I never heard that before. Do you have a source to back that claim up? Also how would thinking he's divine make him an atheist? I would think that would make him religious.

But assuming this claim of yours is true, what you are saying is that he used a religion to further his evil agenda. This just supports the notion that religion has been one of the primary sources of hatred and violence throughout history.

To be honest this was something from back in my college days, so i'm going to need to go find it again. Contrary to popular belief, I don't have all my gethered knowledge at my finger tips.

Your second point is fairly well played, but we're going to get back into word play here.

If we're going to take Hitlers failed religion (it never really caught on) as "religion." We're going to have to make some huge steps.

Firstly, that religion would now include not just the three world religions and possibly the lesser, remote ones but anyone who claims to be Christ. You can't pick and choose, so now we're going to have to include homeless people, Tom Cruise, anything really.

And then we're going to have to look at how we want to define this use of religion. Because we'd have to agree that hitlers church was just his ideas reinforced as he was now they ultimate being.

religion doesn't seem to work that way.

But as I write I realize we've taken the argument off the path. I never said religion didn't cause major evil acts, and since I believe that they have commited horrible acts, i don't think i ever would make that assertion.

My point is, that people who claim to be atheists are just as likely, if not more likely to think less of religios people than the religious are of atheists. Its within most religions that conversion is a noble act. The idea that conversations need to happen, or in Islams case "reverts", means there is an obvious an accepted idea that all people aren't religious.

Atheists however generally find the idea of God foolish, with everything from mutating common colds to...the holocaust as proof that "if god was real, he wouldn't allow this."

Because atheists are generally more keep-to-themselves, non-grouped creatures, it would be hard to blame them for much since they don't operate in groups.

The religious however do, and its easier to target them because their a unified front.

This almost lends itself to my point, that because their easier to target, they are more often target. I don't know under what situation outside of the O'Reilly factor would atheists be balmmed for anything now that Jerry falwells dead.

Edit: I'm using a different computer at work today and this keyboard sucks, sorry for the out of place lack of captitalization.

No problem. I'd like to read something about that if you get the chance though, sounds fascinating to tell you the truth.

What are these "three world religions" you're referring to? There are certainly more than three world religions out there. And why does something have to have a global presence to count as a religion?

As far as what counts as a religion, I'd go with something along the lines of the dictionary.com definition:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.


Basically anything that fits that definition is something I'd describe as a religion. It's irrelevant if it's practiced by only 15 people in some remote mountain village or if it has a couple billion adherents around the globe, it's still a religion.


Sure it does. How do you think the pyramids got built? How do you think the Catholic church exerted so much power over Europe for so many centuries?

Are you kidding me? Ever notice how often people like to throw the word "godless" around in the direction of people they don't like?

Do you mind if I ask you a personal question? Have you lived in Massachusetts or that general area your whole life? I bring this up because I myself grew up in Mass. and it wasn't until I spent time living in the south and in the midwest that discovered how crazy people in the US can be about their religion and how hostile they can be to non-believers. Up in the northeast people are by-and-large pretty low-key about it, they generally don't try to push their religion down your throat and you never really hear the word "atheist" used with revulsion. That is not the norm throughout the the country though. There's a reason why none of the big wigs in Washington are self-identified atheists. They'd never get elected if they were.

I know my views have already been stated beofre, but I figured I'd state them in my own words. Here goes...

I'm against Prop 8. Which means i'm for *** marriage. No I'm not ***, I just feel that everyone should have the right to marry whoever they want, and however many times, or however many people.

Polygamy or Monogamy, doesn't matter, ***, straight, don't care. Everyone should have the right to a sacred union, no matter who they are, what they stand for, or who they are sleeping with.

I honestly think that it is no ones business but those getting married. government and religion should stay out of it, to a certain extent.

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/61897387

apparently Prince hates *** marrige too.

I didn't know Prince was stupid.

No he's not. He's entitled to his opinion, just as you are...IMO :)

Preferences and orientation aside though, it was proven quite some time ago that AIDS (and other STDs for that matter), are far more prevalant between homosexual coupled-activities than other kinds of couplings due to the anal sex emphasis in the former. Its not good evidence against ***-marriage, but its a common point of argument for those that are against it.

I don't think he's stupid for having an opinion, but rather the manner in which he voiced it.

When people try to break down political philosophy to simplistic terms like they've figured it all out, that generally denotes mental incompetence or laziness.

That's an argument against homosexuality, not gay marriage. Also, anal sex isn't any more likely to lead to infection than regular sex. The cause you're looking for is promiscuity and lack of protection. This is why all those very straight people in Africa are dying from it...:rolleyes:

That's pretty weak argument for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that fact that lesbians have a much lower incidence of HIV than heterosexuals. Then of course that the fact that marriage by it's very nature is about monogamy. STDs don't really get spread around among people who only have one sexual partner.

Words of wisdom about Gay marriage by The Voice of the Soul;


Well, maybe not wisdom, but definitely my own opinion.

I personally think there is no good reason to ban *** marriage, and every argument I've heard against it is ridiculous;

Marriage is a sacred institution; Bull****. If marriage were so sacred, why do we have divorces, adultery, marriages for green card purposes? The Christians need to take the blind fold off and realize nothing is sacred in this world, and a couple of ***s getting married pales insignificant to, say, all the gold diggers in this world with their hands firmly around the balls of some rich bastard.

Legalizing *** marriage give ***s special rights straight people don't have; I read somewhere some guy said that ***s DO have the right to marry... the opposite gender. They have a right to marry, the same right that straight people have, so supposedly there is no discrimination. I'm thinking "This is ****ing stupid." It gets better; He also said by legalizing *** marriage, we would be giving ***s the "special right" to marry people of the same gender. Suppose this is true. It wouldn't be a special right. Straight people would have the same right to marry people of the same sex as well if *** marriage was legalized. Even with that in mind, WHY would that happen? A straight man isn't going to marry another man no sooner than a *** man is going to marry a woman.

*** marriage will create a slippery slope to legalized bestiality, polygamy, and incest; Oh yeah, because when I think of sodomy in wedlock, I think "Y'know what would make this better? A cowboy banging his life partner/horse while his wife/sister is sucking it off." Bestiality won't be legalized because society still looks upon that as animal abuse. Plus, seeing as how an animal can't legally consent to having sex, it still couldn't work. Incest.... y'can't really stop incest, by law or otherwise. It's going to happen whether you legalize *** marriage or not, and yes I think it's disgusting, but I think *** sex is disgusting. My thoughts shouldn't stop other people from doing it.

However, while I think it's wrong for the government to even conceive a ban of *** marriage, doing the opposite would be just as unconstitutional. Forcing the Church to do something that goes against their beliefs, no matter how discriminating it may be, is a violation of their First Amendment rights. In Christianity, homosexuality is a sin, and if they don't want to condone it, who are we to force them to believe as we do? We'd be no better than them. Freedom is a two way street. If a priest or a minister decides on his own to marry two *** people, that's great, but they shouldn't be forced to do it, nor should they be forced to not do it.

As far as civil unions go, the government is obligated to grant ***s this right. The government isn't influenced by a higher supernatural power (or isn't supposed to be), so religion or the freedom of religion doesn't apply.

I would say more, but I must get ready for work.

Gay marriage will create a slippery slope to legalized bestiality, polygamy, and incest.

This is bullshit.

He said as much.
Incidentally, priests would not be forced to do anything against their religion, that would be unconstitutional, what gay people are asking is only for the government to recognize the same rights as they do to hetero couples.

.

What?

To put it back into my subscribed threads...

Bestiality is wrong because it's not consensual, incest and polygamy can be and people should have the right to do so if they choose. Personally I'm not for it, but I don't have the right to tell people how they should feel.

And the fact that you put homosexuality in the same category as bestiality is not just ignorant, it's distasteful.

No, he was quoting Voice of the Soul (who was making an example of why people may be against homosexuality). I have yet to see a person in here against *** marriage, whihc makes me happy :yeah:

yes, which leads me to ask this question:

Why is the word G A Y censored?

Lazy ass admins...:rolleyes:

why was it censored in the first place?

because most of the boards owned by this company aren't filled with such civilized, intellectuals such as ourselves.

ugh, **** those guys...can't the admins remove the censor? I've been on forums owned by this company that have no censors...

which forums were those?

It's pretty silly isn't it? And it makes it difficult to discuss one of the most famous R&B singers of all time, Marvin Asterisk-Asterisk-Asterisk-E.

AFEF, and NarutoMania

silly doesn't even describe the half of it.

It's downright homophobic I tell you!! *hissy fit*

Word. :mad:+:afro:= Pissed off White boy with a 'Fro.

No it isn't.

It doens't seem to be owned by the same people. I went to NarutoMania and from what I've seen its different. I couldn't begin to search for the second one.

The kind of marriage being being discussed with regards to same-sex marriage is. Right now polygamous marriages aren't even entering into the public discourse except as a scare tactic.

Ya know, you are the first person to ever ask that...:D

Hmm...I thought both were owned by VBulletin. Sorry, I was confused.

AFEF is Air Force Enlisted Forums, which is a military forum, naturally.

I was beginning to think that. LOL

they could be, it just doens't appear to be to my eyes.

also, I'd be shocked if the Air Force didn't have their own design team.

Well it's not ran by the Air Force it's ran by AF personel or folks that have been in the Air Force at one time. Some members there aren't even in, just trying to join, or parents of kids who are in or joining.

Why is it a scare tactic to openly embrace love?

A lot of people are scared of polygamy so opponents of same-sex marriage use the mention of it as a scare tactic in their slippery slope arguments.

Please note that I'm not saying I agree with that viewpoint. I'm just saying that in the current national discussion about same-sex marriage, that is context in which polygamy is being brought up.

VBulletin is just a software package that can be bought to run the forums on. I think the site is run by some company called Advameg. Not sure why they would want it though.

it explains the lack of ads and messages saying it needs donations...