good that i didn't have the time to response earlier else i would have made the mistake to assume that you are intelligent enough to realise that i do not hate religion
1. arguing against unfounded claims is not hatred
2. hatred is a far to obsessive emotion
3. for me atheism is a religion too
4. secular, non-religious or religious people are for me equally god or bad as long as they are not fanatics
5. fanatics are just as bad if they are christian, muslim, hindu, buddhist or whatever

your (and many other fundamentalist christians') problem is to see the world in black and white only, just as those preachers in some westerns who have tattooed love on one fist and hate on the other

but should i be surprised? let me quote from the op of another thread: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=67317285&f=119

“The Conservative syndrome describes a person who attaches particular importance to the respect of tradition, humility, devoutness and moderation as well as to obedience, self-discipline and politeness, social order, family, and national security and has a sense of belonging to and a pride in a group with which he or she identifies. A Conservative person also subscribes to conventional religious beliefs and accepts the mystical, including paranormal, experiences. The same person is likely to be less open to intellectual challenges and will be seen as a responsible “good citizen” at work and in the society whileexpressing rather harsh views toward those outside his or her group.”

This post was edited by brmv on May 15 2013 06:20am

Are you incapable of using your imagination that you cannot know what I'm talking about with that example?
We all have our own 'assessments' don't we?
So you think that it is a good idea not to listen to the warnings? Alrighty then.
You did, congratulations you were correct with something for once.



Then what is it that you oppose then? Or do you just love Satan?

The problems that we have is shared equally, I can say the exact same thing about you brmv about 'seeing the world in black and white only.' It is a two way implication.
I am not surprised at all. Let me quote from the second post of that same thread. http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=67317285&f=119&p=451577045

my guess is that you were looking into a mirror when you saw that post

Did you know that satan is not one to be taken lightly? The trick he uses on you is to think that God isn't real and that he himself isn't real. He wants you to live only for this world. By living only for this world you have chosen your side and it is against God.

Another trick that satan uses is to make you believe that everything is okay when it isn't. He makes you think that the problem lies on the other end when the problem lies in both our hearts. I can see it, can you?

Oh please, how can I be looking into a mirror when I have a screen to look at which is where my focus lies?

The claim appears to be "all non-religious people never do good," so I'd like some backing for this. It appears to me rather ridiculous, but you make the claim, so I would like to understand how you justify it in the face of examples of the non-religious doing good. For example, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet aren't religious, but gives billion of dollars to charity, Doctors Without Borders is secular and it does great things.

To justify it, it would need to be possible to show that these aren't truly counterexamples, I suppose either one would need to argue they're not really good because of ulterior motives or that the conventional notion that humanitarianism is good is wrong, but in a general enough manner to handle any non-religious people doing humanitarian aid (we can limit it to humanitarian aid to set some constraints on what could otherwise be a very unwieldy conversation, and it seems the type of thing that a vast majority of humans would agree that they're good in natur).



Firstly, I don't understand why an exemplar is necessary to give the teachings validity, and I think that it's not, but there are some with which I'm familiar enough to discuss.

There's the Buddha in Buddhism, and Confucius, though Buddhism is rarely considered a religion by its adherents and Confucianism almost never is. The Buddha is supposed to have lived his teachings once he figured out what they would be, traveling from city to city teaching peace to both hostile and accepting audiences without offering any aggression in response to adversity or toward those who became enemies.

There's also the purely philosophical argumentation of Socrates, who isn't known as far as I know of harming folks. I suppose Zoroaster is meant to be an exemplar, I know he's meant to be a prophet, though most of the story of his life from the scriptures has been lost to history, but the idea that he traveled around teaching to hostile and accepting audiences is common is said to be true by a known summary of the lost scripture.

I of course take all of these stories with the same grain of salt that I take any ancient texts (religious or non -- e.g. the Republic being all direct quotes of Socrates), but I don't think the truth of the stories is particularly important, as I'm not claiming any of them to be true nor building my valuation of them on any such basis -- the teachings are the important part for me.

This post was edited by N1ccolo on May 15 2013 10:59pm

I'm sorry and want to apologize for Christians who seem all morally authoritative. Paul recommends that Christians should judge those inside the church, while God judges those outside the church.

From what you said about post-modernism being discredited, I think you have underestimated the worldview entirely. Even if philosophers reject the claim of post-modernism and its ideas, those who are affected by post-modernism will reject those philosophical criticisms! Post-modernism is already engrained in our next generation of youth, with the notion of "if it feels good do it", "YOLO", and movies like "memento" (what lies do you purposely tell yourself).

I want to ask you, read people's responses all over these forums and try to identify the pre-modernism, modernism, and post-modernism found in the underlying tone and theme of their content. Post-modernism is everywhere.

Hating religion doesn't make you a troll

from my understanding you are 'complaining' about something which occurs 'cyclical', social history has many examples
- the early secular theatre in the german language area (fastnachtsspiele) tried to give comic relief before the pre-easter fast started and in crudeness could well be compared with shows like 'californication', 'sex in the city', 'jersey shore' or even worse
- in the baroque period males and females were bathing naked in oversized barrels in town squares and similar public spaces
- from the 17th and 18th century there is plenty documentation that after attending sunday church the youth vanish into the bushes while the rest marched into the pub
there have always been periods which were quite 'puritan' followed by those with 'loose' morals and then repeating the cycle, often reverse trends have been experienced in different parts of the world
what does make the news and/or dominates (social) media? how much do you hear about 'solid' morals in xyz-country?
is there (or rather has there been in the recent decades) an upswing of what could be considered 'poor' morals, certainly
what are the reasons? several, but rather economical and technical ones than philosophical ones - to discuss that in detail does not fit into this thread

This post was edited by brmv on May 16 2013 02:54am

stop trolling.