As Atheists we must remain on guard against theocracy. The news of religions decline can lull us into a false sense of security. Religion, in particular Christianity, is always searching for innovative ways to win new converts, and their ultimate goal is the establishment of theocracy.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Yep they had power once and are desperate to get it back so they can stamp out their vaunted free will.
Did you see the report on a republican senator supporting a group that want to secede the south of the usa and create a christian theocracy?
Yes, I saw it. I saw it on Facebook, and shared it to alert others to this insanity.
I think republicans have all gone insane i posit this is a result of having a non christian black president.
I pity the fate of america should there be a republican president.
Obama is a christian.
Wasnt there a big fuss because he didnt swear on the bible or did my aphasia catch me out again.
You can look that up as easily as I can.
A lot of Christian republicans claimed that he wasn't christian, some call him Muslim or atheist (because those automatically make you a bad leader and person, obviously (sarcasm dripping)) It's all fake mudslinging though, he is definitely a christian.
Ok thanks
politicians have only one aim in mind;
To gether as much support as possible.
If 60% of the population was GAY, Obama would be GAY too.
Ad hominem...
Ad hominem(genetic fallacy)=
A claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
Which claim did I reject?
I actually made a claim that politicians have the aim "To gather as much support as possible."
no support, no power, no nothing.
It doesn't matter what else you want to achieve later.
Their main aim at start is to have as much support as possible.
Some(if not all) resort to do favors(corruption) to get some edge over their competitors.
More money= more chances of victory.
We currently make value of martial things(money) our god. So technically we are already a theocracy.
We are lead to believe that we have a choice in a democracy but in reality we just trade 1 puppet with an other.
The real persons who are managing the countries are those that finance the political campaign of both parties.
They never loose that way and we always loose.
We should value health and time much more then material value(like gold etc..)
ad ho·mi·nem
ˈad ˈhämənəm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic.
You said, "politicians have only one aim in mind; To gether (sic) as much support as possible."
How do you propose to prove that? Have you looked into the mind of everyone who runs for a political office?
You did not initially claim it as their *main* aim. You said it was their *only* aim. If you're changing your mind about that now, okay.
"We currently make value of martial (sic) things(money) our god."
WTF? Who is this "we" you speak of?
"We should value health and time much more then material value(like gold etc..)"
Again, who is this "we" you speak of?
Does your "we" include everyone? If that's the case, I just don't remember providing my permission for you to speak on my behalf.
stop being an absolute.
When I said 'we' "only one aim" i meant in general, The average person.
All politicians have only one aim at start to gain "To gather as much support as possible."
I meant at start of their career, which i should have made it more clear.
But it was a comment, to make fun of.
You are trying to begin an argument with me on pure nonsense which is childish to say the least.
Perhaps it is childish to assume that what you typed is what you meant. Because all I can do is read your words. I cannot see your body language, nor hear your tone of voice. Just words. Since I do not know you very well, I haven't the ability to infer other meaning in your words. I cannot know what you meant, I can only know what you typed.
That being said, you haven't the ability to infer other meaning in my words (and certainly not the ability to make inferences about my intent) either, Jeff.
Now, what tone of voice do you suppose I said all of this with?
The point was to not jump to conclusions especially on short comments not directed at you.
You just assumed a lot of things in your assessment of what I wrote.
In such situations I must recommend z approach to ask more questions and confirm the claims actual claims before jumping to conclusions.
also just a confirmation of your definition of Ad hominem;
"(of an argument or reaction) arising from or appealing to the emotions and not reason or logic."
could you please provide the source of that definition?
What I though it meant was similar to this:
"Of an argument( or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/ad-hominem
If this meaning is the correct one, it does not seem to relate to my claim against politicians.