Sprinkler Systems
Uhaul move
Lawn care
Roses and trees
Ford Parts
Chrysler Parts
Lake Powell
New IPod Touch Apps
New IPhone Apps
IPhone Apps
IPad Information
IPad Apps
Android APPS
Android Games APPS
Android Systems
Android Tablets APPS and Beyond
Smartphone Apps
Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools
Tablet PC
Car Sharing Car Leasing
Tabler Pc
Fly Fishing
Toyota Cars
Vacation Rentals
Stock market
NYSE
SSE Stock
Freight & Shipping News
Gluten
Lactose
Gout
My Coupon Life
Campgrounds Check
Outdoor
Kitchen Design and Redoo
Bath Remodeling
Palm Springs
Las Vegas Vacation Tipps
Lake Powell Boating
Homes for lease
Electric and green Car Blog
Pearls and diamonds
Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App
Renovation Blog
Condo for rent or lease
Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Truck for Sale
Reconstruction Blog
|
Culture & Politics » soc.culture.china » Religion and Atheisms.
| Religion and Atheisms. [message #219252] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 07:40 |
|
In a more enlightened age there will be no such thing as religion,
there will be only two sciences: objective science and subjective
science.....
Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
realities.
Religion also had its downside of course. In a more enlightened age, why do
you need objective science or subjective science, when one already is
enlightened?
One guy told me he doesn't believe in devils, as he believe all these
religions are mere superstitutions.More than 95% of world's populations
somehow have Religion, or they believe in God, gods or demons.
The overwhelm evidence of the existence of God and Demons convince him
otherwise.
Two different men in one weeks time told me they just met with the Devils;
one while almost died in General Hospital and unfortunately crippled for
life, while the other guy in a Hotel saw two Devils came pressing his chest
and appeared before him.
God told the world that Satan came to steal, kill and destroy. But Jesus
came to give life and life abundantly. God reveals that Unrighteousness in
human life will face serious consequences and they will surely be punished
forever and even now for the wrongs done with no escape, while others
believe otherwise.
In this world, do people tell lies? Is there evil in this world? Is there
pain, sufferings and sorrows? Is there injustices? Is there sicknesses and
diseases?
The Bible reveals that present human pain and tortures were a prelude to a
greater pain and sufferings beyond comprehensions. The two Soldiers who were
tortured and mutilated sufferings is nothing as compared to the more severe,
more lasting, permanent pain and tortures one will 100% received after
death.
The fates of all sinners were detailed by God and He warned man not to go
there, and they must repent now and live right and do right, and come to the
Saviour Lord Jesus now. Will you listen? The Bible didn't give vague
warnings, nor unsure about it: It CONFIRM YOUR DESTINY OUTRIGHT.
Why do we mortal lied and cheat? There is a foolish belief that we can get
away from committing sins, or crimes. Yet the Bible says, all sins and
crimes will be Nabbed immediately and none will escape; though Police and
law enforcers may miss you; just like many evil people had gotten away.
There is a full repayment that immediately works against Sinners from the
moment of Sins done, just like Aids/HIV begin on the human bodies once virus
entered into it, except that naked does not sees it.
REMEMBER NO ONE CAN ESCAPE IMMEDIATE JUDGMENT OF GOD,BUT A SET OF EVIL
THINGS WILL CONTINUE TO WORK AGAINST YOU THE MINUTE YOU SIN.If not, I would
be the first to queue up, to sin, to lie, to cheat, and to enjoy as much
pleasures and immoral activities, hurting others senselessly, kill my
conscience for good.
God set a day of judgment for all human beings as recorded in God's words,
holding all to account, even many beings, Devils and Angels from Universe
are to answer before God.However,bad things begins when a sinner sins
against God, immediately.
Although a righteous man also receive bad things for good deeds, BUT the
helps are also concurrently set in motion to bless the
Righteousman.Sometimes Helps may came too late, and good man dies,however,in
Eternity, God promised it will be compensated to the fullest.
Believe on the Lord Jesus you will be saved, you and your household. How I
wish the Bible is false, so that I fear no Punishment and can do what I
please. But the truths are contrary to what I wish. It is true that unless
one repents and come to Lord Jesus, there is no way out, but fear and
miseries in a thousand folds shall hit you.
Frankie Lee
30-6-06
|
|
|
| Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #219256 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 09:09 |
|
FRANKIE LEE wrote:
(snip)
> Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
> Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> realities.
(snip)
-----------
Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
Wakalukong
|
|
|
| Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #219266 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 10:33 |
|
Religion is all about fukking,
Atheism is all about living .
FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> In a more enlightened age there will be no such thing as religion,
> there will be only two sciences: objective science and subjective
> science.....
>
>
>
> Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
> Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> realities.
>
>
>
> Religion also had its downside of course. In a more enlightened age, why do
> you need objective science or subjective science, when one already is
> enlightened?
>
>
>
> One guy told me he doesn't believe in devils, as he believe all these
> religions are mere superstitutions.More than 95% of world's populations
> somehow have Religion, or they believe in God, gods or demons.
>
>
>
> The overwhelm evidence of the existence of God and Demons convince him
> otherwise.
>
>
>
> Two different men in one weeks time told me they just met with the Devils;
> one while almost died in General Hospital and unfortunately crippled for
> life, while the other guy in a Hotel saw two Devils came pressing his chest
> and appeared before him.
>
>
>
> God told the world that Satan came to steal, kill and destroy. But Jesus
> came to give life and life abundantly. God reveals that Unrighteousness in
> human life will face serious consequences and they will surely be punished
> forever and even now for the wrongs done with no escape, while others
> believe otherwise.
>
>
>
> In this world, do people tell lies? Is there evil in this world? Is there
> pain, sufferings and sorrows? Is there injustices? Is there sicknesses and
> diseases?
>
> The Bible reveals that present human pain and tortures were a prelude to a
> greater pain and sufferings beyond comprehensions. The two Soldiers who were
> tortured and mutilated sufferings is nothing as compared to the more severe,
> more lasting, permanent pain and tortures one will 100% received after
> death.
>
>
>
> The fates of all sinners were detailed by God and He warned man not to go
> there, and they must repent now and live right and do right, and come to the
> Saviour Lord Jesus now. Will you listen? The Bible didn't give vague
> warnings, nor unsure about it: It CONFIRM YOUR DESTINY OUTRIGHT.
>
>
>
> Why do we mortal lied and cheat? There is a foolish belief that we can get
> away from committing sins, or crimes. Yet the Bible says, all sins and
> crimes will be Nabbed immediately and none will escape; though Police and
> law enforcers may miss you; just like many evil people had gotten away.
> There is a full repayment that immediately works against Sinners from the
> moment of Sins done, just like Aids/HIV begin on the human bodies once virus
> entered into it, except that naked does not sees it.
>
>
>
> REMEMBER NO ONE CAN ESCAPE IMMEDIATE JUDGMENT OF GOD,BUT A SET OF EVIL
> THINGS WILL CONTINUE TO WORK AGAINST YOU THE MINUTE YOU SIN.If not, I would
> be the first to queue up, to sin, to lie, to cheat, and to enjoy as much
> pleasures and immoral activities, hurting others senselessly, kill my
> conscience for good.
>
>
>
> God set a day of judgment for all human beings as recorded in God's words,
> holding all to account, even many beings, Devils and Angels from Universe
> are to answer before God.However,bad things begins when a sinner sins
> against God, immediately.
>
>
>
> Although a righteous man also receive bad things for good deeds, BUT the
> helps are also concurrently set in motion to bless the
> Righteousman.Sometimes Helps may came too late, and good man dies,however,in
> Eternity, God promised it will be compensated to the fullest.
>
>
>
> Believe on the Lord Jesus you will be saved, you and your household. How I
> wish the Bible is false, so that I fear no Punishment and can do what I
> please. But the truths are contrary to what I wish. It is true that unless
> one repents and come to Lord Jesus, there is no way out, but fear and
> miseries in a thousand folds shall hit you.
>
>
>
> Frankie Lee
>
> 30-6-06
|
|
|
| Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #219268 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 10:33 |
|
Religions are all about Fukkings ,
Atheism is about how to live .
Wakalukong wrote:
> FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> (snip)
> > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
> > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> > realities.
> (snip)
> -----------
>
> Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
>
> Wakalukong
|
|
|
| Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #219791 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 16:01 |
|
"FRANKIE LEE" <phebelee [at] singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:e829es$6ls$1 [at] reader01.singnet.com.sg...
> In a more enlightened age there will be no such thing as religion,
> there will be only two sciences: objective science and subjective
> science.....
>
>
>
> Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and
> evil man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell,
> and Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths
> and realities.
>
Most evil are those who kill in the name of their religion or god. Did any
religious leaders, past and present, of your religion and other religions
give out order to kill?
|
|
|
| Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #219810 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 17:35 |
|
"FRANKIE LEE" <phebelee [at] singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:e829es$6ls$1 [at] reader01.singnet.com.sg...
> In a more enlightened age there will be no such thing as religion,
> there will be only two sciences: objective science and subjective
> science.....
>
>
>
> Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and
> evil man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell,
> and Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths
> and realities.
>
Darwin? Is that Charles Darwin you are refering to? LOL!
Why did you say he had no human conscience? Because of his evolution theory
that contradict your religion belief? You are an idiot.
|
|
|
| China and Korea are the aggressors in Asia, not Japan. [message #219844 ] |
Fr, 30 Juni 2006 20:34 |
|
The vengeful nationalism that pervades China under Communist Party rule
is explored in Peter Gries's study, China's New Nationalism. The
discourse of this nationalism identifies the forces threatening
China's return to glory and describes what must be done to defeat
that threat and restore the nation's dignity. The goal is that "The 21st
century will be China's."
China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese
general said on Thursday.
“If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on
to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond
with nuclear weapons,” said General Zhu Chenghu.
Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in
part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its
territory included warships and aircraft.
“If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be
determined to respond,” said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's
National Defence University.
“We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the
cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared
that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese.”
North Korea has issued repeated complaints in recent weeks about alleged
U.S. spy flights, including off the coast where the missile test
facility is located.
"The U.S. imperialist warmongers have been intensifying military
provocations" against the North, the country's official Korean Central
News Agency said. "The ceaseless illegal intrusion of the planes has
created a grave danger of military conflict in the air above the region."
North Korea remains wholly dependent upon China for its security against
any possible U.S. use of force against either its nuclear or missile
facilities. The PRC also offers multiple forms of economic support to
keep its communist neighbor from disintegrating and starving.
In Pyongyang, the North's official Korean Central News Agency said
"hundreds of thousands" of North Koreans marked the anniversary of the
1950 start of the Korean War by "denouncing the U.S. imperialists, the
sworn enemy of the Korean people."
China`s foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu dodged questions
concerning North Korea`s possible trial of a new long range ballistic
missile on Tuesday. In a sign of its close relations with Pyongyang,
China hosted North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun last month, and
a North Korean military delegation last week.
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill recently told the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee that the United States did not believe that
China was putting sufficient pressure on North Korea to end its nuclear
weapons program.
Washington continues to believe, as it has since the North Korean crisis
began in late 2002, that China is the key to solving the impasse. The
administration apparently expects China to exert whatever diplomatic and
economic pressure is needed to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear
ambitions.
U.S. leaders are likely to be disappointed yet again. Already, there is
noticeable frustration in Washington that China has not done more to
pressure its neighbor. That disappointment may well grow in the coming
months. Beijing has made it clear that, although it hopes that Pyongyang
returns to the six-party talks and negotiates an end to its nuclear
program, China will resist imposing economic sanctions (much less taking
stronger measures) against its recalcitrant neighbor.
U.S. officials say there is evidence North Korea may have finished
fueling a Taepodong-2 missile for a test launch, which Washington, Seoul
and Tokyo have said would present a grave threat to regional security.
U.S. experts think that North Korea has sufficient plutonium for a
minimum of six nuclear weapons and is continuing to beef up its atomic
arsenal. Defense specialists say it is plausible the North might be able
to build a nuclear warhead small enough to be fit on a missile.
The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found
in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed
yesterday. 'According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile
warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,’’ former Japanese
foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report.
``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang’s
missile capabilities.’
One country with a stake in the success of the new missile is waiting
quietly: Iran. "The North Korean launch of the Taepodong in fact does
have some relationship to Iran, in that we believe the Iranians helped
develop the upper stage of the North Korean rocket, or that Iranian
technology helped develop it," Craig Covault, senior editor of the
authoritative U.S. magazine "Aviation Week and Space Technology,"
explains. "So there is at the present time a technology tie between
North Korea and Iran on that launch vehicle." The Taepodong-2 thus
appears to be a cooperative effort between two countries sharply at odds
with the international community over their nuclear programs. North
Korea openly boasts it has atomic weapons. Iran is suspected of having
that aim, although it denies it.
"Just how deep that goes, I'm not sure that anybody really knows that,"
Covault says. "But there is some commonality, as well as there is with
Chinese support to Iran, and to North Korea. So there is some kind of
cross-pollination between China, North Korea, and Iran on the technology
in that Taepodong missile."
Tehran, Pyongyang, and Beijing have long had links in missile
development. An earlier North Korean manifestation of the Taepodong
series missile, the No-Dong, is thought to have been developed with
Iranian financial assistance and Chinese know-how.
In the murky world of secret technology transfers, North Korean missile
technology is thought to have played a key role in the development of
Pakistan's long-range Ghauri missile, and China in the development of
Pakistan's Shaheen-1 short-range missile.
Some U.S. and Japanese officials believe North Korea is poised to launch
because the Taepodong-2 missile has been fueled. It has been five weeks
since the first satellite imagery showed launch preparations underway at
the Musudan-ri missile facility in North Hamgyong province in
northeastern North Korea.
Military-aviation expert Andrew Brooks, of the International Institute
for Strategic Studies in London,Brooks notes that since reports say the
Taepodong-2 has already been loaded with fuel, the launch cannot be long
delayed.
"Once you fuel this thing up, you have got to fire it," Brooks says.
"[Liquid rocket fuel] doesn't just sit there, you can't [leave it]. In
the last few days, I saw reports they were loading up, in which case it
is close to firing."
That is, if it is to be launched at all. The north may be dissuaded by
the strength of the international outcry, or President Kim Jong-il may
feel the drama of recent days has been sufficient to re-focus straying
world attention on the stalled six-party talks.
-Jao
|
|
|
| Re: China and Korea are the Defenders of Asia, not Japan. [message #219888 ] |
Sa, 01 Juli 2006 02:05 |
|
China and Korea are defending Asian Territories against the US
invasion,
Taiwanese want to become a part of the USA .
Taiwanese are Chinese invaders from China ,
the real Taiwanese are the Aborigenes of Taiwan.
Jao Tsu wrote:
> The vengeful nationalism that pervades China under Communist Party rule
> is explored in Peter Gries's study, China's New Nationalism. The
> discourse of this nationalism identifies the forces threatening
> China's return to glory and describes what must be done to defeat
> that threat and restore the nation's dignity. The goal is that "The 21st
> century will be China's."
>
> China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
> attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese
> general said on Thursday.
>
> "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on
> to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond
> with nuclear weapons," said General Zhu Chenghu.
>
> Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in
> part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its
> territory included warships and aircraft.
>
> "If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be
> determined to respond," said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's
> National Defence University.
>
> "We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the
> cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared
> that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
>
> North Korea has issued repeated complaints in recent weeks about alleged
> U.S. spy flights, including off the coast where the missile test
> facility is located.
>
> "The U.S. imperialist warmongers have been intensifying military
> provocations" against the North, the country's official Korean Central
> News Agency said. "The ceaseless illegal intrusion of the planes has
> created a grave danger of military conflict in the air above the region."
>
> North Korea remains wholly dependent upon China for its security against
> any possible U.S. use of force against either its nuclear or missile
> facilities. The PRC also offers multiple forms of economic support to
> keep its communist neighbor from disintegrating and starving.
>
> In Pyongyang, the North's official Korean Central News Agency said
> "hundreds of thousands" of North Koreans marked the anniversary of the
> 1950 start of the Korean War by "denouncing the U.S. imperialists, the
> sworn enemy of the Korean people."
>
> China`s foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu dodged questions
> concerning North Korea`s possible trial of a new long range ballistic
> missile on Tuesday. In a sign of its close relations with Pyongyang,
> China hosted North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun last month, and
> a North Korean military delegation last week.
>
> Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill recently told the Senate
> Foreign Relations Committee that the United States did not believe that
> China was putting sufficient pressure on North Korea to end its nuclear
> weapons program.
>
> Washington continues to believe, as it has since the North Korean crisis
> began in late 2002, that China is the key to solving the impasse. The
> administration apparently expects China to exert whatever diplomatic and
> economic pressure is needed to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear
> ambitions.
>
> U.S. leaders are likely to be disappointed yet again. Already, there is
> noticeable frustration in Washington that China has not done more to
> pressure its neighbor. That disappointment may well grow in the coming
> months. Beijing has made it clear that, although it hopes that Pyongyang
> returns to the six-party talks and negotiates an end to its nuclear
> program, China will resist imposing economic sanctions (much less taking
> stronger measures) against its recalcitrant neighbor.
>
> U.S. officials say there is evidence North Korea may have finished
> fueling a Taepodong-2 missile for a test launch, which Washington, Seoul
> and Tokyo have said would present a grave threat to regional security.
> U.S. experts think that North Korea has sufficient plutonium for a
> minimum of six nuclear weapons and is continuing to beef up its atomic
> arsenal. Defense specialists say it is plausible the North might be able
> to build a nuclear warhead small enough to be fit on a missile.
>
> The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found
> in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed
> yesterday. 'According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile
> warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,'' former Japanese
> foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report.
> ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang's
> missile capabilities.'
>
> One country with a stake in the success of the new missile is waiting
> quietly: Iran. "The North Korean launch of the Taepodong in fact does
> have some relationship to Iran, in that we believe the Iranians helped
> develop the upper stage of the North Korean rocket, or that Iranian
> technology helped develop it," Craig Covault, senior editor of the
> authoritative U.S. magazine "Aviation Week and Space Technology,"
> explains. "So there is at the present time a technology tie between
> North Korea and Iran on that launch vehicle." The Taepodong-2 thus
> appears to be a cooperative effort between two countries sharply at odds
> with the international community over their nuclear programs. North
> Korea openly boasts it has atomic weapons. Iran is suspected of having
> that aim, although it denies it.
>
> "Just how deep that goes, I'm not sure that anybody really knows that,"
> Covault says. "But there is some commonality, as well as there is with
> Chinese support to Iran, and to North Korea. So there is some kind of
> cross-pollination between China, North Korea, and Iran on the technology
> in that Taepodong missile."
>
> Tehran, Pyongyang, and Beijing have long had links in missile
> development. An earlier North Korean manifestation of the Taepodong
> series missile, the No-Dong, is thought to have been developed with
> Iranian financial assistance and Chinese know-how.
>
> In the murky world of secret technology transfers, North Korean missile
> technology is thought to have played a key role in the development of
> Pakistan's long-range Ghauri missile, and China in the development of
> Pakistan's Shaheen-1 short-range missile.
>
> Some U.S. and Japanese officials believe North Korea is poised to launch
> because the Taepodong-2 missile has been fueled. It has been five weeks
> since the first satellite imagery showed launch preparations underway at
> the Musudan-ri missile facility in North Hamgyong province in
> northeastern North Korea.
>
> Military-aviation expert Andrew Brooks, of the International Institute
> for Strategic Studies in London,Brooks notes that since reports say the
> Taepodong-2 has already been loaded with fuel, the launch cannot be long
> delayed.
>
> "Once you fuel this thing up, you have got to fire it," Brooks says.
> "[Liquid rocket fuel] doesn't just sit there, you can't [leave it]. In
> the last few days, I saw reports they were loading up, in which case it
> is close to firing."
>
> That is, if it is to be launched at all. The north may be dissuaded by
> the strength of the international outcry, or President Kim Jong-il may
> feel the drama of recent days has been sufficient to re-focus straying
> world attention on the stalled six-party talks.
>
> -Jao
|
|
|
| Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #219931 ] |
Sa, 01 Juli 2006 07:10 |
|
"FRANKIE LEE" <phebelee [at] singnet.com.sg> wrote in message
news:e829es$6ls$1 [at] reader01.singnet.com.sg...
>
> Believe on the Lord Jesus you will be saved, you and your household. How I
> wish the Bible is false, so that I fear no Punishment and can do what I
> please. But the truths are contrary to what I wish. It is true that unless
> one repents and come to Lord Jesus, there is no way out, but fear and
> miseries in a thousand folds shall hit you.
>
If you are saved you don't need to face judgement day, stupid.
I know your Bible is false and I fear no Punishment and I can do what I
please but it doesn't mean I'll do something against my conscience. I've
learned that every being wants to have a happy life and I wish the same. So
I'm not going to cause harm to anybody.
Many times you shamelessly mentioned that how you wish that your bible is
false so that you can do whatever you please. Tell me, what do you want to
do if you realised that your bible is false? You wish to do things that will
cause harm to others? Without the bible, you'll have no moral and
conscience, right? Then you must keep on believing that your bible is not
false although it is a fairytales.
|
|
|
| Re: China and Korea are the aggressors in Asia, not Japan. [message #219944 ] |
Sa, 01 Juli 2006 10:16 |
|
the Tibet Heavenly Railway is the new sign of New Chinese
Nationalism ,
the Tibet Railway was builr for the purpose of carrying Chinese
troops into Tibet .
Jao Tsu wrote:
> The vengeful nationalism that pervades China under Communist Party rule
> is explored in Peter Gries's study, China's New Nationalism. The
> discourse of this nationalism identifies the forces threatening
> China's return to glory and describes what must be done to defeat
> that threat and restore the nation's dignity. The goal is that "The 21st
> century will be China's."
>
> China is prepared to use nuclear weapons against the US if it is
> attacked by Washington during a confrontation over Taiwan, a Chinese
> general said on Thursday.
>
> "If the Americans draw their missiles and position-guided ammunition on
> to the target zone on China's territory, I think we will have to respond
> with nuclear weapons," said General Zhu Chenghu.
>
> Gen Zhu was speaking at a function for foreign journalists organised, in
> part, by the Chinese government. He added that China's definition of its
> territory included warships and aircraft.
>
> "If the Americans are determined to interfere [then] we will be
> determined to respond," said Gen Zhu, who is also a professor at China's
> National Defence University.
>
> "We . . . will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all of the
> cities east of Xian. Of course the Americans will have to be prepared
> that hundreds . . . of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
>
> North Korea has issued repeated complaints in recent weeks about alleged
> U.S. spy flights, including off the coast where the missile test
> facility is located.
>
> "The U.S. imperialist warmongers have been intensifying military
> provocations" against the North, the country's official Korean Central
> News Agency said. "The ceaseless illegal intrusion of the planes has
> created a grave danger of military conflict in the air above the region."
>
> North Korea remains wholly dependent upon China for its security against
> any possible U.S. use of force against either its nuclear or missile
> facilities. The PRC also offers multiple forms of economic support to
> keep its communist neighbor from disintegrating and starving.
>
> In Pyongyang, the North's official Korean Central News Agency said
> "hundreds of thousands" of North Koreans marked the anniversary of the
> 1950 start of the Korean War by "denouncing the U.S. imperialists, the
> sworn enemy of the Korean people."
>
> China`s foreign ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu dodged questions
> concerning North Korea`s possible trial of a new long range ballistic
> missile on Tuesday. In a sign of its close relations with Pyongyang,
> China hosted North Korean Foreign Minister Paek Nam-sun last month, and
> a North Korean military delegation last week.
>
> Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill recently told the Senate
> Foreign Relations Committee that the United States did not believe that
> China was putting sufficient pressure on North Korea to end its nuclear
> weapons program.
>
> Washington continues to believe, as it has since the North Korean crisis
> began in late 2002, that China is the key to solving the impasse. The
> administration apparently expects China to exert whatever diplomatic and
> economic pressure is needed to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear
> ambitions.
>
> U.S. leaders are likely to be disappointed yet again. Already, there is
> noticeable frustration in Washington that China has not done more to
> pressure its neighbor. That disappointment may well grow in the coming
> months. Beijing has made it clear that, although it hopes that Pyongyang
> returns to the six-party talks and negotiates an end to its nuclear
> program, China will resist imposing economic sanctions (much less taking
> stronger measures) against its recalcitrant neighbor.
>
> U.S. officials say there is evidence North Korea may have finished
> fueling a Taepodong-2 missile for a test launch, which Washington, Seoul
> and Tokyo have said would present a grave threat to regional security.
> U.S. experts think that North Korea has sufficient plutonium for a
> minimum of six nuclear weapons and is continuing to beef up its atomic
> arsenal. Defense specialists say it is plausible the North might be able
> to build a nuclear warhead small enough to be fit on a missile.
>
> The warhead of a long-range missile test-fired by North Korea was found
> in the U.S. state of Alaska, a report to the National Assembly revealed
> yesterday. 'According to a U.S. document, the last piece of a missile
> warhead fired by North Korea was found in Alaska,'' former Japanese
> foreign minister Taro Nakayama was quoted as saying in the report.
> ``Washington, as well as Tokyo, has so far underrated Pyongyang's
> missile capabilities.'
>
> One country with a stake in the success of the new missile is waiting
> quietly: Iran. "The North Korean launch of the Taepodong in fact does
> have some relationship to Iran, in that we believe the Iranians helped
> develop the upper stage of the North Korean rocket, or that Iranian
> technology helped develop it," Craig Covault, senior editor of the
> authoritative U.S. magazine "Aviation Week and Space Technology,"
> explains. "So there is at the present time a technology tie between
> North Korea and Iran on that launch vehicle." The Taepodong-2 thus
> appears to be a cooperative effort between two countries sharply at odds
> with the international community over their nuclear programs. North
> Korea openly boasts it has atomic weapons. Iran is suspected of having
> that aim, although it denies it.
>
> "Just how deep that goes, I'm not sure that anybody really knows that,"
> Covault says. "But there is some commonality, as well as there is with
> Chinese support to Iran, and to North Korea. So there is some kind of
> cross-pollination between China, North Korea, and Iran on the technology
> in that Taepodong missile."
>
> Tehran, Pyongyang, and Beijing have long had links in missile
> development. An earlier North Korean manifestation of the Taepodong
> series missile, the No-Dong, is thought to have been developed with
> Iranian financial assistance and Chinese know-how.
>
> In the murky world of secret technology transfers, North Korean missile
> technology is thought to have played a key role in the development of
> Pakistan's long-range Ghauri missile, and China in the development of
> Pakistan's Shaheen-1 short-range missile.
>
> Some U.S. and Japanese officials believe North Korea is poised to launch
> because the Taepodong-2 missile has been fueled. It has been five weeks
> since the first satellite imagery showed launch preparations underway at
> the Musudan-ri missile facility in North Hamgyong province in
> northeastern North Korea.
>
> Military-aviation expert Andrew Brooks, of the International Institute
> for Strategic Studies in London,Brooks notes that since reports say the
> Taepodong-2 has already been loaded with fuel, the launch cannot be long
> delayed.
>
> "Once you fuel this thing up, you have got to fire it," Brooks says.
> "[Liquid rocket fuel] doesn't just sit there, you can't [leave it]. In
> the last few days, I saw reports they were loading up, in which case it
> is close to firing."
>
> That is, if it is to be launched at all. The north may be dissuaded by
> the strength of the international outcry, or President Kim Jong-il may
> feel the drama of recent days has been sufficient to re-focus straying
> world attention on the stalled six-party talks.
>
> -Jao
|
|
|
| Re: China and Korea are the Defenders of Asia, not Japan. [message #220023 ] |
Sa, 01 Juli 2006 02:58 |
|
"Komin" <veakrin [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151712318.620054.273280 [at] d56g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> China and Korea are defending Asian Territories against the US
> invasion,
> Taiwanese want to become a part of the USA .
>
> Taiwanese are Chinese invaders from China ,
> the real Taiwanese are the Aborigenes of Taiwan.
>
Yes, and the real Malaysians are the aborigines of Malaysia.
|
|
|
| Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220043 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 06:19 |
|
Komin wrote:
> Religions are all about Fukkings ,
'Fuckings' !
Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
love of magic'?
> Atheism is about how to live .
True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
>
>
> Wakalukong wrote:
> > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
> > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> > > realities.
> > (snip)
> > -----------
> >
> > Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
> >
> > Wakalukong
|
|
|
| Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220064 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 13:16 |
|
bob young wrote:
> Komin wrote:
>
> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
>
> 'Fuckings' !
>
> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
> love of magic'?
Not true.
Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
Christian ethics.
For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
to prevent "might is right."
How about the rule of laws?
Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
right but illegal thing.
> > Atheism is about how to live .
>
> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
(Off topic:
Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
associated with anything that is big.)
> >
> >
> > Wakalukong wrote:
> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> > > (snip)
> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> > > > realities.
> > > (snip)
> > > -----------
> > >
> > > Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
> > >
> > > Wakalukong
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220068 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 13:41 |
|
I agree.
If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be more
sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get along -
I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it would
be easier that way.
> bob young wrote:
>> Komin wrote:
>>
>> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
>>
>> 'Fuckings' !
>>
>> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch
>> of 'the
>> love of magic'?
>
> Not true.
> Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> Christian ethics.
>
> For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
> Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
> commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
> In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> to prevent "might is right."
>
> How about the rule of laws?
> Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
> What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> right but illegal thing.
>
>
>> > Atheism is about how to live .
>>
>> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
>
> (Off topic:
> Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> associated with anything that is big.)
>
>> >
>> >
>> > Wakalukong wrote:
>> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
>> > > (snip)
>> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries,
>> > > > and evil
>> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand,
>> > > > Russell, and
>> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of
>> > > > truths and
>> > > > realities.
>> > > (snip)
>> > > -----------
>> > >
>> > > Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
>> > >
>> > > Wakalukong
>
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220069 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 13:49 |
|
FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
> I agree.
>
> If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be more
> sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get along -
> I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it would
> be easier that way.
I don't think I know enough about Islam. I have no idea whether Islam
is compatible with western democracy. May be someone can help.
>
>
> > bob young wrote:
> >> Komin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> >>
> >> 'Fuckings' !
> >>
> >> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch
> >> of 'the
> >> love of magic'?
> >
> > Not true.
> > Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> > Christian ethics.
> >
> > For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
> > Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
> > commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> > thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> > etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> > force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
> > In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> > to prevent "might is right."
> >
> > How about the rule of laws?
> > Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> > standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
> > What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> > right but illegal thing.
> >
> >
> >> > Atheism is about how to live .
> >>
> >> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> >
> > (Off topic:
> > Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> > was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> > big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> > America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> > African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> > associated with anything that is big.)
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wakalukong wrote:
> >> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> >> > > (snip)
> >> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries,
> >> > > > and evil
> >> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand,
> >> > > > Russell, and
> >> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of
> >> > > > truths and
> >> > > > realities.
> >> > > (snip)
> >> > > -----------
> >> > >
> >> > > Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
> >> > >
> >> > > Wakalukong
> >
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220070 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 14:00 |
|
On 2 Jul 2006 04:16:36 -0700, "ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>bob young wrote:
>> Komin wrote:
>>
>> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
>>
>> 'Fuckings' !
>>
>> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
>> love of magic'?
>
>Not true.
>Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
>integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
>Christian ethics.
>
>For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
It was supplanted by Roman conquest.
>Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god.
So what?
> Results: They lacked of a
>commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
Can you say "non sequitur"?
>thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
>etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
>force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
>In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
>to prevent "might is right."
Are you really this stupid?
>How about the rule of laws?
>Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
>standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
>What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
>necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
>gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
>right but illegal thing.
Stop projecting your own psychopathic tenancies onto everybody else.
>> > Atheism is about how to live .
>>
>> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
>
>(Off topic:
>Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
>was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
>big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
>America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
>African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
>associated with anything that is big.)
Irrelevant.
>> >
>> >
>> > Wakalukong wrote:
>> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
>> > > (snip)
>> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
>> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
Hitler was a Christian (subset Catholic). The good Germans who carried
out his orders were Christian (Subsets Catholic and Lutheran). Hint:
you have to be Christian to regard Jews as Christ-killers.
The holocaust was the culmination of 2000 years of Christian
anti-Semitism encouraged by both Protestant and Catholic church
fathers.
But the biggest slaughters were black slavery and transportation from
Africa (primarily Christian with a Muslim contribution) , and the
conquest of the Americas.
You morons don't understand that not believing in a deity has no more
significance to the atheist that not believing in Santa Claus does to
you.
What does not believing in Santa Claus motivate or justify that you
do?
>> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
>> > > > realities.
The in-your-face nasty lying Christian projects his own inadequacy
onto everybody else.
>> > > (snip)
>> > > -----------
>> > >
>> > > Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
>> > >
>> > > Wakalukong
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220071 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 14:14 |
|
> FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
>> I agree.
>>
>> If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be
>> more
>> sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get
>> along -
>> I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it
>> would
>> be easier that way.
>
> I don't think I know enough about Islam. I have no idea whether Islam
> is compatible with western democracy. May be someone can help.
I was only joking about islam. But I agree with you about the priniples of
justice need to be guided by that higher spirit.
However, I don't think many people know much about western democracy.
Western democracy is a strange sought of democracy. All its voters think
that they live under a democracy but in truth the government systems are
structurally corrupt such that it effects no true democracy and nothing
close to it. We have two parties. two sides of the same coin, with runners
both vying for the same job as CEO of Slavery Incorporated.
What we have here is fasicsm - fascism is a state that is ruled by
corporations. Any one that tries to deny that we are not being run by
corporations are not paying attention. Who owns your television networks?
Who owns your newspapers? How many own them? Are they in opposition or
cartel?
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220074 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 14:41 |
|
FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
> > FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be
> >> more
> >> sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get
> >> along -
> >> I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it
> >> would
> >> be easier that way.
> >
> > I don't think I know enough about Islam. I have no idea whether Islam
> > is compatible with western democracy. May be someone can help.
>
>
> I was only joking about islam. But I agree with you about the priniples of
> justice need to be guided by that higher spirit.
>
> However, I don't think many people know much about western democracy.
> Western democracy is a strange sought of democracy. All its voters think
> that they live under a democracy but in truth the government systems are
> structurally corrupt such that it effects no true democracy and nothing
> close to it. We have two parties. two sides of the same coin, with runners
> both vying for the same job as CEO of Slavery Incorporated.
> What we have here is fasicsm - fascism is a state that is ruled by
> corporations. Any one that tries to deny that we are not being run by
> corporations are not paying attention. Who owns your television networks?
> Who owns your newspapers? How many own them? Are they in opposition or
> cartel?
Christianity is an integral part of western cultures. Hence western
democracy should be more accurately described as individualism based
democracy+christianianty system. However, the rise of sciences had
caused increasing secularization and the decline of Christianity. The
democracy you had described is individualism based democracy in the
absence of Christian ethics. In the absence of Christian ethics,
individualism will become the dominating force. The society will turn
toward nihilism and hedonism. Nothing but individual gain count.
The rise of the Christian right in America and probably somewhere else
is not coincidental. It is a response to the secularization trend.
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220076 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 14:46 |
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On 2 Jul 2006 04:16:36 -0700, "ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >bob young wrote:
> >> Komin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> >>
> >> 'Fuckings' !
> >>
> >> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
> >> love of magic'?
> >
> >Not true.
> >Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> >integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> >Christian ethics.
> >
> >For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
>
> It was supplanted by Roman conquest.
>
> >Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god.
>
> So what?
>
> > Results: They lacked of a
> >commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
>
> Can you say "non sequitur"?
>
> >thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> >etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> >force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
> >In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> >to prevent "might is right."
>
> Are you really this stupid?
>
> >How about the rule of laws?
> >Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> >standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
> >What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> >necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> >gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> >right but illegal thing.
>
> Stop projecting your own psychopathic tenancies onto everybody else.
>
> >> > Atheism is about how to live .
> >>
> >> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> >
> >(Off topic:
> >Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> >was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> >big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> >America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> >African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> >associated with anything that is big.)
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Wakalukong wrote:
> >> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> >> > > (snip)
> >> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> >> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
>
> Hitler was a Christian (subset Catholic). The good Germans who carried
> out his orders were Christian (Subsets Catholic and Lutheran). Hint:
> you have to be Christian to regard Jews as Christ-killers.
>
> The holocaust was the culmination of 2000 years of Christian
> anti-Semitism encouraged by both Protestant and Catholic church
> fathers.
>
> But the biggest slaughters were black slavery and transportation from
> Africa (primarily Christian with a Muslim contribution) , and the
> conquest of the Americas.
>
> You morons don't understand that not believing in a deity has no more
> significance to the atheist that not believing in Santa Claus does to
> you.
>
> What does not believing in Santa Claus motivate or justify that you
> do?
>
> >> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> >> > > > realities.
>
> The in-your-face nasty lying Christian projects his own inadequacy
> onto everybody else.
Thank you for your response. But I dare say you are barking up the
wrong tree.
The title of this subthread is "Atheism is incompatible with western
democracy." I am not arguing western democracy+Christianity is a
perfect system. The question you should address is whether
individualism based democracy is better off without strong Christian
ethics.
>
> >> > > (snip)
> >> > > -----------
> >> > >
> >> > > Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
> >> > >
> >> > > Wakalukong
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220077 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 14:52 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> bob young wrote:
> > Komin wrote:
> > > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > 'Fuckings' !
> > Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touc=
h of 'the
> > love of magic'?
> Not true.
> Religion is more prevasive than that.
More precisely religion is like a drug to a vulnerable, impressionable
and/or not so bright human mind.
Strong minds do not require mind altering drugs, not in form of
chemical supplements nor as collective brainwashing.
> For example, Chrianitianity is an
> integral part of western culture.
Wrong. That was a while back, it is not now. Many of those who have not
left the different churches yet are religious on paper only. There is
little religion can offer to 21st century modern and civilised humans
unless there is something really wrong about their psychological make
up and/or social conditions.
> Western democracy won't work without
> Christian ethics.
That is a strawman assertion. Democracy is in no way dependent on
Xtianity which provides best for an authoritarian style of society.
> For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
Because it was not really a democracy. Nor was it the case in ancient
Rome.
Democracy includes all members of a society, which did not happen
during that era.
> Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
> commonly accepted higher standard.
<snip while I still can>
Hmmm. Now you are just bullshitting around hoping that we won't notice.
Do you have a patent on your version of history?
> How about the rule of laws?
How about them? Can you only keep people in line by threatening them
with fire and brimstone?
<more bull snipped)
> After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
Law is a mechanism that codifies how we manage conflicting human
behavior. Its sole purpuse is to make our lives more managable. In an
enlightened and modern society laws are there to serve the people and
not the other way around.
Morality is the psychological tool religion employs to control society.
Morality is when other people tell you how they expect you to behave
but justify it by refering to supernatural powers and can really make
you feel bad about yourself. There is nothing democratic about that!
> What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> necessarily illegal?
Which means that the laws are not working as intended or they were bad
to begin with.
That is when a modern society amends or changes those laws. No miracles
needed!
> Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> right but illegal thing.
You are sliding into bullshitting again. Or more precisely you have not
stopped bullshitting
> > > Atheism is about how to live .
> > True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> (Off topic:
> Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> associated with anything that is big.)
Info we never really wanted to know!
How about staying "on topic"?
=D6rd=F6g
Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is compatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220078 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 15:05 |
|
ltlee1 schreef:
> FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
> > I agree.
> >
> > If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be more
> > sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get along -
> > I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it would
> > be easier that way.
>
> I don't think I know enough about Islam. I have no idea whether Islam
> is compatible with western democracy. May be someone can help.
I know enough to realize that most Islamic countries are not bery
democratic
and do not care much about human rights.
That however has little to do with the religion,
but much more the lack of humanism.
Although humanism was present in early Islam,
it has developped mainly in countries that were predominantly
Christian.
Western cemocracy is very compatible with any kind of Humanism,
there is not reason to exclude secular humanism,
so there is no reason to exclude atheists.
As a matter of fact there is no reason to think,
that atheist have a different politcal view in general than theists.
What is true is that with atheists
the choice between democracy and tyrrany is a more profound one,
The atheist might have Stalin as highest authority
while the theist would have his particular God as highest tyrant.
On the other hand the atheist would hold up democracy and human rights
above all,
while the theist would still have his diety overruling anything.
That's why I do not mind the "ten" commandments.
They offer the theist some basic human rights.
The Koran actually lacks these basic statements,
although it is clear Muhammed recognized them.
(the Thora and the Gospel were considered true messages from Allah)
As someone reminded me democracy without human right,
can be awfully bad too especially - of course - for minorities.
If we talk about western democracies what we mean is - I think -
democracies that respect human rights,
especially thos of minorities.
The geographical location would be less important.
(Venezuela being to the west of Europe:)
Anyway there is no real dividing line between theists and atheist
as far as democracy and human rights are concerned.
In majority in "western" countries both are humanists.
There isn't really much difference between secular humanists,
and early jewish humanists like Jesus (or his biographers)
Peter van Velzen
June 2006
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
> >
> >
> > > bob young wrote:
> > >> Komin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > >>
> > >> 'Fuckings' !
> > >>
> > >> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch
> > >> of 'the
> > >> love of magic'?
> > >
> > > Not true.
> > > Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > > integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> > > Christian ethics.
> > >
> > > For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
> > > Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
> > > commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> > > thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> > > etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> > > force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
> > > In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> > > to prevent "might is right."
> > >
> > > How about the rule of laws?
> > > Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> > > standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
> > > What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > > necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > > gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> > > right but illegal thing.
> > >
> > >
> > >> > Atheism is about how to live .
> > >>
> > >> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> > >
> > > (Off topic:
> > > Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> > > was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> > > big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> > > America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> > > African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> > > associated with anything that is big.)
> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Wakalukong wrote:
> > >> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> > >> > > (snip)
> > >> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries,
> > >> > > > and evil
> > >> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand,
> > >> > > > Russell, and
> > >> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of
> > >> > > > truths and
> > >> > > > realities.
> > >> > > (snip)
> > >> > > -----------
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Wakalukong
> > >
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religionand Atheisms. [message #220084 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 15:12 |
|
ah !
this communists' dog is too cunning to libel democracy as religion !!
that is communists' dogs' bashing democracry !!!!
ltlee1 wrote:
> FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
>
>>I agree.
>>
>>If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be more
>>sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get along -
>>I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it would
>>be easier that way.
>
>
> I don't think I know enough about Islam. I have no idea whether Islam
> is compatible with western democracy. May be someone can help.
>
>
>>
>>>bob young wrote:
>>>
>>>>Komin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Religions are all about Fukkings ,
>>>>
>>>>'Fuckings' !
>>>>
>>>>Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch
>>>>of 'the
>>>>love of magic'?
>>>
>>>Not true.
>>>Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
>>>integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
>>>Christian ethics.
>>>
>>>For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
>>>Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
>>>commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
>>>thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
>>>etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
>>>force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
>>>In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
>>>to prevent "might is right."
>>>
>>>How about the rule of laws?
>>>Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
>>>standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
>>>What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
>>>necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
>>>gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
>>>right but illegal thing.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Atheism is about how to live .
>>>>
>>>>True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
>>>
>>>(Off topic:
>>>Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
>>>was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
>>>big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
>>>America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
>>>African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
>>>associated with anything that is big.)
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Wakalukong wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>FRANKIE LEE wrote:
>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries,
>>>>>>>and evil
>>>>>>>man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand,
>>>>>>>Russell, and
>>>>>>>Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of
>>>>>>>truths and
>>>>>>>realities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>>-----------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Truth and reality are way beyond you. Stick to hot air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wakalukong
>>>
>
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to news [at] netfront.net
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220085 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 15:17 |
|
ltlee1 wrote:
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > The in-your-face nasty lying Christian projects his own inadequacy
> > onto everybody else.
> Thank you for your response. But I dare say you are barking up the
> wrong tree.
> The title of this subthread is "Atheism is incompatible with western
> democracy." I am not arguing western democracy+Christianity is a
> perfect system. The question you should address is whether
> individualism based democracy is better off without strong Christian
> ethics.
Clever move. You are trying to escape the burden of proof by shifting
it to the secularists.
Since you have not been able to show that Xtian moral and ethics bring
any benefit to a modern and democratic society we have not too many
alternative options apart from secularism, do we?
I recommend that you do not separate out Xtianity. It is just one
religion among many currently practiced on this planet. If you insist
on a special status for that particular religion than you have to show
why that is justifiable.
My argument is the same here as when discussing theism versus atheism.
Atheism is the absence of belief nothing more and nothing less. If you
want to show that there is a supernatural entity guiding this universe
than you have got to come up with a proof, not your debating opponent.
The same goes here. You are yet to make a case why religious moral and
ethic manipulation of society is desirable. Specially because those are
integral parts of restraints on others (i.e. non-believers and members
of other faiths)
Secularism can deal with diversity on a democratic basis while religion
is incapable of doing the same due to restrictions created by its own
dogma.
=D6rd=F6g
Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religionand Atheisms. [message #220086 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 15:15 |
|
this communists' dog ltlee1 is libelling democracy system.
cunningly this communists' dog takes some writing as to ideal democarcy,
then, take such to libel democracy to be religious !!!
that is the cunningness of communists' dogs !!!!
ltlee1 wrote:
> FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
>
>>>FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
>>>
>>>>I agree.
>>>>
>>>>If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be
>>>>more
>>>>sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get
>>>>along -
>>>>I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it
>>>>would
>>>>be easier that way.
>>>
>>>I don't think I know enough about Islam. I have no idea whether Islam
>>>is compatible with western democracy. May be someone can help.
>>
>>
>>I was only joking about islam. But I agree with you about the priniples of
>>justice need to be guided by that higher spirit.
>>
>>However, I don't think many people know much about western democracy.
>>Western democracy is a strange sought of democracy. All its voters think
>>that they live under a democracy but in truth the government systems are
>>structurally corrupt such that it effects no true democracy and nothing
>>close to it. We have two parties. two sides of the same coin, with runners
>>both vying for the same job as CEO of Slavery Incorporated.
>>What we have here is fasicsm - fascism is a state that is ruled by
>>corporations. Any one that tries to deny that we are not being run by
>>corporations are not paying attention. Who owns your television networks?
>>Who owns your newspapers? How many own them? Are they in opposition or
>>cartel?
>
>
> Christianity is an integral part of western cultures. Hence western
> democracy should be more accurately described as individualism based
> democracy+christianianty system. However, the rise of sciences had
> caused increasing secularization and the decline of Christianity. The
> democracy you had described is individualism based democracy in the
> absence of Christian ethics. In the absence of Christian ethics,
> individualism will become the dominating force. The society will turn
> toward nihilism and hedonism. Nothing but individual gain count.
>
> The rise of the Christian right in America and probably somewhere else
> is not coincidental. It is a response to the secularization trend.
>
---
Posted via news://freenews.netfront.net
Complaints to news [at] netfront.net
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220089 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 15:40 |
|
ltlee1:
> In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> to prevent "might is right."
Too bad that humanism provides that higher standard without any need for
higher forces, eh?
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
My personal judgment of monotheism:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220093 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 15:04 |
|
In article <1151838996.849367.178970 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com says...
> bob young wrote:
> > Komin wrote:
> >
> > > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> >
> > 'Fuckings' !
> >
> > Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
> > love of magic'?
>
> Not true.
> Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> integral part of western culture.
Horseshit. It was grafted onto classical western civilization and was
the reason for its decline and collapse.
> Western democracy won't work without
> Christian ethics.
Bullshit again. The bible makes no mention of democracy as its preferred
for of government. In fact, kingship, as in the "divine right of kings"
is the model it hocks.
>
> For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
It didn't fail, moron. They Hellenized significant parts of the known
world. But no empire lasts forever and blustering tyrants often seized
power, aggrandizing their own fortunes at the expense of the people.
Eventually, they could not resist the power of Rome, though they did
transform it. Rome, of course, had a limited form of democracy as a
Republic and lasted far longer than the present "western democracies"
such as the United States.
> Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god.
Actually, greek thelogy was integral in inventing the concept of the
Logos, expropriated by xians, and the doctrine of a triune god.
> Results: They lacked of a
> commonly accepted higher standard.
Not true. They had plenty of commonly accepted standards. It was
nominal xians like Constantine who couldn't be bothered with the niceties
of pagan norms, as when he slaughtered many of his own family members and
thus became a pariah in the pagan world. That prompted him to look to
invent some new religion that would let him get away with murder.
> Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
In contradiction to your claim, since you're saying that these higher
standards are necessary. Then, when they don't work you come up with
some ad hoc rationalization about how it must not have been "higher
enough".
> In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> to prevent "might is right."
Nothing prevented that throughout the long and brutal reign of
Christendom over the last millennium and a half either. Furthermore, the
huge amount of factionalization in xianity, spawning at least 30,000
sects means that they have far less in common than you would like to
believe.
But in terms of a core of shared values, we are social animals who have
inherited biological herd instincts. Our foundational values are derived
through evolutionary metaethics, not religion. Religion would not be
accepted unless it already conformed to a set of values which humans
shared due to their biology.
Furthermore, "might makes right" is balanced in a secular, constitutional
system by laws which provide for the equality of citizens irrespective of
wealth and power. Many theocrats have worked diligently to undermine
that equality, but they have failed.
>
> How about the rule of laws?
> Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> standard.
Incorrect. All our rights and protections derive from secular laws. The
real reason that cowardly theocrats like yourself don't practice the
genocide that your bible commands against unbelievers is that you know
you're just a small cadre of fringe whackos who would end up on death
row, after we beat back your pathetic machinations ot seize power.
Now, as a matter of fact, the law itself is far from perfect. Secular
ethical philosophers continue to refine standards for reasonable conduct
and guided by both logic and reason, consistent with our biological
axiology, permit the law to gradually become more sensitive to the needs
of the community at large.
> After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
Irrelevant. You were talking about western democracy and that is not a
system which is guaranteed to be about morality. Indeed, you seem to
make a fundamental (probably because you are a fundamentalist) mistake in
assuming that democracy itself, is the morally right course of action.
Pure majoritarianism has some major problems, which are addressed with
protection of minority and individual rights.
> What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing
Why do you assume that? There may be no will to do some of these
allegedly wrong" things. For example, as Bertrand Russell noted, he had
never coveted his neighbor's ox. I too must concur with Lord Russell on
that one.
> and not doing morally
> right but illegal thing.
Your problem is that you can't define morality and you certainly can't
show that theism is an adequate basis for morality.
>
>
> > > Atheism is about how to live .
> >
> > True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
>
> (Off topic:
> Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god.
You can keep him, god boy.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220115 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 18:34 |
|
ltlee1 ha escrito:
>
> Christianity is an integral part of western cultures. Hence western
> democracy should be more accurately described as individualism based
> democracy+christianianty system. However, the rise of sciences had
> caused increasing secularization and the decline of Christianity. The
> democracy you had described is individualism based democracy in the
> absence of Christian ethics. In the absence of Christian ethics,
> individualism will become the dominating force. The society will turn
> toward nihilism and hedonism. Nothing but individual gain count.
>
> The rise of the Christian right in America and probably somewhere else
> is not coincidental. It is a response to the secularization trend.
I do not agree with that. In the past we have not any democracy in the
West of Europe, neither in the East. The rule came from a coalition
between aristocracy and the princes of the Christian Church, that in
general werew also of aristocratic origen.
So, all the people were submitted to the tirany of the aristocrats,
that included the bishops. The idea of democracy was a subversive one,
that come about with French Revolution, and was incuvating in the mind
of middle classes like philosophers, traders, poets, writers and other
small fry. The fear of the French Revolution gave way to an new
openeness in politics and to the start of democracy with more
participation. It is not that there was ever a real democracy
anywhere, even today. But people of high ranks were competing for a
post in parlaments and so on.
I mean, more people were participating into politics and democracy, and
such gave some posiblities of desmantling some of the oppressive
Christian laws that were strangling our freedoms.
And now, this powerful offensive from the extrem right is threatening
us with turning back the clock of History. We have to fight back with
force to reject them out.
Religion was never in favor of democracy, except perhaps some small
sects that were persecuted by the main Christian churches that were in
alliance with the military powers of the State.
Leopoldo
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220116 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 18:45 |
|
FREEDOM AND JUSTICE ha escrito:
> > FREEDOM AND JUSTICE wrote:
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> If Islam is the most popular religion in the world, then wouldn't it be
> >> more
> >> sensible for everyone to be converted to Islam? Then we can all get
> >> along -
> >> I'm arguing purely on economic rationalism - logistically speaking it
> >> would
> >> be easier that way.
> >
> > I don't think I know enough about Islam. I have no idea whether Islam
> > is compatible with western democracy. May be someone can help.
>
>
> I was only joking about islam. But I agree with you about the priniples of
> justice need to be guided by that higher spirit.
>
> However, I don't think many people know much about western democracy.
> Western democracy is a strange sought of democracy. All its voters think
> that they live under a democracy but in truth the government systems are
> structurally corrupt such that it effects no true democracy and nothing
> close to it. We have two parties. two sides of the same coin, with runners
> both vying for the same job as CEO of Slavery Incorporated.
> What we have here is fasicsm - fascism is a state that is ruled by
> corporations. Any one that tries to deny that we are not being run by
> corporations are not paying attention. Who owns your television networks?
> Who owns your newspapers? How many own them? Are they in opposition or
> cartel?
It is in general call a democracy the system in which several members
of the elite classes fight for a fraction or power of the state. They
use to show a kind image, the smile a lot and kiss babies, and they try
go govern if their group has a majority.
So, it is not really, nowhere it is, that this people that go as
candidates represent the people of the nation. But they try to put a
smile and say nice words and pritty promeses when they ask for your
vote.
Sometimes communists report this democracy is fake, and we are run by
the plutocrats. Well, more or less this is true. But where communists
were governing was the samething. The officials elected do not
represented the people, but they pertained to the Communist Party.
But nevertheless, I can accept that all these candidates are at the
service of the capitalism, but they can be more or less sons of a
bitch. Not all are equally the same sort of mutherfuckers. We need to
push back those fucking fundies, or we are going to suffer the
consequencies later. Then it would be more hard to push them back out
of power.
Leopoldo
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220119 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 19:01 |
|
ltlee1 ha escrito:
> Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > On 2 Jul 2006 04:16:36 -0700, "ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >bob young wrote:
> > >> Komin wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > >>
> > >> 'Fuckings' !
> > >>
> > >> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
> > >> love of magic'?
> > >
> > >Not true.
> > >Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > >integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> > >Christian ethics.
> > >
> > >For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
> >
> > It was supplanted by Roman conquest.
> >
> > >Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god.
> >
> > So what?
> >
> > > Results: They lacked of a
> > >commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> >
> > Can you say "non sequitur"?
> >
> > >thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> > >etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> > >force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
> > >In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> > >to prevent "might is right."
> >
> > Are you really this stupid?
> >
> > >How about the rule of laws?
> > >Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> > >standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
> > >What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > >necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > >gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> > >right but illegal thing.
> >
> > Stop projecting your own psychopathic tenancies onto everybody else.
> >
> > >> > Atheism is about how to live .
> > >>
> > >> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> > >
> > >(Off topic:
> > >Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> > >was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> > >big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> > >America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> > >African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> > >associated with anything that is big.)
> >
> > Irrelevant.
> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Wakalukong wrote:
> > >> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> > >> > > (snip)
> > >> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> > >> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
> >
> > Hitler was a Christian (subset Catholic). The good Germans who carried
> > out his orders were Christian (Subsets Catholic and Lutheran). Hint:
> > you have to be Christian to regard Jews as Christ-killers.
> >
> > The holocaust was the culmination of 2000 years of Christian
> > anti-Semitism encouraged by both Protestant and Catholic church
> > fathers.
> >
> > But the biggest slaughters were black slavery and transportation from
> > Africa (primarily Christian with a Muslim contribution) , and the
> > conquest of the Americas.
> >
> > You morons don't understand that not believing in a deity has no more
> > significance to the atheist that not believing in Santa Claus does to
> > you.
> >
> > What does not believing in Santa Claus motivate or justify that you
> > do?
> >
> > >> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> > >> > > > realities.
> >
> > The in-your-face nasty lying Christian projects his own inadequacy
> > onto everybody else.
>
> Thank you for your response. But I dare say you are barking up the
> wrong tree.
> The title of this subthread is "Atheism is incompatible with western
> democracy." I am not arguing western democracy+Christianity is a
> perfect system. The question you should address is whether
> individualism based democracy is better off without strong Christian
> ethics.
I am not that sure we can talk of Christian etics. We can talk of
democratic ethics, or democratic-bourgeous ethics. But if you go
farther back in History, where were the Christian ethics when they were
exploiting the slaves in many parts of America?
the were trading in with the slaves, and exterminating them a way or
the other. They were also extermianting the American natives. Where
were the Christian ethics them?
Then, you can examine the burning of witches and sodomites. Were this
a part of the Christian ethics? I do not think that the Old Testament,
is full of Christian ethics,
is it?
So I reject that "The Rights of the Man" are issues that sprung out
from the Christian ethics, or the evangiles. Did Jesus or the Old
Testament said anything against the slavery? Dit it say anything in
favor of the women or the children? I dont think so.
I have read some stories about the Catholic orphanages in Ireland; were
those ruled by the Christian ethics? The way that were treated the
slaves was inspired by Christian ethics?
I don't buy that lie about the Christian ethics.
Leopoldo
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220121 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 19:09 |
|
=D6rd=F6g ha escrito:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > bob young wrote:
> > > Komin wrote:
> > > > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > > 'Fuckings' !
>
> > > Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a to=
uch of 'the
> > > love of magic'?
>
> > Not true.
> > Religion is more prevasive than that.
>
> More precisely religion is like a drug to a vulnerable, impressionable
> and/or not so bright human mind.
> Strong minds do not require mind altering drugs, not in form of
> chemical supplements nor as collective brainwashing.
>
> > For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > integral part of western culture.
>
> Wrong. That was a while back, it is not now. Many of those who have not
> left the different churches yet are religious on paper only. There is
> little religion can offer to 21st century modern and civilised humans
> unless there is something really wrong about their psychological make
> up and/or social conditions.
>
> > Western democracy won't work without
> > Christian ethics.
>
> That is a strawman assertion. Democracy is in no way dependent on
> Xtianity which provides best for an authoritarian style of society.
>
> > For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
>
> Because it was not really a democracy. Nor was it the case in ancient
> Rome.
> Democracy includes all members of a society, which did not happen
> during that era.
>
> > Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
> > commonly accepted higher standard.
>
> <snip while I still can>
>
> Hmmm. Now you are just bullshitting around hoping that we won't notice.
> Do you have a patent on your version of history?
>
> > How about the rule of laws?
>
> How about them? Can you only keep people in line by threatening them
> with fire and brimstone?
>
> <more bull snipped)
>
> > After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
>
> Law is a mechanism that codifies how we manage conflicting human
> behavior. Its sole purpuse is to make our lives more managable. In an
> enlightened and modern society laws are there to serve the people and
> not the other way around.
>
> Morality is the psychological tool religion employs to control society.
> Morality is when other people tell you how they expect you to behave
> but justify it by refering to supernatural powers and can really make
> you feel bad about yourself. There is nothing democratic about that!
>
> > What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > necessarily illegal?
>
> Which means that the laws are not working as intended or they were bad
> to begin with.
> That is when a modern society amends or changes those laws. No miracles
> needed!
>
> > Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> > right but illegal thing.
>
> You are sliding into bullshitting again. Or more precisely you have not
> stopped bullshitting
>
> > > > Atheism is about how to live .
> > > True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
>
>
> > (Off topic:
> > Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> > was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> > big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> > America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> > African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> > associated with anything that is big.)
>
> Info we never really wanted to know!
> How about staying "on topic"?
>
> =D6rd=F6g
> Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
very good, ordog
Leopoldo
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220124 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 19:21 |
|
quibbler ha escrito:
> In article <1151838996.849367.178970 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com says...
> > bob young wrote:
> > > Komin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > >
> > > 'Fuckings' !
> > >
> > > Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
> > > love of magic'?
> >
> > Not true.
> > Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > integral part of western culture.
>
>
> Horseshit. It was grafted onto classical western civilization and was
> the reason for its decline and collapse.
>
>
> > Western democracy won't work without
> > Christian ethics.
>
>
> Bullshit again. The bible makes no mention of democracy as its preferred
> for of government. In fact, kingship, as in the "divine right of kings"
> is the model it hocks.
>
>
> >
> > For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
>
> It didn't fail, moron. They Hellenized significant parts of the known
> world. But no empire lasts forever and blustering tyrants often seized
> power, aggrandizing their own fortunes at the expense of the people.
> Eventually, they could not resist the power of Rome, though they did
> transform it. Rome, of course, had a limited form of democracy as a
> Republic and lasted far longer than the present "western democracies"
> such as the United States.
>
>
>
> > Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god.
>
>
> Actually, greek thelogy was integral in inventing the concept of the
> Logos, expropriated by xians, and the doctrine of a triune god.
>
>
> > Results: They lacked of a
> > commonly accepted higher standard.
>
> Not true. They had plenty of commonly accepted standards. It was
> nominal xians like Constantine who couldn't be bothered with the niceties
> of pagan norms, as when he slaughtered many of his own family members and
> thus became a pariah in the pagan world. That prompted him to look to
> invent some new religion that would let him get away with murder.
>
>
> > Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> > thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> > etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> > force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
>
> In contradiction to your claim, since you're saying that these higher
> standards are necessary. Then, when they don't work you come up with
> some ad hoc rationalization about how it must not have been "higher
> enough".
>
>
>
> > In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> > to prevent "might is right."
>
> Nothing prevented that throughout the long and brutal reign of
> Christendom over the last millennium and a half either. Furthermore, the
> huge amount of factionalization in xianity, spawning at least 30,000
> sects means that they have far less in common than you would like to
> believe.
> But in terms of a core of shared values, we are social animals who have
> inherited biological herd instincts. Our foundational values are derived
> through evolutionary metaethics, not religion. Religion would not be
> accepted unless it already conformed to a set of values which humans
> shared due to their biology.
> Furthermore, "might makes right" is balanced in a secular, constitutional
> system by laws which provide for the equality of citizens irrespective of
> wealth and power. Many theocrats have worked diligently to undermine
> that equality, but they have failed.
>
>
>
> >
> > How about the rule of laws?
> > Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> > standard.
>
> Incorrect. All our rights and protections derive from secular laws. The
> real reason that cowardly theocrats like yourself don't practice the
> genocide that your bible commands against unbelievers is that you know
> you're just a small cadre of fringe whackos who would end up on death
> row, after we beat back your pathetic machinations ot seize power.
> Now, as a matter of fact, the law itself is far from perfect. Secular
> ethical philosophers continue to refine standards for reasonable conduct
> and guided by both logic and reason, consistent with our biological
> axiology, permit the law to gradually become more sensitive to the needs
> of the community at large.
>
>
>
> > After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
>
> Irrelevant. You were talking about western democracy and that is not a
> system which is guaranteed to be about morality. Indeed, you seem to
> make a fundamental (probably because you are a fundamentalist) mistake in
> assuming that democracy itself, is the morally right course of action.
> Pure majoritarianism has some major problems, which are addressed with
> protection of minority and individual rights.
>
> > What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing
>
>
> Why do you assume that? There may be no will to do some of these
> allegedly wrong" things. For example, as Bertrand Russell noted, he had
> never coveted his neighbor's ox. I too must concur with Lord Russell on
> that one.
>
>
> > and not doing morally
> > right but illegal thing.
>
> Your problem is that you can't define morality and you certainly can't
> show that theism is an adequate basis for morality.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > Atheism is about how to live .
> > >
> > > True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> >
> > (Off topic:
> > Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god.
>
>
> You can keep him, god boy.
>
>
>
> --
> Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
> "It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
> threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
> disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
> made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
> comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
> eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
Very good, quibbler:
I would like to add, that the fundies confuse democracy with the
oppression of minorities. In the tates and counties where they are a
majority, they want to impose the prayer on all peoples. When some
teachers put a challenge to that in courts they were whinning about
courts were not being democratic. They were claiming for the right to
oppress the minorites, like they were an Islamic State down there.
Sometimes I began to think we have to call them "Christalivans".
I am in doubt between call them ChristoFascists or Christalivans.
Leopoldo
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220130 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 19:42 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1151838996.849367.178970 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
> bob young wrote:
<..>
> Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity
> is an integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't
> work without Christian ethics.
<...>
By a weird coincidence democracy was not developed in most of the
western world until *after the country had adopted freedom of
religion.
Lisbeth.
----
The day I don't learn anything new is the day I die.
*What we know is not nearly as interesting as *how we know it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220135 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 22:03 |
|
"ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1151838996.849367.178970 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> bob young wrote:
>> Komin wrote:
>>
>> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
>>
>> 'Fuckings' !
>>
>> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch
>> of 'the
>> love of magic'?
>
> Not true.
> Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> Christian ethics.
The whole point of democracy is to escape kings and lords.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet [at] io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220147 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 23:28 |
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
> "ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1151838996.849367.178970 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> > bob young wrote:
> >> Komin wrote:
> >>
> >> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> >>
> >> 'Fuckings' !
> >>
> >> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch
> >> of 'the
> >> love of magic'?
> >
> > Not true.
> > Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> > Christian ethics.
>
> The whole point of democracy is to escape kings and lords.
To a certain degree, true.
But democracy is in essense self-rule. That is, rule by the people as
the people see fit. If the people want kings and lords, then kings and
lords will be part of their democracy. For example, several democratic
countries still have kings or queens.
>
>
> --
> Denis Loubet
> dloubet [at] io.com
> http://www.io.com/~dloubet
> http://www.ashenempires.com
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220148 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 23:35 |
|
leo wrote:
> ltlee1 ha escrito:
>
>
>
> >
> > Christianity is an integral part of western cultures. Hence western
> > democracy should be more accurately described as individualism based
> > democracy+christianianty system. However, the rise of sciences had
> > caused increasing secularization and the decline of Christianity. The
> > democracy you had described is individualism based democracy in the
> > absence of Christian ethics. In the absence of Christian ethics,
> > individualism will become the dominating force. The society will turn
> > toward nihilism and hedonism. Nothing but individual gain count.
> >
> > The rise of the Christian right in America and probably somewhere else
> > is not coincidental. It is a response to the secularization trend.
>
> I do not agree with that. In the past we have not any democracy in the
> West of Europe, neither in the East. The rule came from a coalition
> between aristocracy and the princes of the Christian Church, that in
> general werew also of aristocratic origen.
> So, all the people were submitted to the tirany of the aristocrats,
> that included the bishops. The idea of democracy was a subversive one,
> that come about with French Revolution, and was incuvating in the mind
> of middle classes like philosophers, traders, poets, writers and other
> small fry. The fear of the French Revolution gave way to an new
> openeness in politics and to the start of democracy with more
> participation. It is not that there was ever a real democracy
> anywhere, even today. But people of high ranks were competing for a
> post in parlaments and so on.
> I mean, more people were participating into politics and democracy, and
> such gave some posiblities of desmantling some of the oppressive
> Christian laws that were strangling our freedoms.
> And now, this powerful offensive from the extrem right is threatening
> us with turning back the clock of History. We have to fight back with
> force to reject them out.
> Religion was never in favor of democracy, except perhaps some small
> sects that were persecuted by the main Christian churches that were in
> alliance with the military powers of the State.
Democracy is rule by the people or self rule. But no matter what is the
proximal cause of western democracy, it does not rise from a vacuum.
Rather, it rise reflected western countries's cultural foundation, that
is Greek rationalism, Roman's legal tradition and Christianity.
> Leopoldo
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220149 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 23:48 |
|
=D6rd=F6g wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
>
> > > The in-your-face nasty lying Christian projects his own inadequacy
> > > onto everybody else.
>
> > Thank you for your response. But I dare say you are barking up the
> > wrong tree.
> > The title of this subthread is "Atheism is incompatible with western
> > democracy." I am not arguing western democracy+Christianity is a
> > perfect system. The question you should address is whether
> > individualism based democracy is better off without strong Christian
> > ethics.
>
> Clever move. You are trying to escape the burden of proof by shifting
> it to the secularists.
I am not trying to escape the burden of proof.
But anyone familiar with western history would not deny that
Christianity is a integral part of western culture. If one is to reject
such a deep tradition, he or she must furnish the evidence that cut off
a significant part of culture is beneficial.
>
> Since you have not been able to show that Xtian moral and ethics bring
> any benefit to a modern and democratic society we have not too many
> alternative options apart from secularism, do we?
Western demcracy is individualsim based democracy. Individualism
confers great dynamicism to western societies, but it also encourage
competition among people. In realtiy, the dhnamicism of a society and
the competitiveness go hand in hand. Excessive compettion, however,
could tear the social fabric apart.
It is history that ancient Greek democracies were torn apart from the
inside by radical individualism and unrestrained egotism in the absence
of an absoltue divinity.
According to Arsitotle,
"He [man] ends with the view that 'liberty and equality' consist
in 'doing what one likes.' The results of such a view is that...
each man lives as he likes-- or, as Euripides says, 'For any end
he chances to desire.'"
"=2E..Individualism, once unrepressed and unleased, must be expressed,
and a characteristic mode of that expression is the intense need to
triumph over one's opponent... Alvin Gouldner, commenting on
Nietsche's view that the Greeks turned almost every human activity
into a contest writes: "Yet it is the same contest system that also
rends the polis and so lacerates its social order that at times it
appears that, of all the Greek talents, by far the greatest is mutual
destruction"..."
(All quotes above are from THE HONEY AND THE HEMLOCK: Democracy and
Paranoia in Ancient Athens and Modern America by Eli Sagan)
>
> I recommend that you do not separate out Xtianity. It is just one
> religion among many currently practiced on this planet. If you insist
> on a special status for that particular religion than you have to show
> why that is justifiable.
I am not trying to separate Xtianity out. Rather, Xtianity is already
in for about 2000 years.
>
> My argument is the same here as when discussing theism versus atheism.
> Atheism is the absence of belief nothing more and nothing less. If you
> want to show that there is a supernatural entity guiding this universe
> than you have got to come up with a proof, not your debating opponent.
>
> The same goes here. You are yet to make a case why religious moral and
> ethic manipulation of society is desirable. Specially because those are
> integral parts of restraints on others (i.e. non-believers and members
> of other faiths)
>
> Secularism can deal with diversity on a democratic basis while religion
> is incapable of doing the same due to restrictions created by its own
> dogma.
>
> =D6rd=F6g
> Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220150 ] |
So, 02 Juli 2006 23:57 |
|
leo wrote:
> ltlee1 ha escrito:
>
> > Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> > > On 2 Jul 2006 04:16:36 -0700, "ltlee1" <ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >bob young wrote:
> > > >> Komin wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > > >>
> > > >> 'Fuckings' !
> > > >>
> > > >> Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
> > > >> love of magic'?
> > > >
> > > >Not true.
> > > >Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > > >integral part of western culture. Western democracy won't work without
> > > >Christian ethics.
> > > >
> > > >For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
> > >
> > > It was supplanted by Roman conquest.
> > >
> > > >Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god.
> > >
> > > So what?
> > >
> > > > Results: They lacked of a
> > > >commonly accepted higher standard. Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> > >
> > > Can you say "non sequitur"?
> > >
> > > >thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> > > >etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> > > >force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
> > > >In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> > > >to prevent "might is right."
> > >
> > > Are you really this stupid?
> > >
> > > >How about the rule of laws?
> > > >Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> > > >standard. After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
> > > >What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > > >necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > > >gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> > > >right but illegal thing.
> > >
> > > Stop projecting your own psychopathic tenancies onto everybody else.
> > >
> > > >> > Atheism is about how to live .
> > > >>
> > > >> True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> > > >
> > > >(Off topic:
> > > >Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> > > >was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> > > >big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> > > >America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> > > >African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> > > >associated with anything that is big.)
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Wakalukong wrote:
> > > >> > > FRANKIE LEE wrote:
> > > >> > > (snip)
> > > >> > > > Frankie's comments: Our world saw atheisms in Communist countries, and evil
> > > >> > > > man and rulers like Hitler, Mao Tse Dong, Stalin, Bertrand, Russell, and
> > >
> > > Hitler was a Christian (subset Catholic). The good Germans who carried
> > > out his orders were Christian (Subsets Catholic and Lutheran). Hint:
> > > you have to be Christian to regard Jews as Christ-killers.
> > >
> > > The holocaust was the culmination of 2000 years of Christian
> > > anti-Semitism encouraged by both Protestant and Catholic church
> > > fathers.
> > >
> > > But the biggest slaughters were black slavery and transportation from
> > > Africa (primarily Christian with a Muslim contribution) , and the
> > > conquest of the Americas.
> > >
> > > You morons don't understand that not believing in a deity has no more
> > > significance to the atheist that not believing in Santa Claus does to
> > > you.
> > >
> > > What does not believing in Santa Claus motivate or justify that you
> > > do?
> > >
> > > >> > > > Darwin....had no human conscience. Atheisms are out of touch of truths and
> > > >> > > > realities.
> > >
> > > The in-your-face nasty lying Christian projects his own inadequacy
> > > onto everybody else.
> >
> > Thank you for your response. But I dare say you are barking up the
> > wrong tree.
> > The title of this subthread is "Atheism is incompatible with western
> > democracy." I am not arguing western democracy+Christianity is a
> > perfect system. The question you should address is whether
> > individualism based democracy is better off without strong Christian
> > ethics.
>
> I am not that sure we can talk of Christian etics. We can talk of
> democratic ethics, or democratic-bourgeous ethics. But if you go
> farther back in History, where were the Christian ethics when they were
> exploiting the slaves in many parts of America?
Slavery certainly did not reflect Christianity's emphasis of universal
love as preached by Jesus. Rather, it was a system codified by law
examplify might (the majoirty) is right.
> the were trading in with the slaves, and exterminating them a way or
> the other. They were also extermianting the American natives. Where
> were the Christian ethics them?
> Then, you can examine the burning of witches and sodomites. Were this
> a part of the Christian ethics? I do not think that the Old Testament,
> is full of Christian ethics,
> is it?
> So I reject that "The Rights of the Man" are issues that sprung out
> from the Christian ethics, or the evangiles. Did Jesus or the Old
> Testament said anything against the slavery? Dit it say anything in
> favor of the women or the children? I dont think so.
> I have read some stories about the Catholic orphanages in Ireland; were
> those ruled by the Christian ethics? The way that were treated the
> slaves was inspired by Christian ethics?
> I don't buy that lie about the Christian ethics.
> Leopoldo
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220152 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 00:55 |
|
=D6rd=F6g wrote:
> ltlee1 wrote:
> > bob young wrote:
> > > Komin wrote:
> > > > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > > 'Fuckings' !
>
> > > Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a to=
uch of 'the
> > > love of magic'?
>
> > Not true.
> > Religion is more prevasive than that.
>
> More precisely religion is like a drug to a vulnerable, impressionable
> and/or not so bright human mind.
> Strong minds do not require mind altering drugs, not in form of
> chemical supplements nor as collective brainwashing.
Don't agree.
Christianity could be helping in the physical level.
For example, "THE RISE OF CHRISTIANITY: A Sociologist Reconsiders
History, 1996" actually demonstrated that Christianity increased
survival chance during the early Christian period because its emphasize
on agapa love.
> > For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > integral part of western culture.
>
> Wrong. That was a while back, it is not now. Many of those who have not
> left the different churches yet are religious on paper only. There is
> little religion can offer to 21st century modern and civilised humans
> unless there is something really wrong about their psychological make
> up and/or social conditions.
Viewing western society like America, I see a lot of Christian
elements. For intance, Lord Acton's famous saying is one example.
"Power tends ot corrupt; absoulte power corrupts absolutely." First of
all, Lord Acton's saying had the Catholic Church and the Pope on his
mind. Secondly, the saying does not make sense without the implicit
assumpiton of humans are born evil, i.e. original sin.
>
> > Western democracy won't work without
> > Christian ethics.
>
> That is a strawman assertion. Democracy is in no way dependent on
> Xtianity which provides best for an authoritarian style of society.
>
> > For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
>
> Because it was not really a democracy. Nor was it the case in ancient
> Rome.
> Democracy includes all members of a society, which did not happen
> during that era.
Democracy does not really require all members of a society.
>
> > Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god. Results: They lacked of a
> > commonly accepted higher standard.
>
> <snip while I still can>
>
> Hmmm. Now you are just bullshitting around hoping that we won't notice.
> Do you have a patent on your version of history?
>
> > How about the rule of laws?
>
> How about them? Can you only keep people in line by threatening them
> with fire and brimstone?
>
> <more bull snipped)
>
> > After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
>
> Law is a mechanism that codifies how we manage conflicting human
> behavior. Its sole purpuse is to make our lives more managable. In an
> enlightened and modern society laws are there to serve the people and
> not the other way around.
Laws are to a certain extent symbolic in the sense that no country has
ever claimed it has caught and punished all criminals. For example, we
often heard the claim that for every raper caught, 10 or more were not
reported and could not be rought before the law.
>
> Morality is the psychological tool religion employs to control society.
> Morality is when other people tell you how they expect you to behave
> but justify it by refering to supernatural powers and can really make
> you feel bad about yourself. There is nothing democratic about that!
>
> > What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > necessarily illegal?
>
> Which means that the laws are not working as intended or they were bad
> to begin with.
> That is when a modern society amends or changes those laws. No miracles
> needed!
laws are not perfect because humans are not perfect.
>
> > Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing and not doing morally
> > right but illegal thing.
>
> You are sliding into bullshitting again. Or more precisely you have not
> stopped bullshitting
>
> > > > Atheism is about how to live .
> > > True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
>
>
> > (Off topic:
> > Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god. The word jumbo
> > was borrowed to name a large male African elephant. The elephants was a
> > big attraction in London zoo for about 15 years. It was then sold to
> > America's Barnum Circus and pleased many American kids. The gigantic
> > African elephant was so popular such that the word jumbo was later
> > associated with anything that is big.)
>
> Info we never really wanted to know!
> How about staying "on topic"?
>
> =D6rd=F6g
> Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220153 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 00:57 |
|
Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian wrote:
> ltlee1:
>
> > In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> > to prevent "might is right."
>
> Too bad that humanism provides that higher standard without any need for
> higher forces, eh?
Humanism according to whom? The like of saddam Hussein and Bush Jr.
>
> --
> "To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
> But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
> (The Poetic Edda)
> Must have been written with fundies in mind...
>
> My personal judgment of monotheism:
> http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
|
|
|
| Re: Atheism is incompatiable with western democracy Re: Religion and Atheisms. [message #220154 ] |
Mo, 03 Juli 2006 01:12 |
|
quibbler wrote:
> In article <1151838996.849367.178970 [at] m79g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>,
> ltlee1 [at] hotmail.com says...
> > bob young wrote:
> > > Komin wrote:
> > >
> > > > Religions are all about Fukkings ,
> > >
> > > 'Fuckings' !
> > >
> > > Don't you mean 'primitive supersitions, fear of the unknown; and a touch of 'the
> > > love of magic'?
> >
> > Not true.
> > Religion is more prevasive than that. For example, Chrianitianity is an
> > integral part of western culture.
>
>
> Horseshit. It was grafted onto classical western civilization and was
> the reason for its decline and collapse.
At least not in America. Bush Jr. claim America is 95% religious most
Christians.
>
>
> > Western democracy won't work without
> > Christian ethics.
>
>
> Bullshit again. The bible makes no mention of democracy as its preferred
> for of government. In fact, kingship, as in the "divine right of kings"
> is the model it hocks.
>
>
> >
> > For instance, why Greek democracy failed?
>
> It didn't fail, moron. They Hellenized significant parts of the known
> world. But no empire lasts forever and blustering tyrants often seized
> power, aggrandizing their own fortunes at the expense of the people.
> Eventually, they could not resist the power of Rome, though they did
> transform it. Rome, of course, had a limited form of democracy as a
> Republic and lasted far longer than the present "western democracies"
> such as the United States.
>
>
>
> > Greeks did not believe a monotheistic god.
>
>
> Actually, greek thelogy was integral in inventing the concept of the
> Logos, expropriated by xians, and the doctrine of a triune god.
No. The Christian doctrine of trinity was a response to Greek
challenge.
According to Gorgias,
1. Nothing exists. That is, no higher being or higher law exists.
2. If it exists, it cannot be known.
3. If it can be known, it cannot be communicated with humans.
Christianity answers it with
1. God the father exists.
2. God is known through Jesus.
3. God communicates with humans through the holy spirit.
>
> > Results: They lacked of a
> > commonly accepted higher standard.
>
> Not true. They had plenty of commonly accepted standards. It was
> nominal xians like Constantine who couldn't be bothered with the niceties
> of pagan norms, as when he slaughtered many of his own family members and
> thus became a pariah in the pagan world. That prompted him to look to
> invent some new religion that would let him get away with murder.
Constantine was a Greek.
>
>
> > Of course, Plato, Aristle and other
> > thinkers invoked a higher existence, logo, principle, higher law, and
> > etc as part of their thinking. However, these entitites were never a
> > force in preventing freedom from destroying ancient Greek democracies.
>
> In contradiction to your claim, since you're saying that these higher
> standards are necessary. Then, when they don't work you come up with
> some ad hoc rationalization about how it must not have been "higher
> enough".
See above, Gorgias is also with name of the book written by Plato.
>
>
>
> > In the absence of a commonly acepted higher standard, there is nothing
> > to prevent "might is right."
>
> Nothing prevented that throughout the long and brutal reign of
> Christendom over the last millennium and a half either. Furthermore, the
> huge amount of factionalization in xianity, spawning at least 30,000
> sects means that they have far less in common than you would like to
> believe.
> But in terms of a core of shared values, we are social animals who have
> inherited biological herd instincts. Our foundational values are derived
> through evolutionary metaethics, not religion. Religion would not be
> accepted unless it already conformed to a set of values which humans
> shared due to their biology.
> Furthermore, "might makes right" is balanced in a secular, constitutional
> system by laws which provide for the equality of citizens irrespective of
> wealth and power. Many theocrats have worked diligently to undermine
> that equality, but they have failed.
>
>
>
> >
> > How about the rule of laws?
> > Law will be ineffective or have no force in the absence of a higher
> > standard.
>
> Incorrect. All our rights and protections derive from secular laws. The
> real reason that cowardly theocrats like yourself don't practice the
> genocide that your bible commands against unbelievers is that you know
> you're just a small cadre of fringe whackos who would end up on death
> row, after we beat back your pathetic machinations ot seize power.
> Now, as a matter of fact, the law itself is far from perfect. Secular
> ethical philosophers continue to refine standards for reasonable conduct
> and guided by both logic and reason, consistent with our biological
> axiology, permit the law to gradually become more sensitive to the needs
> of the community at large.
>
>
>
> > After all, law, by itself, is about legality, not morality.
>
> Irrelevant. You were talking about western democracy and that is not a
> system which is guaranteed to be about morality. Indeed, you seem to
> make a fundamental (probably because you are a fundamentalist) mistake in
> assuming that democracy itself, is the morally right course of action.
> Pure majoritarianism has some major problems, which are addressed with
> protection of minority and individual rights.
I certainly do not make that assumption. The issue here whether atheism
is compatible with western democracy. Not western democracy is morally
right or superior.
>
> > What is legal is not necessarily right? And what is wrong is not
> > necessarily illegal? Under these circumstance, people will naturally
> > gravitate to do legal but morally wrong thing
>
>
> Why do you assume that? There may be no will to do some of these
> allegedly wrong" things. For example, as Bertrand Russell noted, he had
> never coveted his neighbor's ox. I too must concur with Lord Russell on
> that one.
Sure. Not all citizens are criminals. But one is unrealistic to assume
no citizens will be criminals.
>
>
> > and not doing morally
> > right but illegal thing.
>
> Your problem is that you can't define morality and you certainly can't
> show that theism is an adequate basis for morality.
I do not make any of the above claim. Rather, my claim is laws would be
more effective if the citizens have a commonly accepted higher laws. Of
coruse, I am aware that many bad things are also done in the name of
God.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > > > Atheism is about how to live .
> > >
> > > True, with eyes wide open and free of mumbo jumbo
> >
> > (Off topic:
> > Mumbo Jumbo was originally the name of an African god.
>
>
> You can keep him, god boy.
>
>
>
> --
> Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
> "It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
> threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
> disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
> made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
> comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
> eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: So Mai 27 12:22:52 CEST 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,10778 Sekunden |
