The Christian Agenda Continues

This is second time you haven’t answered a simple question BC…why are you refusing to
answer?
Could it be you invoke dead saints as well over Christ himself like Father Foster claims the Italians
do over there and have him a lower priority in place of the saints?

I didn’t claim that about Italian Catholics, Father Foster did! Remember that.

You refused to answer, so I must speculate at this point about YOU practicing necromancy as well because you refused to condemn it…no need to answer now, I got your answer because your continued silence on the simplest of questions
has spoken so loudly now I cannot hear what you’re saying.

[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and as Varq has mentioned even the most ardent atheist ends up idolizing something, somehow, somewhere anyway.

Atheism is a defacto religion. [/quote]

No, it is not. I realize that you’d like it to be, however it remains; calling atheism a religion is laughable.

I idolize many martial artists; football players for that matter as well. That does not however make football and martial arts a “religion” for me.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

The theory or belief that God does not exist.[/quote]

Yep, atheism is a belief system that oftentimes is practiced with religious-like zeal. It is a defacto religion. It just teaches another set of beliefs. It’s nothing special and for all practical purposes it is nothing effectively different other than because of complete lack of belief in God/god/gods it is wholly and woefully devoid of instilling in man any responsibility for his actions except here on earth and except to other men.

Big deal.

[/quote]

I personally do not think Atheism a religion. . The difference is the Mass and organized structures . I think the biggest likeness is the Zeal some atheists exhibit

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
…and as Varq has mentioned even the most ardent atheist ends up idolizing something, somehow, somewhere anyway.

Atheism is a defacto religion. [/quote]

No, it is not. I realize that you’d like it to be, however it remains; calling atheism a religion is laughable.

I idolize many martial artists; football players for that matter as well. That does not however make football and martial arts a “religion” for me.
[/quote]

I have met many sports fans who would wage bloody jihad in support of the San Francisco 49ers, the Oakland Raiders, or the Green Bay Packers.

Don’t forget that “fan” is short for “fanatic”.

In 1969, let us not forget, El Salvador and Honduras actually went to war over soccer. This, I believe, can be put into the category of “religious war”.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In 1969, let us not forget, El Salvador and Honduras actually went to war over soccer. This, I believe, can be put into the category of “religious war”.[/quote]

How do secular causes (immigration/demographics) become religious?!

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In 1969, let us not forget, El Salvador and Honduras actually went to war over soccer. This, I believe, can be put into the category of “religious war”.[/quote]

How do secular causes (immigration/demographics) become religious?![/quote]

The same way ALL secular causes (desire for resources, land and open trade routes) become religious.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
In 1969, let us not forget, El Salvador and Honduras actually went to war over soccer. This, I believe, can be put into the category of “religious war”.[/quote]

How do secular causes (immigration/demographics) become religious?![/quote]

C’mon man, you let that go screaming right over your head.[/quote]

Still is, I guess.

So, a true atheist is a what? A near vegetable, with his only thought being “I don’t believe in gods?” A fan of baseball, despite his atheism, is now a religious man?

I mean, to an atheist, idolatry doesn’t exist. It’s part of “bronze-age mythology.” They can love and pursue money at all costs. Make basketball players and mma fighters into heroic figures. Hold and act on any number of philosophies dealing with distribution of resources. Etc. So long as it doesn’t literally involve belief in a deity.

Edit: It’s like there’s a bible based argument for when an atheist stops being an atheist. Based on a general view of idolatry. “Money is his god!” No, to him it’s just money. He doesn’t believe in any gods. He knows very well that it’s simply a material thing used to trading for material things. The football star? While celebrated, he’s just a guy who’ll eventually get old and be replaced. A completely material creature.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I mean, to an atheist, idolatry doesn’t exist. It’s part of “bronze-age mythology.” They can love and pursue money at all costs. Make basketball players and mma fighters into heroic figures. Hold and act on any number of philosophies dealing with distribution of resources. Etc. So long as it doesn’t literally involve belief in a deity.

Edit: It’s like there’s a bible based argument for when an atheist stops being an atheist. Based on a general view of idolatry. “Money is his god!” No, to him it’s just money. He doesn’t believe in any gods. He knows very well that it’s simply a material thing used to trading for material things. The football star? While celebrated, he’s just a guy who’ll eventually get old and be replaced. A completely material creature. [/quote]
Not all religions are actually defined by beliefs in supernatural deities.

For example many forms of Buddhism don’t really deal with that

BC had a thread about worshipping the golden calf, symbolically, today

Not people actually busting out golden calfs, but being overly concerned with money and not concerned enough about each other

By BC that was considered idolatry… I think Varq would agree. Varq doesn’t care if supposed atheists argue otherwise - there are no atheists, only idolaters. I estimate BC might agree - tho maybe not. In any event Varq isn’t saying anything super cutting edge and insane (no offense Varq)

Major League Faithless Idolator

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

BC had a thread about worshipping the golden calf, symbolically, today

Not people actually busting out golden calfs, but being overly concerned with money and not concerned enough about each other

By BC that was considered idolatry… I think Varq would agree. Varq doesn’t care if supposed atheists argue otherwise - there are no atheists, only idolaters. I estimate BC might agree - tho maybe not. In any event Varq isn’t saying anything super cutting edge and insane (no offense Varq)[/quote]

None taken. Just means I have to start coming up with more cutting-edge, insane shit to post here.

As an aside, I get a chuckle whenever I see our brave Christian Soldiers sporting patches and T-shirts with the English word “infidel” and the Arabic word kafir on them. An infidel, of course, is literally “a person without faith”, or in this case, without religion. The wearer obviously wishes to advertise that he or she is not Muslim, but it is ironic that this is the word, in Latin and English, that has always been used to refer to Muslims and Jews (or anyone else outside canon law) by Christians, typically in the context of “death to the infidel!”

As for kafir, it has been translated “infidel” in English, but its actual meaning is “idolator”. The first enemies of the Muslims were not Christians and Jews, but rather the polytheistic idol worshippers in the Arabian peninsula.

So anyone who wears “infidel” or kafir in their shirt or on a patch is declaring that they are either without religion, or else they worship idols.

As a further aside, what are we to make of the U.S. Marine who wears an “Infidel” T-shirt over his “Semper Fidelis” tattoo? Can one be faithless and always faithful at the same time?

Only if the offspring of Bill Maher and Tammy Faye Baker is walkin’ around somewhere.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, a true atheist is a what? A near vegetable, with his only thought being “I don’t believe in gods?” A fan of baseball, despite his atheism, is now a religious man? [/quote]

Atheists can have any number of thoughts. It’s just that God or gods don’t figure too heavily among them.

You mentioned vegetables. Surely you are aware that some people don’t like broccoli. For whatever reason, broccoli is just something that they do not eat.

I doubt very much that their non-broccoli eating interferes with their daily lives at all. More than likely, they can go an entire day without the thought of broccoli entering their minds.

They may be scientists, taxi drivers, teachers, dockworkers, soldiers, doctors or poets. Their non-eating of broccoli doesn’t impact their morals, their political philosophy, or their philosophy of life in general. By and large, they are not active in promoting non-eating of broccoli. Most do not subscribe to organizations whose aim it is to not eat broccoli. They recognize that some people like broccoli, but hey, whatever.

The only time it becomes an issue is when broccoli lovers try (continually) to get them to try broccoli. “Don’t you know how good broccoli is for you? You have to eat broccoli!”

They will trot out all sorts of nutritional facts and studies, “proving” that not only is broccoli a tasty, nutritious addition to a meal, but also that it is a “superfood” that will provide protection from cancer and any number of horrible diseases. They imply that by not eating broccoli, not only is the non-broccoli eater endangering his life, he is also a bad person.

Still, though, the non-broccoli eater is unconvinced. Perhaps he tried broccoli earlier in his life, and decided that he just would rather eat other things beside broccoli. He wonders why it’s such a big deal.

Here is where the broccoli eaters start to play dirty, though. They will invoke historical non-broccoli eaters in an attempt to demonize non-broccoli eating. “Oh yeah, well George Herbert Walker Bush was a broccoli hater, and he was a terrible president.”

Taking the bait, the non-broccoli eater will whip out his smartphone and point out that broccoli was implicated in salmonella poisoning of 1500 Japanese schoolchildren just two years ago.

This goes back and forth, until the non-broccoli eater lashes out with “well, you know who else liked broccoli? HITLER!!!”

Now, to be fair, there are some assholes out there who make it their business to loudly proclaim their hatred of broccoli. They will get into the faces of the broccoli-eaters and castigate them for no other reason than their eating of broccoli. These, thankfully, are the great minority.

And while it must be admitted that there have been people throughout history who simultaneously did evil things and abstained from eating broccoli, there is no evidence that their non-broccoli-eating was directly responsible for the evil that they did. In fact, a stronger case can be made for the hypothesis that they would have done the exact same thing even if they ate broccoli.

And it is scarcely worth mentioning the fact that statistically, more crimes are committed by broccoli-eaters than by non-broccoli eaters.

Some people like broccoli.

Some people don’t.

It ain’t a big deal unless you make it one.

Oh, and Karado? Just for you:

If you must eat cooked broccoli, be sure to slather it with mustard.

It comes down to people forgetting the foundations for peace, and foundations for tyranny.
Forgeting HISTORY, if you will.

Goodness gracious we have so much to LEARN from in keeping the peace, and avoiding fuckin’
tyranny…Let’s just follow the fuckin’ rules on sustaining what we have, and avoiding what we DON’T
want drawing from History.

Lets cut the mustard, no one here including myself will ever have an original thought
in their fuckin’ lives…we’re just repeating shit in a different venue others have thought about and said
before.
Let’s keep the peace, and live in peace by doing what’s PROVEN to work abeit it’s flaws, and
fuckin’ avoid the other shit that’s been proven NOT to work in maintaining a civility and religious freedom.

[quote]Karado wrote:

Let’s keep the peace, and live in peace by doing what’s PROVEN to work abeit it’s flaws, and
fuckin’ avoid the other shit that’s been proven NOT to work in maintaining a civility and religious freedom.[/quote]

What, specifically, if anything, is your post in reference to? You really need to figure out that quote function.

What “shit” would you say has been “PROVEN” to “work” and what “shit” has been “proven” to “NOT work”?

[quote]Karado wrote:

Lets cut the mustard, no one here including myself will ever have an original thought [/quote]

Just because you have never had an original thought in fifty-one years, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to have one.

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

Not people actually busting out golden calfs, but being overly concerned with money and not concerned enough about each other

[/quote]

But you’re using a religious sentiment!!! You are making a value judgment for atheism, that it doesn’t make. An atheist, is still an atheist, still secular, even if he pursues money at all costs. To him, there is no deity so that idolatry, misplaced worship, may even exist. And yes, he’s still a secularist.

Somehow we’ve ended up describing a real atheist/secularist as a necessarily pacifistic, apolitical, celibate, ascetic.