i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
I would wonder why any person would have to defend any subject stating it is a 100% right all the time.
Personally with that approach it sounds like religious fanatism in reverse. It seems people replace one set of beliefs with another and use the same all or nothing approach. It like people living in an imperfect world and demanding perfection.
Perhaps it is inscurity needing to be right all the time or they feel like they are failures?
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Will I am certain you believe in education rather? I know a lot of good people of faith that do amazing things and there are good people without faith that do good things it does not have to be a contest a war to prove one right over the other.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
I don't know what you have read or been taught. but there is much more to most educated people of faith.
First they believe in God's love and second they believe if man was created in God's image that they are capable of great things. That is the reason God trust His children and knows that love will never fail.
If people can believe in someone to do the correct thing then certainly God does the same He being the creator of humans. It is in the darkest hour of mans history that people step up with such amazing belief that problems can be overcame that has save the human race from destruction or evil.
No I don't believe for one minute that people are incapable of doing good and that good will not simply humble the human spirit. I am amazed over and over again of people that have dedicated their lives to serving and solving the worst of humans problems.
From the least to the greatest only make me have respect for a God that could create something so beautiful as humans that are allowed to find new ways to help others.
i once saw dawkins refer to his views as a "belief system".
indeed, persons who subscribe to a non-theistic belief system* have been generally forced to hold to the following beliefs:.
that life came from non-life.. that people came from fish (fish are in mans actual ancestry in evolutionary phylogenetic trees).
What ever happen to civility? So much imputting of motives into a person comments. I recently posted forum civility under Adult Heated Debates. Appreciate any comments.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Well we live in a world of labels the only changes I have every seen has been the people that refuse to live according to those labels.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
We humans go through an experience and then we become intolerant of other that are going through it.
We want to take away their experience because we no better and we have learn from it. However, we are what we are because of the experience. And yet collectively our society is because of all those experience.
To have no faith in people and what they learn from those experiences give no hope to a new ideas that will come up do to change and the human experience.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
No point.. the post topic really states it all for decent people. Do we want hate speech and to be apart of such speech?
If we are enlighten looking for something better in a world filled with hate should we not take a higher ground? Cannot one see that so many misstake are made over and over again behind hate.
Cannot a person see that humans are about misstakes and the point is learning to live with each other in love. Until we understand that no matter how it is promoted through religion or not things will not change.
Hopefully some of us will personally change?
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
I don't think that is a fair statement many Christain are experience hate speech. And many Christian have used hate speech. There is a better answer then destruction of a group how about an a positive education. How about not taking the easy solution to problems and getting read of something we don't like.
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
Does it matter how the change is made? If people have more rights are open to more discussion legislative body are giving all groups more rights and protecting the rights of the weak.
Having opposite in society is where change comes from religion tried to remove the source of acceptance and change through goverments. Thankfully good people said no and set up rules of law to protect rights of all groups.
To fear difference is to not believe in humans that they will do good and grow to be better rather religious or not. To believe every body in one group is out to get you is darkage thinking .
introduction.
in 1942, the supreme court sustained the conviction of a jehovah's witness who addressed a police officer as a "god dammed racketeer" and "a damned facist" (chaplinksy v. new hampshire).
the court's opinion in the case stated that there was a category of face-to-face epithets, or "fighting words," that was wholly outside of the protection of the first amendment: those words "which by their very utterance inflict injury" and which "are no essential part of any exposition of ideas.".
I never stated that would happen I hope you read my comments correctly. I am stating I have seen many changes in my short life in peoples views what society once accepted as fact and later what they learned.
To project what religion or people of faith will be in a 1000-years cannot be said. But to start a discussion with a negative view of destruction simply leaves out the experience of change all are entitled to.
Do go back an look at Christainity 1000-years ago and state great change has not been made is not factual, no more so then saying science has not changed in a 1000-years. And to realize both have been forced to rethink their views because of the ignorance of people, but change was made for better.
