Marinus

I differentiate between the teachings of Jesus (mildly insane but for the most part non-violent) and the rest of Christian lore (a mixed bag, containing among other things loads of hatred, bigotry and violence.) You apply what I said about Jesus to the rest of Christianity. The fact that those atrocities have little to do with the teachings of Jesus, is probably due to the fact that Christianity has little to do with the teachings of Jesus. And in the end I simply judge the tree by its fruit not by what a antique Jew supposedly had in mind for Christianity 2000 years ago. Since that time Christianity has pretty much proven that it's a hate-based violent ideology that revolves around the central idea of "see things our way or burn". There's a couple of exceptions, (usually those brands of Christianity are seen as heretic by the main-stream, btw) but Christianity always seem to boil down to a variation on this theme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv77lPW3cys

I don't know if you're familiar with Christian end time prophecies, but most of 'em are so vague that it isn't even completely clear wheter it is an end time prophecy or not. Regardless, due to all the vagueness, the end time prophecies could refer to any random period in human history, and loads of people fitted the description of the Antichrist. Because of this, Christian eschatology is an exercise in futility. Even most Christians know this.

The bible learns us that we all will go to hell in a hand basket during a coinciding solar and lunar eclipse. Interestingly enough that'll be on the same day hell freezes over. Coincidence?

This "It's not the religion, it's just a few bad apples who bastardize it" is getting real old. there's two billion Christians, and of those, hundreds of millions wouldn't hesitate a second if they had the chance to force their ways down the throat of every one else. Even in this day and age with the contemporary and relatively civilized brands of Christianity, and back in the days it was way worse. Persecution, torture, murder.... no means were left unused to spread the religion for more than a millennium, destroying other religions and even whole cultures in the process. So that's main-stream Christianity for ya.

I think he usually starts to worry when they don't get up within a couple of days after they're being beaten to a bloody pulp.

"Fucked up" would be the state of humanity if we all stopped lying to each other. It's just the way it is, get over it.

But you seem to equate it to respect. I'm tolerant of Christianity, but I also recognize the fact that it's a disgusting monstrosity that has strangely diverted from it's usual modus operandi of spreading bigotry, promoting hatred and glorifying violence. This anomaly doesn't make me feel at ease with Christianity, because the religion mutates worse than the HIV-virus and it could easily evolve into something that resembles its usual state, in which "love thy neighbour" doesn't mean that you can't burn old ladies at the stake for frivolous reasons. And since I belong to one of the groups that were traditionally treated in the most depraved ways by Christians, I'm more than happy that the religion is on it's way out where I'm from.

I refer to myself as an agnostic or atheist because it's close enough and it spares me the bother of explaining what apatheism is. I think I sort of fit the profile.

There's no real correlation between moral behaviour and how religious one is. Since when is doubting knowing? Between first doubt till complete non-belief, lies a period of two decades, including 15 years in which I was a self-identified Christian. But it isn't.

It's the other way around, darling. Christianity is so weak, that I started to doubt it when I was 7 years old. I put a lot of time and energy into it to convince myself it was true, but apparently to no avail. SC is entertainment, and religion is fascinating, but in the end I don't really care about the answers.

I don't agree with this. I seems to me that in any activity that involves high speed projectiles, protective measures should be in place to protect bystanders. Or maybe even only a warning sign. But if that isn't the case, it can never be the responsibility of an 11 yo. And 150.000 dollars seems a "bit" over the top too me too. For that money the kid should be allowed to cause proportional damage, like dropping a piano on the lady's head. But personally I don't have a problem with the general principle of letting the responsible party pay. If, for example a 8 yo throws in my (large) living room window, the hell I'm going to pay the 1000 Euro or so replacement costs myself. Over here almost any kid has an insurance that covers for him or her in case they cause damage, but if that isn't the case, you can bet the bill goes to mom and dad. An liability insurance is very affordable, (about 60/year for a family of 4) and if someone doesn't take the responsibility to insure their kid, I've no problem to present them the bill if things go wrong.

There's a label for that too: it's apatheism. Not so much boring: it's just impossible to have a good classification system. Some people think you can divide non-believers in a couple of neat little piles, the endless discussions that are a result of such claims proof otherwise.

The argument that atheism is also a belief is usually an attempt from the religious to pull atheists down from their usually very strong logical position, down to the usually very weak faith-based position of the believers. An atheist can state that he has absolutely no reason to assume the hypothesis "There is a God" is true without becoming an agnostic or expressing a belief.

Except of course it isn't a contradiction. "I don't know what your natural hair colour is, but I know it isn't green like you say" Without knowing what the answer is, one can still identify a wrong answer. In case of God we're actually not even know what we're looking for, of course, so in a way, you're right, but probably not in the way you prefer.

Nice generalization there, pops. Funny thing is that you object to such generalizations if you're on the receiving end of it. Besides toleration doesn't imply at all that you agree with whatever you tolerate. Personally I don't tolerate any form of religious encroaching on my life, but that's about it. That's beyond me, but still society is more tolerant of religious bigotry.

Agreed on the corkscrew, but one shouldn't be dependant on a bottle opener to be able to open one's beer. Opening ones beer beer with a lighter, a spoon or an antler is an essential skill. What if you're stranded in the wilderness without a beer opener?

If there is a God, he/she/it doesn't seem to care about us, or at least not in a way we can understand. It's btw extremely unlikely that the hypothetical God and human beings could understand one another, it would be comparable to ants understanding humans, and visa versa. I can understand an ant to a certain extent but a personal relationship won't happen. And for the ant it would be even worse. I really like ants, I think they're fascinating creatures, ant they come in handy when it's time to feed my plants. [cue evil laughter] It would be a bitch for an ant to understand that I really like ants while he's digested by my vegetables, I reckon. Anyway, God is pretty much irrelevant to us IMHO, whether he/she/it exists or not. What others believe is only interesting to me at an academic level, as long as those believes don't include the belief that non-consenting *) others should be bothered with ones believes (or lack thereof). *) I assume that anyone who writes on SC consents to me bothering them with my lack of belief, btw. IRL I keep my non-belief to myself, unless someone asks direct questions about it.

I guess there's no such thing as overkill, when the enemy is already dead?

I don't know if there is a God, but I do know that the Christian God is a nonsensical figment of the imagination. There's loads of situation I can think of where one doesn't know the answer, but one can identify a wrong answer. The Christian God simply falls with the nonsense in the bible.

I could have chosen my words more carefully, but this is the Speakers Corner and when I'm here, I use a blunt axe to type with. True that, but it seems the best word to refer to the likes of you. Yankees isn't historically correct I think, and I know no real alternatives.

*sigh* I spell it out for you: the important word is the word "can", which doesn't necessarily imply that all Americans are gullible. But for a civilized country you've a lot of extremely gullible morons, that's one of the reasons FOX News does so well on your side of the pond. Even our gutter press is well-informed and objective compared to that. It's also the reason that a complete idiot like santorum gets a long way in the race for president. The clip I showed isn't even insulting any more, it's so absurd that it becomes hilarious.

Yes, there's death camps for the elderly everywhere in Europe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yn-eejMcmuA I just put my own Granny on the train to Oldwitz-Birkenau myself. Once they start smelling and wetting the carpet and stuff it's time to end it. Truly, it never stops to amaze me how gullible Americans can be.....

Why not, they're the same thing. the subject that was meant to be under discussion is US foreign politics. The discussion derailed a long time ago into a discussion about legalizing weed. Welcome to SC...

And there you are, because we really need those posts that absolutely don't add anything at all. Personally I don't give a fuck about how high one can get on common hemp, but I do give a fuck about the fact that hemp is a very useful crop that could make this world a somewhat better place.

If you ignore the mind-altering part and the fact that it's a very resilient plant, hemp is anything but a weed. It's a very useful crop and it's a bloody shame it's outlawed because some idiots think it causes reefer madness in anyone that comes close to it.