Something I have been thinking about.

I don't have this problem. According to your OP, you do. Was what you wrote not actually true?

 

It tells me that you are not in kind with the religious people.

They are sure this sexual promiscuity will also destroy their society.
They use this fear to fight against the Gay marriage ventures and the open sexual content in our society.
They use only the Bible because they have not noticed the Facts, which I publish here as much as possible.

 

Because of what I do...and the JOBS I go on all over the world....RULE #1. FIRST LEARN THEN RESPECT THE LOCALS TRADITIONS AND RELIGIOUS BELIEFS!!

Doing this can mean the difference of a Villager letting you and your Team hide out in their home while Enemy Combatants are out looking for you and ending up DEAD because no one would open their door for you because they don't like you.

The operative two key words being LEARN and RESPECT.

Unfortunately many people who are extremely religious do not reciprocate.

AboveAlpha

 

That reasoning would make every Jew and muslim guilty of slave trading because they were the means to the ends of sending slaves to America.

I would venture to say that Christianity worked to benefits slaves right from the start, and in the end, thru Revere Martin Luther King, completed the job.

 

Try the Portuguese....very Christian.

AboveAlpha

 

All of this discussion on what people believe is odd because no matter how you slice it, it's still just a belief. To Believe or disbelieve in God you surely must first be able to define the concept of God. After that we should move on to proof of concept, have you tested your concept and if so how? Wouldn't it be necessary to compare it to other concepts or beliefs such as Gnosticism or science which in too many cases is also dependent on belief. God is a word and we assign to words thoughts and these thoughts become wired into existence and yet we don't even know how thought works much less consciousness. So we fling a word out there, God and then we chose to believe or disbelieve never really even being able to explain that of which we are occupying our beliefs. Maybe we all need to admit that we know nothing and we can't explain much of anything.

 

... or try the whole Roman Empire, or the system of Feudalism.

Better yet, try India, where 1 billion serfs labor as untouchables, because otherwise they are unable to find food unless indentured to a landowner.
Slavery was and has always been part of the human condition out of necessity.
It has often been used wrongly.

But, it was the church people who first stated listing rules to give them rights.

 

Not so today.
It is scientific studies today which support what the Bible asked us to believe over the ages past.

Sexual promiscuity definitely hurts children as they are socially abused through fatherlessness:

Biological, 2 parent home is safest environment for children
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdc...-environment-f

linky linky

and it's from the CDC no less

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 8, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A new study just released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reveals that children living in traditional, two-parent biological families are overwhelmingly safer than children living with just one biological parent or with non-parental caregivers.

 

No it doesn't.

Christianity didn't. Some Christians did, and others didn't.

- - - Updated - - -

What I wrote was simply asking if saying saying athiests who say they respect religion but don't want it preached to them as the same thing as saying I support civil rights, just don't desegregate the schools.

 

Wow! That argument is like saying "Atheism didn't. Some Atheists did, and others didn't" should the claim be 'Atheism brought an end to WWII.'

 

If some athiests did something and others didn't, Atheism isn't the reason why something was done. It was because of a different reason.

 

If some Christians did something and others didn't, Christianity isn't the reason why something was done. It was because of a different reason. Therefore, to say that Christians are responsible for more deaths than any other group of people is a misrepresentation of historical fact. Slavery in the US for example: it was not the result of some Christian belief, but rather it was the result of political/socio/economic needs. In other words, it was a commercial venture in which members of the Atheism group as well as members of the Christian group were involved.

 

Really weren't a lot of Atheists back then but sure I agree with your logic.

 

Please refrain from trying to attribute possession or ownership of 'logic' on me. I find it insulting.

 

Okay can I say I agree with what you just said?

 

That is indeed more palatable from my perspective.

 

Then I agree with what you just said.

 

Thenk you very much.

 

Oh. Well then, no. It isn't the same.

 

How do you know that weren't a lot of Atheists back then? The fact of the matter is that slavery was an accepted way of life over most of the globe back when America was founded. The society of the day may have been predominantly Christian, but Christian opposition to slavery was certainly a minority position in our early history. There is some justification for that, since slavery was considered acceptable by the authors of the Bible.

 

My own personal beef is when you try to have a debate with a theist it almost, always comes down to them saying something along the lines of "you don't understand because you don't believe" .. to me that is just a cop out.

 

Did you ever consider the possibility that those Theists might be telling you the truth? Did you ever stop to consider that your expression "that is just a cop out.", might really be just a rationalization (the making an excuse for your behavior)?

 

Do you have any proof strong enough to compel me to change my mind that the expression "that is just a cop out" is just a rationalization (the making an excuse for my behavior)?

 

Yeppir! It is PROOF from my perspective. My mind has accepted it as irrefutable proof.

To even attempt to refute my irrefutable PROOF, you must provide tangible evidence that will compel my mind to accept it as true.

 

It is not PROOF from my perspective. My mind has not accepted it as irrefutable proof.

To even to attempt to refute my irrefutable PROOF that your Proof is meaningless, you must provide tangible evidence that will compel my mind to accept your proof as true.