which nothing has to do with the job itself, than this is just a kind of "rascism".

In Germany questions like "What sexuality you have?", "What religion you are part of?" and (for female employees) "Are you pregnant?" are illegal in a job interview, to avoid such form of choosing.

On the other hand, I don't go well with the persons saying "If a person from a minority/female and a person from a majority/male apply for a job, and they are almost equal in knowledge (or whatever for the job is needed) the minority/female person should be favoured, to be not a rascist/sexist whatever." Because thus kind of thinking is just the other way around. Its 'almost' the same as "Hey, we white, christian, men are just superior, because we have balls for everything, a cross to carry for the benefit of all and we get a nice tan in the sun." (okay a bit satirical expressed, but maybe you get it.)

There are som cases, where you are not all wrong:

In a (strict) catholic school, a jew, mormon or even a protestant teacher just won't "fit". In a heterosexual, men aiming, strip club, a gay male tabledancer just won't fit.

But in a company, searching a good IT-engeneer, there is no need, to be heterosexual, male and catholic. If the employer has a problem with a female mormon, which may have just perfect abilities for this job, it is the problem of the employer, for be single minded, not the problem of the applicant to be a female mormon.

I don't think it's right in most cases, but I think it should be legal. Just as I don't think making fun of someone is right, I just think it should be legal. If we impose too many restrictions, laws become stricter and stricter and the government gains more and more control over what people can't do.

Another question:

If you had a son, loving him about 15 years, would you really think he is a different person, if he would come out to be homosexual, knowing it about 3 years or so? Would you really see him as a different person? What would you say to him: "No, I am not your father anymore, I can't accept that you.. love male. Stop it! I will not help you with the problems you will have to face, because of single minded persons, like me."

As I have said many times, I have no problem with homosexuals themselves. If I had a son who discovered he was homosexual, I would still love him but I would try to discourage him from beginning any homosexual relationships. Even if he married another guy, I would still love him. It would hurt because it would mean he would have to abandon the Catholic Church, but I would still love him, though it would strain our relationship.

 Now think another way. Lets say your father had been atheist, but in your childhood, you really found your true belief in god. Finding the teachings of the catholic chuch of hope and salvation quite a true into your heart. What do you hope to hear from your father? "Hah! You fool! 'Believing' in what cannot exsist. Out of my house of true knowledge."

 Well, of course I wouldn't want to hear that, and if I were in that father's position, I wouldn't do that. If I were to become an atheist, I would be fine with other people being religious because I think religion is a beautiful thing and I believe that I still would, even if I looked at it from the outside.

Well, I guess the Jawa was the only figure with a vinyl cape that people wouldn't buy due to its price. IIRC, it cost as much as the other figures, so people thought it was more of a rip-off than other, larger characters (of course, I wasn't around back then, so that's just based on what I've read).

Hmmm... I think I'll keep it as it is.

If I haven't changed my mind by the time you come back, then go ahead with your move.

Ah well, no worries. Your error saved my neck, so I'm happy enough about it. :)

B-9g

The pictures are nice to have, but I think they are less helpful for me than they would be for outside viewers since I'm following along with my own program. If anyone else appreciates the pictures, then speak up, because otherwise I'm fine with them only being occasional.

Well, I misjudged you somewhere, so hopefully I make the right choices (for me, not for you ;)) in the next few moves. I don't want a rook running rampage behind my ranks again.

Px8f

P-9f

G-2i

darth_ender said:

I may have figured something out that will make putting pictures up far easier. for these games!  I'll be checking it out between moves :)

 Oh? Share it with me once you get it figured out.

K-1i

L-1h

G-3i