Turning the other cheek is for the weak. An eye for an eye is the way to go.

I learned that from atheists, too.

If you're going to cram history and guilt by association down the other side's throat you better be sure your side's clear.

It seems to me atheists spend a good part of their time on this board over extending incidents to indict all theists.

It's like attributing a war crime to a whole race of people. That's usually much too wide in scope. You're suppose to indict the actual war criminals. But clearly you're not doing that you're intent is to brand all religions as in the wrong but particularly Christianity because it's a greater threat than others because it's so close to home. That's why you run these articles dredging up old scandals and new controversies all the time. You want to make sure these wounds stay open so people can continue to hold their grudges.

A reality check is vengeful, huh?

Christians are suppose to be eternally penitent for rogue Christians activities but atheists get to turn a blind eye to what atheists have done in this world?

I feel so sad because I know there is no remedy in her religion for what is compelling her to express this way.

I would like to see evidence that atheists bring up (non-biblical) atrocities more than theists.

Then go look for it.

You've only got hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of posts to review.

The are certain unifying characteristics under which Christianity operates, while there are no such characteristics for which atheists necessarily agree save for a lack of belief in any deities. Not that I am saying you need to be eternally penitent for Christianity Gone Wild!!, but certainly there is even less reason for me to care about what some other atheistic person did when there is even less unifying our worldview than your average random Christians.

You're the one who's making the claim (again).

From my pov atheism actually could be considerably more dangerous than Christianity as there don't seem to be any permanent checks and balances in it to keep it from going to extremes. It could be a lot more vulnerable and swifter to respond to societal/economic changes and pressures than a system with clearly articulated rules that it has to observe. It seems to me politically safer when changes are slower and gradual because it's hard to take back something once it's been implemented by the government. Social rules and conventions also check the government's ability to act in a totalitarian fashion and makes them more responsive to the people they govern.

What checks and balances? Remember, we all get to go to heaven. Yay!

I'm referring to politics and society not heaven.

Revolutions happen when you start throwing out the rules and there's usually a lot of lives lost and permanent changes when they occur. There's a massive change in any society they occur in.

The way you do it is sometimes an eye for an eye. Many times when you are called out on attacking and generalizing atheists you fall back on... well you atheists did it first. You just did this itt and your post before this one if you need examples.

Basically what you are saying is atheists committed a wrong (calling theists delusional) and you are going to commit the same wrong.


Now personally i dont have a problem with what you are doing. I do it myself. But i dont follow Jesus and think turning the other cheek is good sometimes and sometimes its not.

I dont think atheists should turn a blind eye to what they have done in this world. Its inevitable atheists have harmed theists because they were theists and have no problem with you pointing out the dust in there eye. But again i disagree with Jesus and think we should all point at each others dust, sometimes.

Politically, what rules do theists have that atheists do not?

None of what you say has anything to do with atheism. In fact, I can't even understand why the hell you brought any of this up as it is in no way, shape, or form a response to anything in my previous comment. It is perfectly clear that a government should have clearly articulated rules and that they should be arranged such that response to societal/economic concerns is swift and effective. Et cetera ad naseum.

However, as I stated above, this has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism means just one solitary thing, not any of the other baggage you saddle it with.

edit: meh meh meh.

...

"If they did it. They did it. I even remember the name of the first atheist I heard these concepts from. Atheists do like their little side chatter on here, y'know. I didn't know what they were talking about but I looked it up and cognitive dissonance isn't limited to theists alone. But I think he was mistaken. My mind's so broad on certain subjects that I'd probably be one of the last people in the world to have to worry about cognitive dissonance."

It shouldn't matter that they swing first if you are turning the other cheek.


"I usually don't use the word delusion. I don't tend to classify people as delusional. Though I do think theism is more realistic. We don't have as much philosophical hypothesizing to affect the way we think. We have a narrower parameter of ideas outlined by the bible. We don't swing as wide in our thinking as the rest of the world so we can't swing into fantasy so I don't know how theists can be the less realistic ones. "

This isnt true. Theists and even Christians have a wide verity of thoughts. If there are truths on those thoughts, then some of those thoughts must be going into fantasy land...

'Yeah well there's an apologetics dimension on here. Most people won't let sleeping dogs lie so if they want to go there I'm going to tell them the truth as I see it."

I dont think sleeping dogs should lie. The wrongs of the past should be pointed out and looked at.


"Yeah, I knew you'd be honest about that. You're a realist about people.

I'm not so sure Jesus said we couldn't point things out. Paul told Christians to correct one another. I think it just sticks in people's minds that Jesus particularly mentioned getting the beam out of your own eye before taking on anyone else's. I try to do that but that's not something people know that you do. It's a private activity that requires self reflection. "


Alright, your taking enough heat itt so ill let sleeping dogs lie. No big deal if you do or do not go OT on peoples asses.

All religions lead to a human being writing down his/hers/another human's belief(s).

Most religions cross over at some point. I was brought up a Christian, but seemed to be drawn to more the Hindu faiths as they seemed to answer more of the questions I was asking.

But it's interesting to see the similarities between religions. Even religions which seem so far about such as Christianity and Hinduism.

But personally I believe in one god/god head/creator or what ever you want to call him. Although I do believe that God is far different from what the average Joe thinks God is. But I do continue to try and find answers.

But honestly, no one knows.

Well for one thing theists are enjoined to be law abiding in the NT.

But if you look at some of the proponents of revolutions you'll see that they frequently see violence or promote it as a means to an end. They are trying to disestablish the social order and to do that they have to overturn the current authorities or rules of law established over them so they can put themselves in the driver's seat.

Iirc Che Guevara was all in favor of nuking the United States. Bakunin was also quite a blood thirsty chap.

Start reading up on revolutions. Their object is the re-structuring of the state but before they do that they have to dismantle it.

Again though, this happens whether or not the revolution is coming from a theist or non-theist. The nature of the 'dismantling' will depend on the nature of the revolution.

I don't know what this response means.

Have you ever taken a course on revolution?

In other words, the methodology that a theist uses toward revolution will not be unlike the method an atheist uses. (This was in response to your claim that theists are "enjoined to be law abiding in the NT")

I suggest you take a course or at least read a book on revolution before you go any further.

^^ lol. I'm quite sure we would come to different conclusions assuming the same courses.