Originally posted by Bigwhammy
Nobody is forcing anyone to be Christian. Where did that come from?
So was it wrong for the United States to stop the Nazis? Oh please... Is it wrong to force child molestors to stop?
Moral relativism does not hold water.
Apologies if I worded it strangely, I wasn't implying that anyone's forcing anyone to be Christian. I was responding to your quote about Democracy,
and was actually alluding to the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq. "If you won't come to Democracy, Democracy will come to you!" You asked
if thinking a Democratic republic was superior was evil, and I said it is if you are forcing it on other people. I was making the argument that no
organization, theist, atheist, Christian, Democratic, etc. is innocent if they are attempting to force their ideologies on others.
Was it wrong for the United States to stop the Nazis? This is a question I was asked when I was applying for Conscientious Objector Status while I
was in the Army. (I failed to convince them I was a pacifist, probably because I'm not one, so they instead sent me to Iraq. Hooray!) Anyway,
it's a loaded question, and the answer is one which will bring criticism no matter what. Should the Nazis have been stopped? Yes, they were forcing
their beliefs on other people. But that's when it gets complicated...so I'll stop there.
The only time forcing your beliefs on somebody is *possibly* justified is when they are forcing their beliefs on somebody else, such as a child
molester or rapist. But trying to change people's personal beliefs about God/lack thereof/Heaven/Hell/anything else unprovable is a sin. Period.
Originally posted by undo
Yes, and you can stand your ground without shoving everybody else out of the way, my friend
That's the issue at stake here.
There's no room for any version but the atheist one. They believe this view is
proven by empirical process and evidence, but have you looked at some of this evidence?
Perhaps you're all reading too much into Dawkins, or maybe I just haven't seen enough of his work. (All I've seen is the video Bigwhammy posted
and I listened to the debate also...), but Dawkins doesn't want to kill all the theists or anything. It seems to me he wants to eradicate
non-evidence based beliefs, (which would also mean destroying the atheist belief as there is no evidence that there is no God...) And you refer to
"they", but I have yet to see this mass army of atheists that are not only re-writing history but are also plotting to exterminate the believers. I
think you guys are reading Revelations too much...
[edit on 28/3/08 by an3rkist]