Religion should be outlawed.

---

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousWe also have the Turkish Bishop Nicholas who supposedly caught the devil and made him his personal servant. So as Saint Nicholas went around from house to house, he got the devil (which he renamed Knecht Ruprecht) to drop sweets and gifts down the chimney. Well that is some bizarre interpretation... Even if you look up Knecht Ruprecht it has nothing to do with the devil.________________________Saint Nicholas (Greek: Άγιος Νικόλαος, Agios ["saint"] Nikolaos ["victory of the people"]) (270 - 6 December 346) is the canonical and most popular name for Nicholas of Myra, a saint and Greek[3] Bishop of Myra (Demre, in Lycia, part of modern-day Turkey). Because of the many miracles attributed to his intercession, he is also known as Nicholas the Wonderworker. He had a reputation for secret gift-giving, such as putting coins in the shoes of those who left them out for him, and thus became the model for Santa Claus, whose English name comes from the Dutch Sinterklaas. His reputation evolved among the faithful, as is common for early Christian saints.[4] In 1087, his relics were furtively translated to Bari, in southeastern Italy; for this reason, he is also known as, Nicholas of Bari.

Originally Posted By: sdp

Even if you look up Knecht Ruprecht it has nothing to do with the devil.

Ruprecht was a common name for the Devil in Germany...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knecht_Ruprecht

And he is not supposed to be the devil, sorry, mistake on my part. He is rather a devil, or mischievous creature, along the same lines as Puck.

Originally Posted By: A.W.
You are so full of crap.
The world would be more worse than it already is. 9/11 still would have occurred. Religion does NOT lead to racism. Racism does NOT lead to war. That's bullcrap! You're the one who is prejudice and full of hate.
I'm an Afro-Latino. I'm a Catholic. Does that make me a racist. NO IT DOESN'T. What you said about religion is so dumb and prejudice. You pass prejudice and make it sound like religion is a bad thing. NO IT IS NOT! Why don't you get some help. Whatever problem you had, don't hurt others with your own problems, OKAY. Stop dwelling in the past, that's the past, it's over now. This is the future. Grow up, stop crying and whining. Deal with it and get over it. That's there how it is.
And don't tell me otherwise. Because what you just said is totally offbase from reality.
Wow! we sure are living in an age of stupidity.
I am only using 9/11 as an example. I am Canadian, and have been brought up on values of multiculturalism and diversity. I ask you to please calm down as you clearly did not see the message in my post. And I did not attack Catholics, so stop attacking me personally and my persepective on this topic. This is not what A2A is about.
Since you think I am 'dwelling' on 9/11, I will use another example (and by the way, extremest Muslims attacking innocent Americans/Canadians/British/French etc. just because they partake in life differently is racism/ discrimination because they are NOT tolerating us).
By all means, I am stripping this issue down to its core... I'm sorry, I don't have much time. Lets take N. Ireland for an example. Protestants versus Roman Catholics. Two different views on the same religious concept. One believes one may precieve contact with God without attending church consecutively (Protestant) and the other believes church must be attended (R. Catholic). The seperation of the Protestants from R. Catholics was a time of great discrimination/ racism and war, and still continues to this day. So AW, please accept my view of this topic as I have many examples throughout history that support my thesis, and I am not full of crap. I think for myself and QUESTION SOCIETY, I am able to see to it that religion splits us apart. It's spirituality that brings us together. I am not attacking Catholics specifically, but please don't insult me for having a voice. It's apart of being Canadian. It's apart of the New Generation.
One last thing. Ask yourself, when did you decide to be religious? Did you ever?

Originally Posted By: A.W.I'm already religious as I was baptized a Catholic. I was also baptised as a Catholic but I have never been religious.I think he's asking more of a "When did you get into God" question, since I doubt that you were a religious 1 year old.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

[And he is not supposed to be the devil, sorry, mistake on my part. He is rather a devil, or mischievous creature, along the same lines as Puck.

That makes more sense although it's mostly only German folklore.

I guess I just get irritated with the bastardization of St. Nikolas as Santa Claus.

Serbs have the tradition of having a family Patron Saint, which is passed father to son, based on when they were baptized into Cristianity starting back in the 6th century. Our family's patron saint is St. Nikola(s)... When someone asks about it they sometimes say.. Oh, you celebrate Santa Claus?"... No damn it! I don't celebrate "SANTA CLAUS".. LOL

AW, we first got into this whole conversation about christmas because you claimed that, without religion, there would be no christmas. So, to get back on that topic, I was trying to argue that there would still be a celebration or holiday resembling christmas even if the christian religion had never existed. It would be called something else, but we'd still come up with some excuse to celebrate something during the end of the year in winter.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible Quote:name one atheist terrorist groupThe Cult of Reason during the French Revolution (see also this article, the September Massacres, and the Hébertists).The Russian Nihilists (see also Sergey Nechayev, who described himself as a terrorist).The Galleanists, led by Luigi Galleani.One might also include the terrorism within the Russian Revolution.Though Islamic fundamentalist terrorism is most prominent today in the Western public mind, many of today's terrorist groups are nationalist rather than religious - see this list. There will always be things people feel very strongly about. First of all atheist terrorism CANNOT exist. Please do not instill construed information to make people believe that it CAN. Atheist terrorism could NOT exist because atheists cannot use means of violence or any other form of physical/emotional attacks for a larger organization, why is this? Because atheism is not a belief or a lifestyle, therefore an act of terrorism committed is done by the group of individuals not an organization of Atheism. If you are going to group us as a belief then we should also get special rights in our countries much like religious people do.The cult of reason, refer to the above statement.The russian Nihilists were a political movement group, NOT a religious one. Their anti-religion pertained to freedom from the limitations that the goverment had imposed through religion.The Galleanists was once again a political movement, NOT a religious one.Just because atheists may have committed these crimes doesn't mean its atheism terrorist groups. They did not commit them FOR atheism. Nor COULD they, like I previously stated.As for nationalism, this is largely true. Many of the famed terrorist groups are in fact nationalists. However the problem is that they don't always stay within the limits of nationalism and often nations represent religions, especially the areas that certain nationalists represent.

Originally Posted By: A.W.Seems like you've changed for the worse since you went to collegeNot that I know you two's relations towards eachother. However you talk a mean game of how people's opinions that are seperate from yours are prejudice. Yet here in this post you clearly state that because she is somehow dividing from your "loving" religion that this somehow makes her less of a person. This shows your prejudice implications in many of your posts are truly prejudice.

Originally Posted By: A.W.The world would be more destroyed. There would be lawlessness, anarchy running rampant, and lots of crimes going on. Religion doesn't oppress people, but teaches people respect and love. It's only some few bad seeds that go over their teachings of religion that gives most people the false belief that religion makes us closed minded, but that's not the case. Religion is not only a way of life, but a reality whether some like it or not. Also, without religion, there would be no more Christmas celebrations. I hope and pray that never happens. How can you even say that? If there was no religion to have ever existed then we have no idea how the world would be today. However I do know that me, and many other atheists DO NOT go out and run around killing other people. Not to mention the fact, that if the only reason you follow laws or laws were created is because you are afraid that you will be judged by a "god" then believe me, if god exists god has already made up its mind on your true essence due to the fact that you only act good, that you aren't REALLY good. Oh and sidenote: Religion did not make the first laws.Also your statement about christmas is not only an immature one it shows that one real reason you, and not ONLY you (many people are like this, it is not a direct attack) are in religion is for the need to fit in and express fake love on a now-corporate holiday. I don't need a holiday to tell me when I can express my love to my family and friends, I can do that whenever I feel it is appropriate.

Hi Technichal, I gave that list because Mr U had laid down a challenge. My purpose was to point out that no group of people are devoid of the possibility of feeling so strongly for a cause that it blinds them to ethics.I do not agree that atheism is not a belief. An atheist believes there is no God. A person with no belief either way would be an agnostic, not an atheist. That is not to say that an atheist must be 100% sure there is no God, just as a theist need not be 100% sure there is a God. The theist has decided to live life on the basis that there is a God, and the atheist has decided to live life on the basis that there is no God. To the extent that this results in differences in behaviour, it might be described as a lifestyle choice.However, regardless of this point, I do not understand your argument. You seem to be saying that a group of atheists who meet together and plan and carry out terrorist acts against religious institutions in order to weaken religious observance and belief in the people, cannot be considered atheist terrorists because atheism has nothing that can be collectivised. I can't see this myself.Since all these groups aimed, through violence, to change the polity to one in line with their views, they could be called political. But the same can be said for any terrorist group. Muslim fundamentalists equally wish to create polities based on their own views. I accept that it would be wrong to call a terrorist group 'atheist' merely because its members happened to hold that view. Nor should the term be used of those merely seeking freedom to abstain from any religion. I put forward those particular groups because they sought to go further than only achieving equal rights for atheists - each sought to suppress in some way theist practices.Late edit: In fairness I do accept that for these groups the discouragement of religious belief was only part of their vision for society. They did not have the single-minded focus on religion that is found in some Muslim terror groups, or in the Crusaders.I might add that I believe atheists should have the same rights as those who believe in a God. I do not believe that church-run businesses, as such, should be tax-exempt, for example, and here they generally are not.

It's not a corporate holiday? Why do we have Black Fridays and all the massive ad campaigns to BUY BUY BUY?

Originally Posted By: IneligibleI do not agree that atheism is not a belief. An atheist believes there is no God. A person with no belief either way would be an agnostic, not an atheist. That is not to say that an atheist must be 100% sure there is no God, just as a theist need not be 100% sure there is a God. The theist has decided to live life on the basis that there is a God, and the atheist has decided to live life on the basis that there is no God. To the extent that this results in differences in behaviour, it might be described as a lifestyle choice.The problem with Agnosticism is that it makes no sense when removed from any context. Agnosticism simply means "without knowledge", but a position still needs to provided. One can be an Agnostic Atheist or maybe a Gnostic Theist.The four levels are:Gnostic TheismAgnostic TheismAgnostic AtheismGnostic AtheismGnostic Theism and Gnostic Atheism are pretty much the same thing, a delusion. A Gnostic Atheist or Theist claims to know that gods do or do not exist. Since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of gods (if there was, we'd all believe) Gnostic Theism is a minority group. Most people have more sense.And likewise, since there is no way of proving a negative, it is impossible to know that there are no gods, making Gnostic Atheism a logical fallacy and this is also a very small group. Not even the huge public Atheists such as Richard Dawkins or Cristopher Hitchens claim that they know there is no god.So then we get to Agnostic Theism, which is really the majority of Theists. People who see the world and the things in it and think that a god is responsible for it and that this god still influences the world to this day. An Agnostic Atheist will most likely admit that they have no real evidence for god but they just strongly believe.And finally, Agnostic Atheism, people who see absolutely no evidence for there being a god so they have no reason to believe that there is. This is not the same as believing there is no god.A belief that there is no god is a claim, one that would need to be supported. And as I said earlier, most people know that you cannot prove a negative. The general Agnostic Atheist position is that we just don't hold the belief that there is a god, which is simply an absence of a belief. Just as not-collecting stamps cannot be a hobby.So what you describe as an Agnostic is actually a description of an Agnostic Atheist.

Originally Posted By: A.W.

I've had enough of the U.S. Think I'll move to England!

England is one of the most secular countries in Europe and the Muslim population is increasing. Do you really think Christmas will be better there?

For the purpose of that part of my argument, bob, I consider your gnostic or agnostic theists under the heading of theists, and your gnostic and agnostic atheists under the heading of atheists. The point is not the degree of assurance, but whether people have taken a position - this is what I would take to be a 'belief'. If you consider agnostic theists (which you take as the majority of theists) to possess a belief, then why not agnostic atheists?I'm not sure about your view that "a position still needs to be provided", unless you add "I really do not know" to your list of positions.I seek mainly to rebut the suggestion that only those who take a theist position have sought to impose that position on others by force.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

For the purpose of that part of my argument, bob, I consider your gnostic or agnostic theists under the heading of theists, and your gnostic and agnostic atheists under the heading of atheists. The point is not the degree of assurance, but whether people have taken a position - this is what I would take to be a 'belief'. If you consider agnostic theists (which you take as the majority of theists) to possess a belief, then why not agnostic atheists?

I'm not sure about your view that "a position still needs to be provided", unless you add "I really do not know" to your list of positions.

The problem with the "I really do not know" position is that someone in that position does not have a belief in gods, making them without theism, or in other words, an atheist. They don't need to hold the belief that there are no gods. An absence of belief on both sides would still make them an atheist.

Originally Posted By: Ineligible

I seek mainly to rebut the suggestion that only those who take a theist position have sought to impose that position on others by force.

And I agree. The difference between theist extremists and atheist extremists is that theists try to justify their actions using scriptures or a higher power, while atheists are completely responsible for their own actions. Atheism is rarely a driving force for change, it just happens to be there whenever a religion starts failing. If you attack a religion without promoting an alternate religion or belief, then you are promoting atheism by default.

Although this appears to be negative imagery, Atheism is darkness and Theism is light. Atheism will always be there as lights go out and new ones emerge, simply because it requires nothing.

Its like love and hate. Everyone thinks that the opposite of love is hate, but it isn't. The opposite of love is complete indifference. Love being a very strong emotion and indifference being the complete lack of emotion.

Of course it's true that anyone can be a terrorist, no matter what their belief system may be.I did just toss out the challenge like a chicken in a lion's cage to she who would biteI would hardly call the Cult of Reason to be atheist because they are a cult. While Nihilists, Anarchist and alike may include atheists among their ranks, I don't see that as being their cry to arms. Consider this however... if an atheist terrorist organisation were to target one or all religious groups within their reach, wouldn't religion therefore still be the motivation for violence?

just for the record, referring back to the original post.religion should NOT be outlawed. Curtailing rights and freedoms is never sound governance. This also goes for church groups and faith based lobbies that try to curtail the rights and freedoms of the members of differing faiths.We can recognize that religion, like all social conventions, has demonstrated both it's positive and negative facets over human history. So much so that it would be impossible to argue that the scales are even tipped one way or the other.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

Originally Posted By: A.W.

I've had enough of the U.S. Think I'll move to England!

England is one of the most secular countries in Europe and the Muslim population is increasing. Do you really think Christmas will be better there?

technically, the United States is supposed to be more secular than England, or just about any other country. That's because it is unconstitutional in the United States for the government to establish a state religion, or to favor any one religion over another. Under the constitution, there is supposed to be a strict seperation of church and state. England, on the other hand, is officially a christian nation, while the United States is officially a secular nation. However you are probably right in that, since the average citizen in England is less relgious than the average American, there is probably just as much "attacks" on Christmas as in the United States, or more.

Originally Posted By: bobalicious

Since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of gods (if there was, we'd all believe) Gnostic Theism is a minority group. Most people have more sense.

Of all people, I would expect you to understand the concept that we, as human beings, being limited in our abilities, do not have the capability of producing verifiable empirical evidence for every reality that exists in this universe. Add to this that not all empirical data is even verifiable to begin with. For example, if I have a dream tonight, there is no way that anyone else can verify it...but this does not mean it did not happen. Many Christians, including myself, have had an experience in that they know God exists. As time passes, that "knowing" fades, but the memory of it lives on. This is where faith has a part to play.

"Atheists", such as you, are the ones that make no sense to me. A true atheist wouldn't bother to spend so much time trying to bash somebody who doesn't exist. Such people who call themselves atheists are really those who know God exists, but wish it wasn't so...and figure if they can get a lot of people to agree with them that they can somehow make their dream of there being no God come true. A true atheist wouldn't even bother with a discussion concerning God. An agnostic, however, would. Failing to have such an experience as the one I briefly described, the agnostics would be the ones with truly open minds...open to the possible. An athiest mind is somewhat closed...creating an artificially small, but comfortable (to them) world. An athiest, by nature, is uncomfortable with the unknown.

Originally Posted By: A VUnder the constitution, there is supposed to be a strict seperation of church and state.The idea was that the state to stay out of church business (such as redefining the meaning of the word "marriage", and such things). If you review original documents you'll see that Christian beliefs, including such matters as prayer, figured strongly in government proceedings at that time. However, you will NOT find any phrase "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution. You've been reading on too many liberal websites. Go to the Constitution and see for yourself. The phrase came from a written conversation between Jefferson and a church; and it is clear that the idea was to keep the state out of church business...not the other way around.