Gargamel Bojangles
Member
- Jan 24, 2016
- 75
- 14
- 8
- 49
Drunk drivers kill people so I'll openly ridicule cars.
An atheist is thinking of converting back to Satanism? Isnt this oxymoronic?... anyway I know that there have been many atrocities committed in the name of religion but I don't think it's fair to blame all religion just because people misuse it. Pretty sure I've never heard of a Buddhist killing someone...or a rastafarian....
You have contradicted yourself because Satanism is indeed a religion but yet you said all religion is badThey aren't using the religion. The religion is using them. Also, I am no longer an atheist. I'm not going to say, as this is not a religious forum, and I'm not interested in sparking controversy and setting up barriers between myself and others here. I am not religious, but I do belive in a force. (Not god)
You have contradicted yourself because Satanism is indeed a religion but yet you said all religion is bad
Satanism is not a religion.
- it is a set of principles upon which you live your life. There is even satanic bible with a list of commandments. That would be a religion
If I were to convert to spongebobism and live according to the principles of Spongebob then that would be a religion
I never even mentioned The Satanic Bible. The Satanic Bible is not an all encompassing book like the Christian bible is, anyways. I never even said I was a Satanist. I said I was, but I never said anything about now.
Not strictly, but it is the biggest factor.The abortion thing isn't strictly religious.
Buddhism is not a religion that has ever been used to either promote or incite hatred or bigotry. Big difference.An atheist is thinking of converting back to Satanism? Isnt this oxymoronic?... anyway I know that there have been many atrocities committed in the name of religion but I don't think it's fair to blame all religion just because people misuse it. Pretty sure I've never heard of a Buddhist killing someone...or a rastafarian....
Not strictly, but it is the biggest factor.
Buddhism is not a religion that has ever been used to either promote or incite hatred or bigotry. Big difference.
Think harder
The difference is that pro-abortion women are not preaching a belief that usurps the basic human rights of another human being (no, fetuses are not "human beings", nipping that in the bud right now), so you're damn right that I believe they should be "favored".Agreed.
But how do you settle the difference between pro-abortion women and anti-abortion women? Favour one over the other?
Sure about that?
To the best of my knowledge, yes.
If you can provide evidence to the contrary I will reevaluate my stance, but I always was under the impression buddhism was a religion built upon a framework of peace and acceptance.
The difference is that pro-abortion women are not preaching a belief that usurps the basic human rights of another human being (no, fetuses are not "human beings", nipping that in the bud right now), so you're damn right that I believe they should be "favored".
Well then my original stance remains unchanged, despite my stance on Buddhism itself changing. Any religion that has been the root or cause of violence is a religion deserving of ridicule imo.Well, being built upon a certain kind of framework is different than real world instances of religiously inspired violence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence#South-East_Asia
Actually I am not. I'll break it down very simply.I'm not going to go into the "fetuses are not human beings" rabbit hole but I don't think it's that simple. Also there are abortion advocates that want to able to abort beyond the point where a fetus can't survive separate from the womb.
But essentially you're arguing against women's rights based on where you stand ideologically. I see no difference between people like you and the other side.
Actually I am not. I'll break it down very simply.
Again, if pro-abortionists are favored, anti-abortionists' rights are not being quashed in any way, as they can simply, again, get this: not get one.
Whereas if anti-abortionists are favored, then that means a total elimination of the right over one's own body; the loss of the right to choose, possible loss of the mother's life, etc.
Your argument here is backwards, and I'll say it again; people's lives and rights over their own bodies are infinitely more important than the simple "hurt feelings" caused by anti-abortionists being told to keep to themselves. Do you deny this last point? Simple yes or no answer please.