03 Feb 2012, 3:38 am
03 Feb 2012, 3:42 am
03 Feb 2012, 3:46 am
03 Feb 2012, 3:47 am
There is a MAJOR difference between a church dissolving because people don't attend, and churches being banned 
03 Feb 2012, 3:49 am
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Maybe I need to repeat: atheists want freedom from religion, and complete division of church and state. Not a form of government dominated by any one philosophy.
Stalin's Russia wanted freedom from religion. Maoist China wanted freedom from religion. With freedom from religion there is no division from church and state because there is no church.
Your logic needs polishing.
Yeah, you'll come back with some other stupid concept from the Atheist manifesto, but my logic is solid and unarguable.
This is laughable now. You are failing to understand:
Communist dictatorships = Communist dictatorships
not
Separation of church and state = Communist atheist dictatorship
or any variation on this
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
Furthermore what is an "Atheist manifesto"?
Your logic is solid s**t
03 Feb 2012, 3:53 am
abacacus wrote:
There is a MAJOR difference between a church dissolving because people don't attend, and churches being banned
Church Banned, no church.
Church Dissolved, no church.
What's the difference in the end result? I'm having trouble seeing any.
03 Feb 2012, 3:54 am
Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Maybe I need to repeat: atheists want freedom from religion, and complete division of church and state. Not a form of government dominated by any one philosophy.
Stalin's Russia wanted freedom from religion. Maoist China wanted freedom from religion. With freedom from religion there is no division from church and state because there is no church.
Your logic needs polishing.
Yeah, you'll come back with some other stupid concept from the Atheist manifesto, but my logic is solid and unarguable.
This is laughable now. You are failing to understand:
Communist dictatorships = Communist dictatorships
not
Separation of church and state = Communist atheist dictatorship
or any variation on this
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
Furthermore what is an "Atheist manifesto"?
Your logic is solid sh**
I quoted this so you can read it again and see the flaw in your argument.
03 Feb 2012, 3:55 am
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
Maybe I need to repeat: atheists want freedom from religion, and complete division of church and state. Not a form of government dominated by any one philosophy.
Stalin's Russia wanted freedom from religion. Maoist China wanted freedom from religion. With freedom from religion there is no division from church and state because there is no church.
Your logic needs polishing.
Yeah, you'll come back with some other stupid concept from the Atheist manifesto, but my logic is solid and unarguable.
This is laughable now. You are failing to understand:
Communist dictatorships = Communist dictatorships
not
Separation of church and state = Communist atheist dictatorship
or any variation on this
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
Furthermore what is an "Atheist manifesto"?
Your logic is solid sh**
I quoted this so you can read it again and see the flaw in your argument.
Translation: "I have nothing to rebut with so now I'll be an asshat"
03 Feb 2012, 3:56 am
cw10 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
There is a MAJOR difference between a church dissolving because people don't attend, and churches being banned
Church Banned, no church.
Church Dissolved, no church.
What's the difference in the end result? I'm having trouble seeing any.
One is forced. One is chosen by society.
If no one wants to buy a product, the corporation who makes it fails. This is not the same as the government shutting down the corporation.
03 Feb 2012, 3:58 am
abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
There is a MAJOR difference between a church dissolving because people don't attend, and churches being banned
Church Banned, no church.
Church Dissolved, no church.
What's the difference in the end result? I'm having trouble seeing any.
One is forced. One is chosen by society.
If no one wants to buy a product, the corporation who makes it fails. This is not the same as the government shutting down the corporation.
Churches dissolving is not that abnormal. There might not be enough members or they get absorbed by other churches. Nothing to do with pressure from anyone...
03 Feb 2012, 3:59 am
Vigilans wrote:
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
The founders of the US constitution wanted a separation of powers. There is religion in the state, but there is no state religion. The founders feared not the state influencing the church, but the church influencing the state.
Freedom from religion is inherently the state influencing the church just by it's very nature.
03 Feb 2012, 4:01 am
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
The founders of the US constitution wanted a separation of powers. There is religion in the state, but there is no state religion. The founders feared not the state influencing the church, but the church influencing the state.
Freedom from religion is inherently the state influencing the church just by it's very nature.
What? I have never heard such rubbish in my life.
Freedom from religion is the lack of any laws that are grounded in a religion. Sodomy laws, gay marriage laws, prohibition, blasphemy, state mandated religion, that sort of thing.
03 Feb 2012, 4:05 am
abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
There is a MAJOR difference between a church dissolving because people don't attend, and churches being banned
Church Banned, no church.
Church Dissolved, no church.
What's the difference in the end result? I'm having trouble seeing any.
One is forced. One is chosen by society.
If no one wants to buy a product, the corporation who makes it fails. This is not the same as the government shutting down the corporation.
When the state becomes the only source to turn to for moral support, society fails. Faith in man is a flawed concept. Not from man do you get your rights, only from man can your rights be protected. Both religion and state are needed for a superior form of governance.
03 Feb 2012, 4:06 am
abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
The founders of the US constitution wanted a separation of powers. There is religion in the state, but there is no state religion. The founders feared not the state influencing the church, but the church influencing the state.
Freedom from religion is inherently the state influencing the church just by it's very nature.
What? I have never heard such rubbish in my life.
Freedom from religion is the lack of any laws that are grounded in a religion. Sodomy laws, gay marriage laws, prohibition, blasphemy, state mandated religion, that sort of thing.
You fail to understand, and for that I fail to teach you.
03 Feb 2012, 4:06 am
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
The founders of the US constitution wanted a separation of powers. There is religion in the state, but there is no state religion. The founders feared not the state influencing the church, but the church influencing the state.
Freedom from religion is inherently the state influencing the church just by it's very nature.
No kidding they did not want influence from the church on the state, that was entirely my point!
Freedom from religion is the state guaranteeing no religious groups can have authority over the governance of a nation that is full of diverse religious and philosophical beliefs. The church is not an authority comparable to a state and has to answer to the government. It is not above the law and neither are religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are not untouchable. Your religious beliefs should have no effect on my life anymore than some Muslim's should have on yours
Communist state atheism as practiced by those regimes that engaged in violent repression is not in any way equivalent to this
03 Feb 2012, 4:14 am
cw10 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
cw10 wrote:
Vigilans wrote:
The founders of the US wanted a state separate from the church and of secular nature. Are they communists?
The founders of the US constitution wanted a separation of powers. There is religion in the state, but there is no state religion. The founders feared not the state influencing the church, but the church influencing the state.
Freedom from religion is inherently the state influencing the church just by it's very nature.
What? I have never heard such rubbish in my life.
Freedom from religion is the lack of any laws that are grounded in a religion. Sodomy laws, gay marriage laws, prohibition, blasphemy, state mandated religion, that sort of thing.
You fail to understand, and for that I fail to teach you.
You are not teaching anything, all of your "points" have been pigeonholed stereotypes based on generic pre-undergraduate level historical analyses
