Secularism: Good or Bad?

[Asterdan]

Oh, you're definitely right. The existence of an imaginary sky being is preposterous, laughable even.

I am yet to see any other religion that actually makes sense with science. Bigots and the close-minded often claim that this isn't true (these would be the Atheists and the Fundamentalist Christians), and it's almost impossible to change either's mind.

Indeed I am a bigot and I know it but still you didn't answer my question did you...

You missed my edit. Anti-Theists are on the same level as Fundamentalist Christians. Atheists who don't really care are not.

You asked me to explain, and I did with one sentence. Here, I'll bold, italicize and underline it for you.

If a religion doesn't make sense with science, then it can't be true. Thankfully Christianity does.

[Communist Volkstrad]

A lie about what that the imaginary sky being doesn't exist?

Your sig says your a christian good for you now explain to me why your god exists and not Allah or any other god or pantheon.

Oh, you're definitely right. The existence of an imaginary sky being is preposterous, laughable even.

I am yet to see any other religion that actually makes sense with science. Bigots and the close-minded often claim that this isn't true (these would be the Atheists [especially the Anti-Theists] and the Fundamentalist Christians), and it's almost impossible to change either's mind.

If you could actually prove it with science, then you could change my mind. But you can't prove the existence of any deity, which is why I don't believe it.

[CTALNH]

Indeed I am a bigot and I know it but still you didn't answer my question did you...

You missed my edit. Anti-Theists are on the same level as Fundamentalist Christians. Atheists who don't really care are not.

You asked me to explain, and I did with one sentence. Here, I'll bold, italicize and underline it for you.

If a religion doesn't make sense with science, then it can't be true. Thankfully Christianity does.

Listen here I am a bigotic Atheist and do not claim to be above morally at least the fundamentalist Christians.

And lastly I am not asking you about which religions can handle science in which case I tell you none can but do other gods exist except yours?

[Communist Volkstrad]

Indeed I am a bigot and I know it but still you didn't answer my question did you...

You missed my edit. Anti-Theists are on the same level as Fundamentalist Christians. Atheists who don't really care are not.

You asked me to explain, and I did with one sentence. Here, I'll bold, italicize and underline it for you.

If a religion doesn't make sense with science, then it can't be true. Thankfully Christianity does.

Yes, turning water into wine, all the thousands of problems with Noah's Ark, the statements that the Earth is flat etc....
Yep, makes since and totally fits in with modern science.

[CTALNH]

You missed my edit. Anti-Theists are on the same level as Fundamentalist Christians. Atheists who don't really care are not.

You asked me to explain, and I did with one sentence. Here, I'll bold, italicize and underline it for you.

If a religion doesn't make sense with science, then it can't be true. Thankfully Christianity does.

Yes, turning water into wine, all the thousands of problems with Noah's Ark, the statements that the Earth is flat etc....
Yep, makes since and totally fits in with modern science.

50 bucks he says those were allegories with special meanings.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Yes, turning water into wine, all the thousands of problems with Noah's Ark, the statements that the Earth is flat etc....
Yep, makes since and totally fits in with modern science.

50 bucks he says those were allegories with special meanings.

Yep. I'll put 50 bucks down on that too.

[Herrebrugh]

10/10 would seperate church and state again.

[CTALNH]

10/10 would seperate church and state again.

[Asterdan]

You missed my edit. Anti-Theists are on the same level as Fundamentalist Christians. Atheists who don't really care are not.

You asked me to explain, and I did with one sentence. Here, I'll bold, italicize and underline it for you.

If a religion doesn't make sense with science, then it can't be true. Thankfully Christianity does.

Listen here I am a bigotic Atheist and do not claim to be above morally at least the fundamentalist Christians.

And lastly I am not asking you about which religions can handle science in which case I tell you none can but do other gods exist except yours?

Because other deities/gods are not compatible with science. As I said, if they are not compatible with science then they cannot exist. The Christian God, as well as his teachings, are compatible with science, unless you read it completely literally like Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians do (which is quite funny). Once you recognize the beautiful and figurative language, you realize that it's simply describing everything in a manner that early men could understand it.

Now, you're asking why the Christian God exists and others don't. I have already explained it. If a deity is not compatible with science, they cannot exist. If a deity can, which as far as I can see only the Christian God does, then it is theoretically possible for it to exist. Once you start feeling the touch of the Christian God, it becomes more and more obvious that He is real.

[Norstal]

Pedantism creates red-herring. You defended an argument that we should abolish secularism because:

1. Christianity and Islam is widespread
2. Religion civilizes

And I already said that the first is nonsense since, again, much of Asia was fine without those two religions. The second is about the stability of states. If you truly believe that these religions "civilizes," such violence would not occur where the religion exists.

Of course, you can keep up with your criticism of my and other posters' choice of words. If you do, then I shall dismiss your posts whenever you make spelling mistakes.

Oh you misspelled "must've."

Feel free. Its cute when you rant about nonsense.

I'm not the one who goes into an anti-state diatribe every few days.

[Asterdan]

I'm posting this in a different reply so my edit is not missed:

Back to the topic at hand, is Secularism good or bad. Overall, the benefits of secularism are greater than the drawbacks.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Listen here I am a bigotic Atheist and do not claim to be above morally at least the fundamentalist Christians.

And lastly I am not asking you about which religions can handle science in which case I tell you none can but do other gods exist except yours?

Because other deities/gods are not compatible with science. As I said, if they are not compatible with science then they cannot exist. The Christian God, as well as his teachings, are compatible with science, unless you read it completely literally like Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians do (which is quite funny). Once you recognize the beautiful and figurative language, you realize that it's simply describing everything in a manner that early men could understand it.

Now, you're asking why the Christian God exists and others don't. I have already explained it. If a deity is not compatible with science, they cannot exist. If a deity can, which as far as I can see only the Christian God does, then it is theoretically possible for it to exist. Once you start feeling the touch of the Christian God, it becomes more and more obvious that He is real.

So if Christianity is not to be taken literally, why can't Norse Paganism be taken figuratively too? Seems rather hypocritical to say "Oh don't take my religion seriously, look at it figuratively. But all those other ones? Definitely take them literally, 100%. Since you are to take them literally, then they are not compatible with science. However, since you are to take mine figuratively, then yeah we're good totally compatible."

[CTALNH]

Listen here I am a bigotic Atheist and do not claim to be above morally at least the fundamentalist Christians.

And lastly I am not asking you about which religions can handle science in which case I tell you none can but do other gods exist except yours?

Because other deities/gods are not compatible with science. As I said, if they are not compatible with science then they cannot exist. The Christian God, as well as his teachings, are compatible with science, unless you read it completely literally like Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians do (which is quite funny). Once you recognize the beautiful and figurative language, you realize that it's simply describing everything in a manner that early men could understand it.

Now, you're asking why the Christian God exists and others don't. I have already explained it. If a deity is not compatible with science, they cannot exist. If a deity can, which as far as I can see only the Christian God does, then it is theoretically possible for it to exist. Once you start feeling the touch of the Christian God, it becomes more and more obvious that He is real.

Are you kidding me the christian god is the most incompatible with science above all else.

The first fucking thing god told man is not fucking eat apples from the fucking tree of knowledge so don't fucking bullshit me with your cultist shenanigans and that Christianity supports science.

[Norstal]

Listen here I am a bigotic Atheist and do not claim to be above morally at least the fundamentalist Christians.

And lastly I am not asking you about which religions can handle science in which case I tell you none can but do other gods exist except yours?

Because other deities/gods are not compatible with science. As I said, if they are not compatible with science then they cannot exist. The Christian God, as well as his teachings, are compatible with science, unless you read it completely literally like Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians do (which is quite funny). Once you recognize the beautiful and figurative language, you realize that it's simply describing everything in a manner that early men could understand it.

Now, you're asking why the Christian God exists and others don't. I have already explained it. If a deity is not compatible with science, they cannot exist. If a deity can, which as far as I can see only the Christian God does, then it is theoretically possible for it to exist. Once you start feeling the touch of the Christian God, it becomes more and more obvious that He is real.

So East Asia, which does not have a Christian majority, are not technological backwaters why? Do explain that. You did said other religions besides Christianity.

[Asterdan]

Because other deities/gods are not compatible with science. As I said, if they are not compatible with science then they cannot exist. The Christian God, as well as his teachings, are compatible with science, unless you read it completely literally like Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians do (which is quite funny). Once you recognize the beautiful and figurative language, you realize that it's simply describing everything in a manner that early men could understand it.

Now, you're asking why the Christian God exists and others don't. I have already explained it. If a deity is not compatible with science, they cannot exist. If a deity can, which as far as I can see only the Christian God does, then it is theoretically possible for it to exist. Once you start feeling the touch of the Christian God, it becomes more and more obvious that He is real.

So if Christianity is not to be taken literally, why can't Norse Paganism be taken figuratively too? Seems rather hypocritical to say "Oh don't take my religion seriously, look at it figuratively. But all those other ones? Definitely take them literally, 100%. Since you are to take them literally, then they are not compatible with science. However, since you are to take mine figuratively, then yeah we're good totally compatible."

Because I've looked at them figuratively as well, and it still doesn't make sense. Also, I'm not saying Christianity is not to be taken literally, quite the opposite. I'm saying that the language in the Bible is figurative, in order to explain complicated subjects, such as creation, in a way the ancient Hebrews could understand. The rules (the Ten Commandments, Jesus' Commandements [love thy neighbor, etc.]) are literal. Sin is sin, it was sin then and it's still sin now.

As I said, the figurative language was used to explain complicated subjects like creation, evolution, etc. so early Hebrews could understand it. I'm pretty sure you were misinterpreting what I was saying.

[Asterdan]

Because other deities/gods are not compatible with science. As I said, if they are not compatible with science then they cannot exist. The Christian God, as well as his teachings, are compatible with science, unless you read it completely literally like Atheists and Fundamentalist Christians do (which is quite funny). Once you recognize the beautiful and figurative language, you realize that it's simply describing everything in a manner that early men could understand it.

Now, you're asking why the Christian God exists and others don't. I have already explained it. If a deity is not compatible with science, they cannot exist. If a deity can, which as far as I can see only the Christian God does, then it is theoretically possible for it to exist. Once you start feeling the touch of the Christian God, it becomes more and more obvious that He is real.

So East Asia, which does not have a Christian majority, are not technological backwaters why? Do explain that. You did said other religions besides Christianity.

Most are Buddhists, correct? That is an atheistic religion. You don't need to believe in a deity to understand science, and just because the basic beliefs aren't compatible, doesn't mean the people have to reject science.

[Communist Volkstrad]

So if Christianity is not to be taken literally, why can't Norse Paganism be taken figuratively too? Seems rather hypocritical to say "Oh don't take my religion seriously, look at it figuratively. But all those other ones? Definitely take them literally, 100%. Since you are to take them literally, then they are not compatible with science. However, since you are to take mine figuratively, then yeah we're good totally compatible."

Because I've looked at them figuratively as well, and it still doesn't make sense. Also, I'm not saying Christianity is not to be taken literally, quite the opposite. I'm saying that the language in the Bible is figurative, in order to explain complicated subjects, such as creation, in a way the ancient Hebrews could understand. The rules (the Ten Commandments, Jesus' Commandements [love thy neighbor, etc.]) are literal. Sin is sin, it was sin then and it's still sin now.

As I said, the figurative language was used to explain complicated subjects like creation, evolution, etc. so early Hebrews could understand it. I'm pretty sure you were misinterpreting what I was saying.

Oh, so you're just saying the parts that are hard to explain, what with all our modern science and technology and all making taking that literally impossible, are to be taken figuratively. Riiiiiight.

[Asterdan]

Because I've looked at them figuratively as well, and it still doesn't make sense. Also, I'm not saying Christianity is not to be taken literally, quite the opposite. I'm saying that the language in the Bible is figurative, in order to explain complicated subjects, such as creation, in a way the ancient Hebrews could understand. The rules (the Ten Commandments, Jesus' Commandements [love thy neighbor, etc.]) are literal. Sin is sin, it was sin then and it's still sin now.

As I said, the figurative language was used to explain complicated subjects like creation, evolution, etc. so early Hebrews could understand it. I'm pretty sure you were misinterpreting what I was saying.

Oh, so you're just saying the parts that are hard to explain, what with all our modern science and technology and all making taking that literally impossible, are to be taken figuratively. Riiiiiight.

Again, I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting.

[Harpers Ferry]

So East Asia, which does not have a Christian majority, are not technological backwaters why? Do explain that. You did said other religions besides Christianity.

Most are Buddhists, correct? That is an atheistic religion. You don't need to believe in a deity to understand science, and just because the basic beliefs aren't compatible, doesn't mean the people have to reject science.

And Hindus and even Christians.

[Communist Volkstrad]

Oh, so you're just saying the parts that are hard to explain, what with all our modern science and technology and all making taking that literally impossible, are to be taken figuratively. Riiiiiight.

Again, I'm pretty sure you are misinterpreting.

No, I'm pretty sure you're the one misinterpreting your own text. So, you're telling me that the writers of the Bible were all forward-thinking, and had a knowledge of sciences and concepts that no one at the time had even the barest hint of knowing about? Bullshit.

[Transyl]

Knowing what will eventually happen in the coming pages, I'm hoping I don't regret this...

Secularism is the belief in the seperation of religion and state. Very common in the Western world, this system effectively prevents government from endorsing one religion over another and setting religious laws strictly around public worship.

Secularism has been a controversial subject in the West (well, mainly the US). Secularism has been hailed for the freedom of religion it provides. However, theocrats and the religious attack secularism on philosophical and religious grounds.

I strongly support secularism. Everyone has the freedom to select their faith and live without fear of government intrusion. State churches are a waste of funding and overall, waste state resources.

I strongly agree with you. I don't see why people are against this, but whoever is against it they probably have some personal reasons why they don't.

[Norstal]

So East Asia, which does not have a Christian majority, are not technological backwaters why? Do explain that. You did said other religions besides Christianity.

Most are Buddhists, correct? That is an atheistic religion. You don't need to believe in a deity to understand science, and just because the basic beliefs aren't compatible, doesn't mean the people have to reject science.

No it's not an atheistic religion. At least, not all sects. Some worship the Eternal Buddha and Devas.

[Distruzio]

Feel free. Its cute when you rant about nonsense.

I'm not the one who goes into an anti-state diatribe every few days.

Goes? I havent claimed to be anarchist in years, Norstal. Moreover, what des that have to do with you intentionally misapprehending my comments.

[Grangeco]

This is NOT Christianity V Atheism actually those topics shouldnt be really discussed this forum is about secularism giving people to choose what religion they like and not forcing it upon them basically not caring about other peoples religion.State religion automaticly discriminates against who arent that religion so i am in favor of secularism.

[Norstal]

I'm not the one who goes into an anti-state diatribe every few days.

Goes? I havent claimed to be anarchist in years, Norstal. Moreover, what des that have to do with you intentionally misapprehending my comments.

You don't need to be an anarchist to go off on an anti-state spiel every now and then. And I can say the same for you not understanding my posts. Maybe instead of going on personal attacks and nitpicking my choice of words, you can ask what it is you don't understand?