Of course politics won’t change the world.
If you want to change the world, you need to be crucified first. That’s when the biggest change starts happening.
1 Like
OK. I’ll admit it. That’s funny.
(Obviously, it is a problematic generalization but I immediately thought of various pronouncements by outspoken Southern Baptists leaders in recent years that can certainly be understood in that way. And I consider the infamous “Hall of Heroes” enshrining in stained-glass tributes the various Southern Baptist leaders in the J.W. MacGorman Chapel at SBTS seminary an embarrassment to Christians—perhaps even “anti-Christian” in an ultimate sense. It makes us look foolish.)
2 Likes
Wasn’t Dr. King a Baptist though?
Not really. To change the world you have to get people to believe that someone was crucified for them. And then get them to hand over their minds to you for further indoctrination. That is real power over the minds of the masses. And you had better do it when they are children.
Having grown up largely in Southern Baptist churches I thought so as well. Had to give it a like. 
Dr. King was a black Christian minister fighting the white Christian establishment that existed in this country since its founding. I don’t think his brand of Baptist is what I am referring to.
Another thing I wonder is why atheists refer to the God of the Hebrew scriptures as “the Christian God” rather than “the Jewish God.” Do they just not want to appear to be anti-Semitic so they try to keep it hidden?
@Patrick, why aren’t atheists more outspoken against Judaism? Are some religions better than others?
FFRF is outspoken against Judaism. See just one case below. There are hundreds of violations like this a year.
FFRF is very outspoken against Yeshiva’s in Lakewood NJ and the inferior level of education of boys and girls.
FFRF is very outspoken against have an unlicensed religious persons doing an unnecessary medical surgery on eight day old boys born to Jewish parents.
Some are certainly worse than others. Radical Islam is the biggest treat today on all humanity.
Just because someone calls himself a Christian it doesn’t make him/her a Christian. Same applies to scientists. I wanted to start a thread on this theme but I don’t know how. I’m offended by the misrepresentation of Christianity by pseudo-christians like Toni Perkins!!!
That’s all I wanted to say.
Thank you!
2 Likes
Really? So if I can myself an Atheist does it make me an real atheist? Dr. Swamidass calls himself a Christian yet many others say non-Christian things about him. Can we agree that Dr. Swamidass is a good secular humanist who identifies with most tenets of Christianity?
1 Like
From Wikipedia:
Perkins believes natural disasters are divine punishments for homosexuality.
And then:
Perkins’ family was affected by the 2016 Louisiana floods, and had to evacuate their Louisiana home by canoe.[50] Their home was destroyed by the flooding.
Oh, the irony.
And then he wanted FEMA funding to rebuild his house. But couldn’t get any because his house was part of a religious ministry and FEMA funds can’t be used to rebuild religious institutions. How that for furthering the separation of church and state. 
No you don’t hate the smoker (the sinner) you hate the smoking (the sin). 
You love the smoker but hate the passive smoke the smoker produces. If there is a smoker in your extended family, you are to love the smoker and tell him to take his sin, I mean his cigarettes out of your house so as to not defile your house with smoke. No anti-smoking campaigners are not haters as we love the smoker (but not want to kiss them) and we care about their health.
I thought atheists were actually agnostic. No?
1 Like
Atheist can be agnostic. Atheism is the opinion that no God exist. There is no evidence to conclude this, so basically all atheists are just extreme agnostics.
Welcome @jokerjoe. Tell us about yourself?
There are many flavors of atheist: https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/seven-atheist-archetypes/759.
This is a false interpretation of what i said.
I applied reductionist methodology to human relationships.
ISAID, it was clear, that all there is in human identity contentions IS accusation of one toward another…
Whether right or wrong, or justly motivated or wickedly motivated.
There is no, and is impossible, that any identity is uniquely treated differently then anyone else in this equation.
any tag is false and , very possibly, use to discredit any accusation.
there is no such thing as anti-semetism , or anti-gentilism, or homophobiaism, or heterosexualphobia, etc etc.
there are just accusations and actions done from one identity to another.
All tags should, must, be rejected as interference in human relationships.
Make your charge, make your case, jury and judge and then verdict.
Everything else is trying to avoid fair trial for contentions.
You can accuse hate but the accused can deny it and accuse of false accusation, possibly motivated byb hate.
i’m not accusing anyone here .
please don’t accuse me!
Please no slander or defamation of character.
where there is no real judiciary the good guys lose.
There is no judiciary here . its just a discussion blog.
I don’t know your experience, but nearly any responsible person will agree that intolerance is a serious problem. People are sometimes treated differently for no good reason. This is a discussion forum, and how are people to judge except by what others say? You said something awful recently. I wasn’t the only one who thought you crossed a line. I really hope you didn’t mean it.
You are a difficult man to understand; your meaning and motives are often unclear. I appreciate you are trying to respond sincerely here, but I don’t know if I can trust anything you say.
4 Likes
One common thing that is happening in both America as well as India is a lack of tolerance for different ideas. Instead of civil discussions about different POVs… each group villifies and dehumanised the others.
It’s easier to label people as haters, prejudiced, anti national, pagan, etc etc than actually addressing different opinions and ideas… if someone is a hater… then he/she obviously diserves being treated as less than human. Calling such people names, showing extreme hostility to them become acts of righteousness.
This leads to the formation of various “in groups” where the group identity is based on not only ideological issues but also rejection of the “other”…
This seems to be a social trend in India too… only different groups… with different names.
There you go again. You just accuse and accus as if a master of others character and motives.
That is the historical reaction that causes some of the trouble.
There is no such thing as intolerance. thats just left wing propaganda to discredit opponents of thier radical ideas. its an old trick by the way.
In fact your intolerant of opposition to your ideas here!!!
Saying you can’t trust someone is attacvking thier credibility or rather intolerance for opposite ideas on very common issues.
You make my case.
YES you can accuse and so can everyone.
Don’t tag other accusers BEFORE the investigation/trial has happened.
Thats not judicial rul;es based on hundreds of years of English jurisprudence.
With your family, internet folks, or anyone in humanity ALL THERE is IS accusation and reaction.
Right or wrong, good(motive) or evil (motive).
if its important take them to court. otherwise submitt to the contract/law of fredom of speech which includes freedom from being punished/censored for same speech.
This is the law of our nations. However unenforced.
I never accuse anyone in these things. its unintelligent. Its a reflection on the accuser more.
I also find if people listened better they would not be so upset.
Very few people are evil or bad or serious jerks. Most are okay.
mankind just always needed fair trials and not rabble rousers. The rousers embraced accusationism.
Never welcoming fair trial.