conseguir doblada
It's really simple, they are all fictional characters.Interesting... please reread your own posts where you argue that God does not exist and even compare God to the tooth fairy and Peter Pan asserting God is a faerie tale and doesn't exist to see where I get the impression that a non believer is pushing his non belief upon the believers.
on public lands, put one in your yard, the lawn of the church, at any other privately owned land. How would you feel if the Islamic star and crescent was erected in front of city hall in your town, or on the whitehouse lawn?And non believers want civil laws that push their non belief too. You know... banning nativity scenes and such.
I don't recall a single non-believer telling a theist that they should not believe. Our primary goal is to tell theists to get their religious beliefs, bias, bigotry and hated out of society and primarily out of civil laws that force those beliefs on everyone.If the non believers would stop trying to convince the believers to become non believers and if the believers would stop trying to convince the non believers to believe and both keep their beliefs/non beliefs to themselves then there wouldn't be any divisiveness and religion would not be a threat to mankind.
That is all I'm asking from both sides.
Incorrect. The body of evidence you have leads you to believe that God is a fictional character but you do not have any solid proof God does not exist anymore than the believers have solid proof that God exists. What you both have is faith in the evidence you accept as proof of your belief.It's really simple, they are all fictional characters.Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Interesting... please reread your own posts where you argue that God does not exist and even compare God to the tooth fairy and Peter Pan asserting God is a faerie tale and doesn't exist to see where I get the impression that a non believer is pushing his non belief upon the believers.
Actually here I agree with you with the caveat that ALL symbols of ALL religions should to be equally represented on public lands... none should be excluded just because someone doesn't like to see a certain religion represented.Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
And non believers want civil laws that push their non belief too. You know... banning nativity scenes and such.
on public lands, put one in your yard, the lawn of the church, at any other privately owned land. How would you feel if the Islamic star and crescent was erected in front of city hall in your town, or on the whitehouse lawn?
Reread your own posts arguing that God is a fictional character that to a theist is nonsense to see an argument telling believers to non believe. You do know that while the believer(s) are browbeating you in an effort to get you to believe your arguments against them are also efforts to browbeat them into not believing? And while you complain the believers use a "believe or go to hell" argument you are using the ridicule of God being a faerie tale character argument. Can you not see both arguments are perpetuating the ... "I'm right and you are wrong"... argument that is the core of why religion is a threat to mankind?I don't recall a single non-believer telling a theist that they should not believe. Our primary goal is to tell theists to get their religious beliefs, bias, bigotry and hated out of society and primarily out of civil laws that force those beliefs on everyone.Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
If the non believers would stop trying to convince the believers to become non believers and if the believers would stop trying to convince the non believers to believe and both keep their beliefs/non beliefs to themselves then there wouldn't be any divisiveness and religion would not be a threat to mankind.
That is all I'm asking from both sides.
I can't say that about theists, with their constant believe or go to hell nonsense.
And fighting to get religious beliefs, bias, bigotry, and hatred, out of society (now why would anyone who says no one is telling theists not to believe would want to get religion... OUT OF SOCIETY?) is merely substituting the religious beliefs, bias, bigotry, and hatred for non religious beliefs, bias, bigotry, and hatred. Both, at least to me, are merely different sides of the same coin called... "I'm right and you are wrong."
One more time... and please note I am referring to both sides:
I am not trying to convert anyone, but I do encourage theists to question what they have been taught vs. blind acceptance. That is how people free their mind from religion.If believers would stop trying to convert non believers and non believers would stop trying to convert believers then religion would no longer be a threat to mankind because it isn't religious belief, or the lack thereof, that is the threat.................. it is the zeal, the fervor, and even in some cases fanaticism (like jihad), that is applied by either side trying to convert the other that perpetuates religion being a threat.
Think of how diminishing, demeaning, and insulting it is for a believer to have their religious beliefs referred to in a sexual manner and then tell me you are not contributing to the divisiveness that makes religion a threat to mankind.Think as religion like your wanker, it find to have one, it is find to be proud of it, it is fine to play with it, it is fine to share with those that are willing, BUT when you start swinging it around in public and forcing it on others, they you have crossed the line.
Well since christians don't follow the instructions from their bible about keeping their religion private, it takes some blunt language to impress upon them it should be treated as a private matter. If you see that as diminishing, demeaning or insulting, then you have read more into my statement than what is there.Think of how diminishing, demeaning, and insulting it is for a believer to have their religious beliefs referred to in a sexual manner and then tell me you are not contributing to the divisiveness that makes religion a threat to mankind.
It is precisely this kind of thing that keeps the animosity going...
You need to take that up with Ringo.And then there is Ringo's post #2450 that also keeps the animosity going.
Both sides just continue the same old litany of ... "I'm right and you are wrong." .
Enjoy yourselves.
Personally, I dont see anything wrong with trying to "convert" others to believe what you do. I see little value in a world where we refuse to challenge each other's beliefs or to question our own. Issues arise, though, when people use their contentions as an excuse to be sh*tty to each other.Reread your own posts arguing that God is a fictional character that to a theist is nonsense to see an argument telling believers to non believe. You do know that while the believer(s) are browbeating you in an effort to get you to believe your arguments against them are also efforts to browbeat them into not believing? And while you complain the believers use a "believe or go to hell" argument you are using the ridicule of God being a faerie tale character argument. Can you not see both arguments are perpetuating the ... "I'm right and you are wrong"... argument that is the core of why religion is a threat to mankind?
And fighting to get religious beliefs, bias, bigotry, and hatred, out of society (now why would anyone who says no one is telling theists not to believe would want to get religion... OUT OF SOCIETY?) is merely substituting the religious beliefs, bias, bigotry, and hatred for non religious beliefs, bias, bigotry, and hatred. Both, at least to me, are merely different sides of the same coin called... "I'm right and you are wrong."
One more time... and please note I am referring to both sides:
If believers would stop trying to convert non believers and non believers would stop trying to convert believers then religion would no longer be a threat to mankind because it isn't religious belief, or the lack thereof, that is the threat.................. it is the zeal, the fervor, and even in some cases fanaticism (like jihad), that is applied by either side trying to convert the other that perpetuates religion being a threat.
And then there is Ringo's post #2450 that also keeps the animosity going.
XD: Your statement is part of the problems on here:
"Well since christians don't follow the instructions from their bible about keeping their religion private, it takes some blunt language to impress upon them it should be treated as a private matter. If you see that as diminishing, demeaning or insulting, then you have read more into my statement than what is there."
Here again you are trying to impose your interpretation of the believer's duties upon us. In actuality, the Bible says just the opposite. "And He said to them,"Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16: 15,16.
XD: I am not surprised at your comeback about the Bible being full of contradictions. I have heard that for years and from many sources but I still have not been swayed to give up my belief in God.
XD: I am not surprised at your comeback about the Bible being full of contradictions.