Enterprise-D,
One aspect of sectarianism, according to your source is; excess of partisan or denominational zeal;. One aspect of 'denomination according to the same source is; A name or designation, especially for a class or group.. So technically you are sectarian because you are part of a group (atheism, secular humanism) who discriminate against another group, most notebly christians.
Here, take your pick,
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/athlinks.htm
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/links.htm
You're "telling me" is your opinion, and your opinion is based on the logic; I cannot see God with my own eyes, therefore God does not exist.
In order for it to be effective you must show me where I am looking for such answers, especially as I have repeatedly denied such actions, and repeatedly explained why there is no need of such actions.
Again, this is a wild claim with no basis in reality.
Using the same source, religion is defined as;
In what way does 'religion' encourage people to accept god as the ultimate answer and not challenge the bible etc....
*sigh*
Another wild claim based on personal, emotional, bias. For someone who has analysed 'religion' since the age of 17, till now (22 i believe), you sure show signs of not having analysed relgiion. The "vita" is spelled "gita", and the subject of the "gita" is a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna.
To ask how you come to the conclusion that it is "clearly indicative of assimilated group mentality", I believe would be a complete waste of time.
Oh! go on then.
How did you?
Based on the definition of 'religion' from YOUR source, demonstrate this idiotic claim.
It ceases to become a debate when your details are not only grossly inacurate, but based on personal bias. Religious scripture plays a dominant role in the life of a practioner. Their day to day understanding of their religion is compounded by the scipture.
If you have a phobia regarding scripture, that is not my problem.
Then lets have a working definition of 'religion', rather than some emotional ramblings of someone who personally doesn't like religion, to work with.
The religion in question is, if I'm not mistaken NT based, and if you are against the religion, then you must give good reasoning, otherwise you are nothing but a blind show-boater performing for the entertainment of blind people.
Your logic is incredibly simple by adult human standards. It says I cannot see god with my own eyes, therefore god does not exist". It is the only logic a fanatical atheist like yourself can have. You tried unsuccessfully to multiply your logic by asking 'why should this being be worshiped', or words to that effect. Then later on you imply that God is only an 'imaginary being', basically meaning, God does not exist. Why doesn't God exist? Because you have not seen him with your own eyes. Can you see how foolish that is.
There was no mention of 'law' in SL's rant, it was all based on his dislike of religion. I got the feeling that even if it was in his daughters best interest, due to his anti-religious fervour, and ignorance of actual religion, he would still rant. As far as the schools reaction being "morally questionable", I would need to know more about the schools practice, rather than take your emotional word on it. No offence.
If the school is working against the law, then do something about.
If the school is not breaking the law, but SL feels there has been an infringement of his human rights, then campaign. There are enough bodies doing this as we speak.
Outside of that, there is nothing to talk of apart from his and your anti-religous rantings, because, lets be honest, that's what this is about.
You are highly ignorant of 'religion' even by the standard of definition defined by your source. If you want to debate religion you have to be prepared to use scripture. In your case it helps, because it may just increase your understanding. Otherwise we can say what we like, and come to no conclusion.
Try and get this into your head. This is not a matter of law, but of personal preference.
Then what you are saying is that they should stop their practice, so what about the folks that think it is a good thing?
Again; The only logic you have is 'God does not exist, because I have not seen him with my own eyes'. But to be fair, it is a form of logic, albeit a lazy use of adult intelligence, imo, and as such I cannot argue with you, in the same way one cannot argue with a child who chats nonsense.
So I happily hand the goblet of victory to you.
Earlier you said something to the effect of ; notice when people shed themselves of religious thought, how they think the same. This is true, and the reason is because they realise their position is foolish and need constant reasurance from like-minds, to keep them going.
The theists on this board are individuals, they have come to their conclusion based on experience, intelligence, and thought. They may or may not agree with my take on religion, and I may not agree with theirs, but I doubt very much that they need to offer me support, especially when my opponents logic is so simple.
Jan.
One aspect of sectarianism, according to your source is; excess of partisan or denominational zeal;. One aspect of 'denomination according to the same source is; A name or designation, especially for a class or group.. So technically you are sectarian because you are part of a group (atheism, secular humanism) who discriminate against another group, most notebly christians.
Here, take your pick,
http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/atheism/athlinks.htm
http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/links.htm
You're "telling me" is your opinion, and your opinion is based on the logic; I cannot see God with my own eyes, therefore God does not exist.
In order for it to be effective you must show me where I am looking for such answers, especially as I have repeatedly denied such actions, and repeatedly explained why there is no need of such actions.
Again, this is a wild claim with no basis in reality.
Using the same source, religion is defined as;
In what way does 'religion' encourage people to accept god as the ultimate answer and not challenge the bible etc....
*sigh*
Another wild claim based on personal, emotional, bias. For someone who has analysed 'religion' since the age of 17, till now (22 i believe), you sure show signs of not having analysed relgiion. The "vita" is spelled "gita", and the subject of the "gita" is a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna.
To ask how you come to the conclusion that it is "clearly indicative of assimilated group mentality", I believe would be a complete waste of time.
Oh! go on then.How did you?
Based on the definition of 'religion' from YOUR source, demonstrate this idiotic claim.
It ceases to become a debate when your details are not only grossly inacurate, but based on personal bias. Religious scripture plays a dominant role in the life of a practioner. Their day to day understanding of their religion is compounded by the scipture.
If you have a phobia regarding scripture, that is not my problem.
Then lets have a working definition of 'religion', rather than some emotional ramblings of someone who personally doesn't like religion, to work with.
The religion in question is, if I'm not mistaken NT based, and if you are against the religion, then you must give good reasoning, otherwise you are nothing but a blind show-boater performing for the entertainment of blind people.
Your logic is incredibly simple by adult human standards. It says I cannot see god with my own eyes, therefore god does not exist". It is the only logic a fanatical atheist like yourself can have. You tried unsuccessfully to multiply your logic by asking 'why should this being be worshiped', or words to that effect. Then later on you imply that God is only an 'imaginary being', basically meaning, God does not exist. Why doesn't God exist? Because you have not seen him with your own eyes. Can you see how foolish that is.
There was no mention of 'law' in SL's rant, it was all based on his dislike of religion. I got the feeling that even if it was in his daughters best interest, due to his anti-religious fervour, and ignorance of actual religion, he would still rant. As far as the schools reaction being "morally questionable", I would need to know more about the schools practice, rather than take your emotional word on it. No offence.
If the school is working against the law, then do something about.
If the school is not breaking the law, but SL feels there has been an infringement of his human rights, then campaign. There are enough bodies doing this as we speak.
Outside of that, there is nothing to talk of apart from his and your anti-religous rantings, because, lets be honest, that's what this is about.
You are highly ignorant of 'religion' even by the standard of definition defined by your source. If you want to debate religion you have to be prepared to use scripture. In your case it helps, because it may just increase your understanding. Otherwise we can say what we like, and come to no conclusion.
Try and get this into your head. This is not a matter of law, but of personal preference.
Then what you are saying is that they should stop their practice, so what about the folks that think it is a good thing?
Again; The only logic you have is 'God does not exist, because I have not seen him with my own eyes'. But to be fair, it is a form of logic, albeit a lazy use of adult intelligence, imo, and as such I cannot argue with you, in the same way one cannot argue with a child who chats nonsense.
So I happily hand the goblet of victory to you.
Earlier you said something to the effect of ; notice when people shed themselves of religious thought, how they think the same. This is true, and the reason is because they realise their position is foolish and need constant reasurance from like-minds, to keep them going.
The theists on this board are individuals, they have come to their conclusion based on experience, intelligence, and thought. They may or may not agree with my take on religion, and I may not agree with theirs, but I doubt very much that they need to offer me support, especially when my opponents logic is so simple.
Jan.
Last edited:
