It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Daedalus
Nice optuse response totally founded in discord and irrelevant semantics.
Here is one definition for you...
www.urbandictionary.com...
I didn't want to leave that last comment unexplained. Because an honest examination of our beliefs requires an evaluation of the evidence, I wanted to point out one of the principal problems we face with any evidence as far as it concerns the concept of god.
originally posted by: Tearman
...
On the one hand I identify more with the label atheist because I think there is slim chance religions are true. Others might call me agnostic because new evidence could change my degree of certainty. It is difficult to imagine what form of evidence might be convincing, I will admit.
So you lack an ON TOPIC response, or even one in response to my previous posts.
originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: Daedalus
Thanks grammar Nazi.
That makes this whole exchange more productive.
So you do know the definition.....good.
Here is another
www.merriam-webster.com...
originally posted by: Daedalus
originally posted by: uncommitted
Hmmm, you are I think applying 21st century context to something that happened 1,100 years ago. Whether you believe in God or not is neither here nor there - I think you are missing that. Jerusalem and more to the point the area around it represented power at the time. The patronsing tone is ok though, I appreciate you to just want to bash religion and you thought the crusades were a good example, that's fine. JFK was a staunch Catholic and was persuaded (wrongfully and with obviously shocking repercussions) to launch the war with Vietnam - probably a better example really of those who thought that being God fearing meant right was on your side - in the Crusades, both sides did.
it's not really bashing, so much as highlighting certain logical flaws...
what does JFK being a catholic have to do with anything?
i understand what jerusalem represented, but to a number of faiths, it has ALWAYS been considered "holy land"..
and i only brought up the crusades, as an example of something awful that was done in the name of god/religion.
It's not enough. We should always know why we are taking a stand a certain way.
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Tearman
but isn't it enough just to be opposed to the mixing of religion and government? does there really need to be a more substantial reason, or explanation, outside of the common sense principle that it's just not a good idea?