Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 15, 7:15 pm, Aidan <awe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 14, 2:21 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 21:48:49 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 13, 7:12 pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 18:36:55 -0700, Steven Douglas wrote:

On Apr 12, 4:05 pm, "Werewolfy" <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

On Apr 12, 10:47?pm, Woodswun <woods...@tepidmail.com> wrote:
. ?You probably don't get this over on your side of the pond, but over
here we've got Evangelicals that have been pounding it into people's
heads that
non-christians are immoral and failure to be the 'right' kind of
christian
leads to high divorce rates and destroys the family. ?This study
indicates
that such sentiment is a pile of, um, well ... road apples. ?
-------------------------------
Oh. Thanks for that, Woodsy.
No, we don't have any trouble in that regard. I'm pleased to say that
Evangelical adherents..whatever that may be...have ignored our Lands.
Either ignored us, or we have ignored them!

They're pretty easy to ignore here as well. It seems as if Woods
enjoys paying close attention to them.

I don't see how you can make the claim that evangelicals are easy to
ignore here, seeing as how they've taken over the political party that's
been in power for the past 6 years. You'd kind of have to be dead not to
notice them and their mindset.

First of all, Evangelicals are less than 10% of the population. So
it's hard to figure that they'd have the ability to take over one of
the major political parties. And which leaders of a political party
have been pounding it into people's heads that non-christians are
immoral, and failure to be the 'right' kind of christian leads to high
divorce rates and destroys the family?

First of all, Evangelicals are more than a quarter of the population (seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism#Demographics), so it's easy to
see how they could take over one party.

There are many people who call themselves Evangelicals who don't meet
the criteria. The same polling organization that Aidan cited at the
top of this thread is my source for the "less than 10% of the
population" number.

People who identify as evangelicals aspire to be seen in that way... so
while they might not technically classify as an evangelical, they're
generally trying their hardest to live up to the label. As such, they
can be just as (maybe more so) abrasive to views that don't fit into the
framework of pseudo-morality they use to define their lives.

Sort of like you (since you're the one who started this thread)?

What? You think I aspire to be an evangelical? Mind on the job Douglas...

I thought the survey a very strange one. I see now why it caused
disquiet. But is America really this bad in the 21st Century? Are
there Steven Douglas's lurking in webs at every junction?

So you're automatically associating me with the Evangelical adherents
to which Woods pays such close attention? It's actually quite
entertaining to see various members of this group taking wild guesses
about my personal life.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ... ;-)

So if I walk like a Freemason or an Evangelical, I therefore must quack
like a Freemason or an Evangelical? I am neither, but it's sure fun
watching the wild guesses flying around.

It may go some way to explain why America is so warlike these days.

Really? And what's your nation's excuse? Your nation has been
alongside every step of the way these days (Clinton & Blair, Bush &
Blair).

Religion and slaughter have always been close friends.

The 20th century was the bloodiest century in the history of mankind.
And the doctrine most responsible for that fact was an atheist
doctrine. But easy enough for you to ignore, eh?

Was that a single dictator killing potential problems, or was bloodshed
part of "an atheist doctrine"?

Take a look at the various regimes during the 20th century that adopted
the Communist doctinre. Was bloodshed a part of that doctrine? It's
undeniable.

It's a political policy, *not* an atheist "doctrine".

It's a political policy with atheism as a mandatory component.

Care to point out where in this 'atheist doctrine' they discuss how best
to create bloodshed. I must have missed it...

Did you miss their actions during the 20th century? Actions speak
louder than words. Start with Stalin's purges, to Pol Pot's killing
fields, to North Korea to this day. Look at citizens of Communist
regimes who have simply tried to *escape* to make a better life
elsewhere. Communist dictatorships consider an attempt to *escape*
from their clutches to be a capital crime.

I certainly missed the part where they attributed those killings to
atheism.

I know I don't need to bother bringing up that German fellow...
you know the one who claimed Christian values, and... well you
know the rest.

I think it was more leaders ordering killings, rather than doctrine.

So a universal implementation of murder by government was just
coincidental? And continues to be so where that doctrine (barely)
survives?

Which "doctrine" is that? Do you even know what an atheist "doctrine"
is?!?

Communism is an atheistic doctrine.

You mean in the same way that capitalism is an atheist doctrine?

No, not nearly. Capitalism is an economic system. Communism is far
more than an economic system.

Capitalism is as much a social doctrine as it is economic. An economy
doesn't function without social interaction of some kind.

The difference being that communism assumes each citizen has an equal
worth, where as capitalism... well, lets just say that if you're born
into money, it seems to follow that you have a greater starting worth
than someone born in the gutter. This is prefaced by the degree of
medical care that would be afforded to these 2 respective cases.

Communism is a complete social doctrine,

with its mandated economic policies as one important component
(atheism being another).

Yep. Removing religion from 2 separate religious groups allows the
groups to identify on a human level, rather than bicker and potentially
fight about who has the cooler imaginary friend.

Capitalism thrives on freedom, while
Communism can only survive under the tyrannical dicatates of a
powerful leader.

Capitalism doesn't thrive on freedom. It thrives on capital, nothing
more. Hang on... I though you said capitalism was only an economic
model. Yet you're tying personal 'freedom' to it now... make up your mind.

Further, communism != tyranny. Yes, there have been leaders of
communist nations who were tyrants. There are also leaders of
capitalist nations who are tyrants.

OTOH, Christianity *did* have a doctrine of killing people during the
Crusades -

But, of course, you do realize the Crusades were a *response* to Islamic
fundamentalist aggression, don't you? Christians were being murdered by
Islamic fundamentalists for several hundred years before "Christianity"
decided to fight back. But for some strange reason, the Islamic
aggression of that era never gets mentioned. I wonder why.
I have acknowledged several times already that "Christianity" went too
far in that response. But why are we suddenly talking about things that
happened literally hundreds of years ago? Weren't we were talking about
something that is *still* happening to this day? Why the historical
distraction?

It's not a distraction to point out the faults of religious organizations
when you are making bogus statements about irreligious "doctrine".

I made no bogus statements about Communism, which is an atheistic
doctrine. Yet you want to go back multiple centuries to make some kind
of comparison.

Well, how 'bout this one then Stevie:

Okay, Adie, how 'bout it:

Capitalism is detrimental to the good of humanity, as it ignores the
intrinsic worth of each individual human

On the contrary, capitalism provides *opportunity* for each
individual. There is no concept of the "individual" under Communism.
The "collective" is all important.

Yeah. Sure. Opportunity. Right.

Just look at LA. Someone born in South Central LA has little to no
opportunity provided to them... they just don't got the capital.
Compare that to someone born in a richer area like Hollywood, with all
the prep schooling, tuition, medical care, trust funds, and an all round
more decadent lifestyle, then tell me capitalism provides opportunity to
each individual. There's an obvious and massive disparity between the
opportunities that 2 children born into these situations will see in
their lifetime.

I'd like to know: what do you have against a society where every one
worked for the good of their fellow man (the "collective"), as opposed
to a society where everyone fights each other over scraps (of which
there is more than enough for everyone, but are shared
disproportionately)...?

and our shared stewardship of earth, while rewarding
exploitation of both.

Do you even understand the damage the old Soviet Union did to the
environment?

Yes. America did more than their fair share of polluting too, during
the same period. What's your point?

What shits me is, America is still doing it...

even though you have so much great technology that could be
invested in and used to deal with the problem, but the 'freedom'
afforded by capitalism allows people to go out and spend
thousands of dollars on fucking plastic surgery, and designer
clothes for their dog.

Where America could be saving the
world, most of your citizens sitting there in a self-centered daze,
guzzling coca-cola, watching TV sports.

Your government is on a fucking
rampage across the middle east, burning through resources faster than at
any other time in history, and for what? More fossil fuels. Imagine if
all the money spent invading Iraq was instead spent developing green
energy sources... holy *****, I might even have got on my feet praised
America if that were the case.

Yeah, Americans have the freedom to chose, they choose to be indifferent
toward the rest of humanity... They choose NASCAR, plastic surgery, and
foreign occupation.

For the record, just in case you're wondering, I think Australia is just
as bad. I harp on about America, because we get dragged along on every
one of your countries little fucking escapades.

They held themselves to no environmental controls. A free
society has the ability to implement environmental controls over its
industry.

What good has that ability done us? None!

Nothing prevents a communist state from implementing environmental
controls.

World governments, both communist and capitalist, have failed
to implement sufficient environment controls, so I don't know what your
point is here...

Thousands of people in 3rd world countries will die, or lose their
homes today due to the unfeeling, atheistic nature of capitalism.

Can you show some actual examples of thousands of people dying or
losing their homes today due to capitalism?

Fine play dumb, you ***** stick. Look at Africa. Look at South East
Asia. Capitalism hasn't done much good for the people living in those
areas... if anything, it has allowed the big corporates to move in and
cement the populations position below the poverty line by establishing
slave-like cheap-labour markets.

You're merely demonstrating what we've all been saying right along -
fundies point at everyone else for their own shortcomings, and try to
deflect the issue when it's demonstrated they have a log in their own
eye.

While you're trying to deflect the issue away from the bloodiest
century in the history of mankind, during which the atheistic doctrine
of Communism made murder by government a mainstay policy.

Much like capitalism has made 3rd world poverty a mainstay? Kind of?

How? Please explain how capitalism causes poverty.

Cheap labour markets. They are the ultimate goal of capitalists, and
force the majority of people to compete for scraps, or perish... this
situation allows an extremely small number of capitalists board their
air-liners and head over seas for a game of golf.

It's good, as long as your at the top, and have no moral conscience.

Bloodletting is an action by humans, not communism. If I identify as a
communist, does that mean I more likely to go out and kill somebody than
someone who identifies as a fascist, or a monarchist? No.

It's just a historical fact that Communist tyrannies murdered many,
many millions of people during the 20th century.

As did theist tyrants. In fact, theist tyrants appear to haver a much
longer history of or mass slaughter. What's your point?