This member has provided no bio about themself...
Spud, I think it's going right over his head...
More often than not they are factual, but the facts are presented in a deceptive manner- no media source in the world is innocent of this.
Remember to use as many sources as you can when checking information- knowing one's own opinion is the best way to eliminate it from the overarching truth.
keep in mind that fact does not connote truth
oddly enough, they were- the (flawed) logic behind it is that people can't worship stalin when they're busy worshipping god, so the state took away religious freedom and hunted religious people, making it impossible for religious leaders to actually organize people against the soviet state (which in considering itself atheists gave these people reason to want to depose such a government).
You'll find the average Atheists may dislike religion and gods, but are more advocates of religious freedom than anything else. Don't mistake their criticism of your beliefs as a wish to forcefully eliminate them.
Don't worry, we'll be bringing some of those soon enough
For the last time, they were targeted as a power threat- they were persecuted for political reasons, not religious ones.
Thanks ^^ I spent hours trying to get the coloring right. I may have some other color permutations for it as well later on.
You've got a point there, but I'm sure as these people's skills develop, their content will eventually grow in originality. I'll admit, it is really annoying. At least BF2 is still alive, right?
'murica answers to no one
(except maybe Reagan- America loved Reagan... Reagan and trans fats...)
Luckily I'm not a virgin and my room isn't a disaster.
yai not a lewser
Interesting- I'll check this out.
I like Oliver Stone, but I'd branch out and check on some other sources. Each (and every) has their own bias, and you need to be able to take in as many different biased sources as you can in order to weed out fact from opinion.
Some of us manage to do both at once
I'm sure any state that has an official religious view tends to oppress it's people...
Again, North Korean's aren't killing because they're atheists, they're killing because they're authoritarian.
You defend religion by saying wars are started by politics yet turn around and say that wars (wars that are started very obviously for politics) are started by atheists. lel
When has anyone been persecuted by atheists?
I think Obama takes too much flak- he hasn't done a single thing requiring his impeachment, and I'm not trying to generalize, but every time I hear someone talk about 'impeaching' Obama, I can't help but think our nations' conservatives have become rather immature.
Oh crap I posted that a year ago-
I'm disturbed that so many people on moddb are beginning to post (and take stock in) these political quizzes.
Yes, but Israel would have better justification- would they not?
Then Galileo came along and blew much of Newton's hypothesis out of the water with the sacrilege we know today as science.
This article is bull. Religion and morality are two very different things.
Come on Evan, let it goooooooo
Actually I'd agree that most if not all wars in Europe were over politics and greed, but religion was what allowed these vile people to create armies of the poor, young, and stupid to fight for them.
I was wrong in saying Hitler was a self proclaimed Christian, I've done my own research and found that there's a lot of evidence that points either way. Regardless, chances are neither Hitler or Stalin did what they did because of their views on religion.
Religion was targeted by the communists because it was a power threat, not because the communists disagreed with the fundamentals of religion. I would go as far to say these were authoritarians, not communists, as communist ideologies do not necessitate the absence of religion- these authoritarians were not attacking people because they were atheists.
That's exactly my point, but calling them churches holds religious connotation- I guess it would be better to call them communal centers.
Now you have to stop throwing the Stalin thing around, Stalin did not commit his crimes because he was an atheist, and he certainly wouldn't have been any different had he affiliated himself with any particular religion- it's an unfounded argument in and of itself.
I'm fine with insulting eachother, but your image contains mere speculation and doesn't point out any trend visible in society apart from the guy with the sign. Atheists are (more often than not) offensive and inflammatory towards other religions, but we are in no way intolerant- we still live side by side with religious people, and in being atheist one must accept that we'll live our lives surrounded by people of faith. We don't use this as an excuse to limit their rights of expression or try to hurt these people regardless of whether or not they try to utilize these methods against us. I'd say inflammatory speech is rude and unsightly, but it's not at all unfair or impeding on one's natural rights.
You need to grow out the beard and tie some vikingesque braids on it
It doesn't matter!
This is great xD
After the camp Bastion incident in 2012 two USMC Major Generals were relieved of service even though the failure was a result of a lack of funding.
The US has done a lot, and we actually haven't dropped a single "bomb". A lot of the operations in Afghanistan have been tough combat operations, but more than anything else, we've begun to use communication and *real* diplomacy with Afghan leaders over recent years, and you'll find that many of these medals are well deserved regardless of whether or not they're combat medals.
You might want to do some research here, because it doesn't sound like you know much of anything about the US military or any other for that matter.
I'm with you there brother
Pope Francis is actually completely different- look him up
Elf, you have a fair point, but like you said yourself, science is more about disproving than it is about proving.
The god conclusion is usually a brick wall when it's brought into being, many scientists don't like getting mixed up in philosophy and religion because within the next decade the evidence they have will be null- if you believe in god, understand that you're climbing the tower of Babel, and you will never find him with science or anything else- only your faith would bring you closer. If you don't believe, it's pretty much the same, nothing will prove or disprove him, so it really is a waste of time for scientists to mull over the idea of god regardless of whether or not they believe in him. The bible is subjective and interpretative, if anything science helps you better understand your religion, it helps show you what your holy texts don't mean rather than what they do mean.
Maybe they did rethink it- honestly I don't really care. Just because they didn't agree with you doesn't mean they didn't give it a fair deal of thought.
Chances are they've tried the same with you.