RE: Q about arguments for God's existence.
July 13, 2014 at 12:31 pm
(This post was last modified: July 13, 2014 at 12:45 pm by Lek.)
(July 13, 2014 at 8:22 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:(July 13, 2014 at 12:13 am)Lek Wrote: Okay. That means you can't separate Stalin from his atheism. That also means that if a democrat goes out and kills a bunch of republicans because he hates them, it was because he was a democrat, and it would be better if the democrat party was abolished.
Neither can you separate him from his mustache or his a-leprechaunism either. So? What? I'm not exactly sure what you think logically follows from atheism, or for that matter, being a democrat, that is so deplorable. If you don't think irrational bigotry is reflected in Christian philosophy, I don't think you've been reading your Bible close enough.
I'm saying that if you can't separate a christian from his christianity, then you can't separate Stalin from his atheism. I'm just carrying on what you said in your last post.
(July 13, 2014 at 12:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: Except atheism isn't a faith or a philosophy.
Okay. Whatever it is, it still applies.
(July 13, 2014 at 5:00 am)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: You want civil unions? Fine. I've got a great idea. Lets replace the legal marriage as a religious institution and replace it with civil unions. We can then relegate "marriage" to a religious ceremony that is not in any way legal or binding. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, asshole.
Marriage would stay the same. This policy would apply only to civil unions. The government has no business defining what marriage is. Marriage is not a government institution.
