It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Yes I understand exactly why Trump is popular and you're absolutely right, a large part of it is his "nationalist" policies. And you're also right that a certain level of nationalism can be good and healthy, but it can also be extremely unhealthy if taken too far. Banning all Muslims from entering the country or building a huge wall across the southern border could be interpreted as nationalism, but I would strongly argue they are both terrible ideas. The problem with Trump is that he lacks modesty and humility, his entire campaign is fueled by incendiary and divisive talking points.
His campaign literally feeds on hate and fear
I see a different problem that has been occurring on these forums over time. Many atheists are attacking and generally being intolerant of those who have a form of religious belief. I find that disgusting.
Those same Atheists then have the audicaity to say that they are the ones being attacked, when in fact there the attackers.
And before you say anything else, I have seen many agnostics/atheists here who posted logicless and bs posts. Point is atheists need to be more tolerant and are not immune to believing bs.
Important to note us that before anyone says that most of the users here are of a certain viewpoint/belief-system, most of the users here didn't even state their belief system so no definite conclusion can be drawn there unless the 300k users on here each answer this.
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: seeker1963
I watched an interview with Trump a few months back and I'm pretty sure that's what he said. However he did add it would be for a "limited time" until he can "figure out what's happening with America" or some vague crap like that. But if my statement was incorrect then please feel free to correct me, don't just say I'm wrong without telling me how.
originally posted by: RainbowPhoenix
a reply to: ketsuko
Oh I'm totally cool with diversity just a point of observation is all. I also don't care what a person believes in so long as whatever that belief is does not affect me and they do not attempt to force their views on me. Oh you believe in God or religious doctrine...thats cool but do not expect me to adhere to the "rules" that you adhere to because guess what I don't believe in them so they hold no power over me.
originally posted by: uncommitted
I don't really think it's always religious beliefs whatsoever. I think it's people using that as a convenient flag to fly while oozing out their bigotry because they seem to think it gives them a right to think that way. I personally think to some extent it's small town syndrome where people see something that differs to their notion of 'normality' which makes them scared and angry. I know this is going to sound really boring to you, but the New Testament is the founding book of Christianity - the clue is in the name, but it is of course also reliant on the OT for its narrative which alleges to tell the story ultimately of one group of people over generations, and the culture and laws they lived within. Some people seem to believe that non members of very specific Jewish sects should be following those same laws well over 2,000 years later and don't say that is only from Christian people if there is any truth to separation of church and state.
I'm sorry, but unwarranted hatred exists within and without religion, it just does, for some though it's a convenient a) excuse for their behaviour based on their twist on it, or b) excuse to say anyone who follows a faith is in some way either intellectually or morally inferior. Pol Pot - political. Rwanda - political. Nazism (although I know many on here would rather than choke on their own vomit than agree) - political. Nanking - political. Stalins purges in the 30's - political.
I could go on. Some twisted loser of a KKK person talking about white Christians in no way makes his argument logical, kind of surprises me that he has it in his mind that Christ would be white- but that's the point, humans are stupid, some of them are not only stupid but aggressive and psychotic. Is religion the fault for that? Only one way to answer that one isn't there - show me evidence of zero per cent of any people who don't follow a faith of not being a mixture of stupid, aggressive and psychotic.
originally posted by: KaibaTheJedi
a reply to: Klassified
I see someone is triggered...
"dishing out"? The main attacks I have been seeing is a group of atheists going on and on and attacking those who have a different belief system then them. I find these Intolerant atheists the main living embodiement of bigotry/elitism. These people just see someone even mentions anything about religion/belief-system in any way, and those same atheists choose to attack that person for that. Is that not the definition of elitism? Not to mention many of their "arguments" are strawmans and their main purpose serves to cause divide and pointless argument.
From experience and research, more attacks have come from mainly atheists themselves. Heck I've had atheists threaten my life before because I had different views from him. Maybe you should take your rosé tinted glasses off if you think atheists are always the victims and never the attackers. Research proves otherwise. Lots and lots of bile has been spewed from atheists.
Though I won't classify entire groups based on individuals as every single group and belief systems has their share of douchebags.
As for your poll, did it poll most of the users or not? Unless you poll the majority of users, you cannot say for certain that most of the users fall under a certain group as it would be a fallacy then.
In closure, if atheists want respect, then they themselves have to show tolerance and respect. Golden rule of treat others the way you want to be treated.
Dominating conceptual paradigm in the empirical psychology of religion during the last three decades.
Based on Gordon Allport's theoretical distinction between mature and immature religion (see Allport and Ross 1967), the construction of an intrinsic-extrinsic scale to measure different religious orientations appeared to clarify the troubling finding that general measures of religion had positively correlated with prejudice. Consistent with Allport's conceptualization of mature religion, it was found that only extrinsic religion, or religion as a means, correlated with prejudice. Intrinsic religion, or religion as an end [a goal, a heart-felt way of life], characterized the unprejudiced and was compatible with Allport's views of mature religion. The scale to measure religious orientation, initially conceived as a continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic, quickly generated interest among empirical researchers. Numerous studies have been published that relate intrinsic and extrinsic religion to a variety of individual difference variables such as coping styles, narcissism, guilt, fear of death, a wide variety of religious experiences, various cognitive processes, and varieties of prejudice.
Consistent with Allport's view of mature religiosity, extrinsic but not intrinsic religiosity typically correlates with more dysfunctional psychological constructs. Many psychometric critiques and modifications of the scales have been published. The only consensus is that extrinsic and intrinsic must be treated as independent scales, not as a continuum as initially conceived. Major critical reviews have emphasized the lack of theory-driven research, the inadequacies of these scales to operationalize fully Allport's theory, and the failure to clearly define religious orientations in value-neutral terms. The psychometric limitations of the original scales repeatedly have been challenged. An age-universal version of these scales is available. It is a matter of contention whether the scales are best used as independent dimensions or the basis for constructing typologies. Studies using these scales and theoretically linked alternatives continue to provide the major database for the contemporary empirical psychology of religion.
—Ralph W. Hood, Jr .