Secular folks should worry.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc wants to focus on Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse-tung. Great examples of godless megalomaniacs.

The Mormon muppet brings up and ‘focuses’ on those three, I ask topical questions, and then the lying Mormon muppet claims I want to focus on them.



Meanwhile he ignores the theist Ghengis Khan who exterminated ~40,000,000 people, so *shrugs*. One should note, it could be said that early spiritual influences on Hitler, Stalin, and Mao could be just as influential, and ultimately responsible as their economic political leanings, if we want to go there.

Also, as a reminder, his Jewish god purportedly wiped out essentially the entire human_race1.0, and plans to do so again save a few souls here and there. Talk about genocidal maniacs …

- Doc

[dastardly stem]

Hi stem,
It should come as no surprise that you would view things differently in regards to this thread, the opinions expressed, and the information made available. We are coming at it all from two diametrically opposed worldviews. I don’t need to go into detail as to the differences. Honestly, I don’t think there is really anyway to bring our two worlds together on this topic when we see things so differently. But as I said, it is important to get all points of view out there for all to see.

Thanks for your participation.

Regards,
MG

Well I won't press it any more. Thanks for your comments. I don't think you did yourself any favors in this thread, but we certainly need opposing voices.

[dastardly stem]

Yes. That initial link was a doozy, and the reporter misused it egregiously. Mg could have fixed that and moved on but that's not his style.

Agreed. I don't know what to say to him. Each time I try, it seems to fall in the deafest of ears. I just have to remember that and expect it.

[Rivendale]

Yes. That initial link was a doozy, and the reporter misused it egregiously. Mg could have fixed that and moved on but that's not his style.

Agreed. I don't know what to say to him. Each time I try, it seems to fall in the deafest of ears. I just have to remember that and expect it.

It doesn't go unseen. Sometimes the biggest impact is on the audience.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

This GenZ drag queen was popped for child porn:



Is this civil society?

- Doc

[MG 2.0]

Hi stem,
It should come as no surprise that you would view things differently in regards to this thread, the opinions expressed, and the information made available. We are coming at it all from two diametrically opposed worldviews. I don’t need to go into detail as to the differences. Honestly, I don’t think there is really anyway to bring our two worlds together on this topic when we see things so differently. But as I said, it is important to get all points of view out there for all to see.

Thanks for your participation.

Regards,
MG

I doubt, MG, that you'd like anything more than that your faith approach (hope for something devoid of supporting evidence) be considered alongside propositions for which there is empirical evidence and results from logic applied to such evidence. However, they are not comparable. Faith is unreliable, and not even in the same league of value to mankind. Look at this tabled list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_d ... tic_events) of predicted apocalyptic dates in the past that came and went without the event having ocurred. It did not matter how many people believed--the dates just came and went without the predicted event.

I see "where you are coming from." You have deluded yourself into acting on hopes, barren of empirical data and logic therefrom. Just because I "see" how you've deluded yourself does not mean that I (nor anyone else) should consider it on a par with empirical observation/logic, nor "god forbid" act upon it.

Even a Pascal's Wager is a folly of wasting one's life. Of the thousands of different religious iterations, it's a blind dart throw as to which one to follow. Get the wrong "god" and it's, "close but no cigar." Just a life wasted denying yourself.

In your thousands of posts here, you've not moved the needle. It is still on empty.

Hi Nimrod,
First let me say that in a country founded on the rights of free speech and free exercise of religion and/or no religion you are able to say what you want and practice/do what you want within the confines of the law. You can remain godless and point out what you believe to be the profound perceived weaknesses of those that choose to maintain a faith/belief in a creator God to whom we are accountable for how we live our lives.

You make an interesting comment in saying, “Just a life wasted denying yourself”. This philosophical position presents a slippery slope. It is that slippery slope and the feelings that you directly express towards those that believe in a God who is our Father in Heaven that concerns those that see God as the creator of all things.

If you and those of your particular persuasion of non theism and even critical views towards religion and those that believe were able to hold sway in our culture/society/government where would that potentially lead? To a certain extent that may be an unknown. But believers are concerned.

Thus, the point of this thread as I brought up the trends of GenZ to move towards non theism and/or movement away from organized religion. As it is, the freedoms and liberties to take that path protect them from any kind of government interference. Would those same protections remain in place if folks of your philosophical views towards life were to become the majority? Would you want to stamp out belief in God believing you are doing humanity a favor?

That is the great unknown. History does show the dangers of leaders who are atheistic (or became atheistic) and gained power over the masses. Res Ipsa and others don’t seem to take them seriously. They simply shrug it off and mock believers and traditional conservatives by countering with saying “Stalin” as though that demonstrates…what?

Res Ipsa takes this all personally. You may as well. But the fact remains that we are moving into what may be uncharted waters as a large and diverse nation. If the “nones” and the atheists and/or secular humanist progressive liberals were to become the majority and think along similar lines as you in regards to those that practice religious belief and/or believe in God…where might that trajectory lead us? Would free exercise of religion and belief in God remain in place? Would proselytizing by various faiths be allowed to continue?

That/those is/are the million dollar question(s) that is/are essentially being shrugged off by those that are taking offense and shouting out “bigot!”

It’s a lot more complex and complicated that simply taking offense and calling out the other as being a bigot or some other slur.

But that’s the day we live in.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Thanks for your comments. I don't think you did yourself any favors in this thread, but we certainly need opposing voices.

Interesting, isn’t it, that we both come to the same conclusions.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

Agreed. I don't know what to say to him. Each time I try, it seems to fall in the deafest of ears. I just have to remember that and expect it.

It doesn't go unseen. Sometimes the biggest impact is on the audience.

Agreed. But seen from a different view/perspective/reference point.

Regards,
MG

[Morley]

While MG 2.0 has repeated his platitude about government overreach, millions being trampled on, and moderate conservativism being our only hope, he's given only a single example of the godless atheist communist threat: The gay wedding cake.

[MG 2.0]

While MG 2.0 has repeated his platitude about government overreach, millions being trampled on, and moderate conservativism being our only hope, he's given only a single example of the godless atheist communist threat: The gay wedding cake.

While I disagree with government forcing a small shop to serve a customer contrary to their traditional beliefs, it's not the kind of example that threatens to go the way of Stalin and Mao.

It’s the practice of coercion of private business(es)that is at play.

Yes, this is but one example of what can happen with government overreach into the lives of private citizens exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

A canary in the coal mine of what might be on the horizon, if you will. Especially if those in power are either anti religion or come down on the side of secular progressive liberal values.

I am happy to see that you would be supportive of the private business owners right of conscience to supersede the powers of government overreach.

Nimrod, are you supportive of Gadianton in this matter or other matters that might be like unto it?

I would imagine it might be a mixed bag among posters on this board. But that is the concern I and others have. And that, again, is why I began this thread.

Would the Constitution and the Bill of Rights remain intact under a government composed of those who are not friendly towards religion? Or at worst, antagonistic? After all, it’s the Founding Documents and the protections embedded in them that are the only thing really in the way of those that would seek to supersede the “natural rights of man”.

Regards,
MG