The Black Vault

greeney2 wrote:The fact the word "Defeated" was used can not be very well smoothed over, Humphreys.

Of course it can, you're the only one I've seen have issue with it.

Your choice of words in your own title, I think we all know what the definition of DEFEAT means.

The title is taken directly from the Huffington post article.

Defeat does not have to mean "destroy by force", as it obviously does not mean in this case, otherwise we'd have to call in the police every time one team "defeated" another in a sporting contest

Did I say defeat implied by force? Did I say defeat implied viloent force? It implies an affront, and it is social oppresion, and condemnation for belief in scripture, practicing your faith, and freedom to believe what is, or is not a sin.

I know it was Huffington Post, but its still your thread, so you obviously agreed with the terms used. You also just used "Sporting contest" which again congers up competition, or advesary against advesary. The word speaks for itself, and the Militant atheist following, which has nothing to do with force (but it may also include violent force), is fueled twards defeating religion which regards things as sins, and an affront against religions, mostly against Christianity, as a tool to change many social issues, I've mentioned.

They are conflicting belief systems, of course there is an element of competition, and that's the only way "defeat" was used, as in "to become the dominant belief system", which simply means more people will be atheists than are believers.

All this militant BS regards the article is fantasy conjured up by your own mind.

Bullshit, your own well known famous people who are athiests, wear the label proudly, and even bragg about it.

Who gives a crap what famous people say, and what relevance does that have to this article?

Because much of the country gravitates to the famous, the names in the news, and can't see the forest through the trees. Its sad but true, and how many Presidents suck up to, and gravitate twards the Hollywood elite, and liberals? Obama is about as wishy washy as it comes, and just fell to pressure from the Hollywood fund raisers, to embrace on of the social issues, Gay Marriage, religions do not condone.

It came from the liberal left to begin with, The Huffington Post, and the term defeated, I repeat indicates an afront or movement, against religions and Christianity, by the far left. Issues most religions are not aligned with are fueling the afront. I have stated several of those issues that are social issues, not regarded as morally right by religions. The afront to defeat religions, is the tool to social acceptance of these issues.

I'm sure you can see the motivation against the Vatican alone, to make all priests look like pedifiles, as the Catholic Church speaks out against many or these issues. That is just one example of anti-religion movements. Liberals would love to bring down the Catholic Church and any other religions along with it, becasue they do not accept what they do. Demonizing, any and all opinions of elected officials, that are religiously instilled, and making them look like the enemy for it. Just run for President, and see what happens when you have to explain Abortion or Gay Marriage. Mitt Romney is a Morman, how can he justify abortion, and Obama just caved in to liberal pressure to gay marriage, because he knows if he didn't the liberal media would slauder him. Again, defeat religious teachings and religions. One of those tools may be to convince people like you, your are a critical thinker, and religion can't proove anything about God, so all these social issues are myths, if you just deny God, its easy.

Whatever greeney.

For once I'd just like you to stick to the article itself instead of nitpicking so you can focus on your own paranoid agenda towards militant atheists.

It's just a title, the article itself has not a single shred of militancy about it, it's simply a discussion about whether atheists will outnumber theists in 2038.

If you were a believer and had religous affiliation, you would see it more to my way, but as an Atheist, its not an issue for you. I'm sorry, but I didn't make up this militant atheism stuff, it is a fact. Our politics in this country label those against these social issues as the Christian Right wingers. The Christian right is labeled as fanatics, and there is a movement to demonize any and all religious influence from polititians. Movements to demonize a candidate with religious persecussion, is exactly what branding someone for speaking out for what scripture tells us. Obama caved to this liberal pressure, and Romney is under attack for it. Look how Bush was labeled and branded for being Christian. How Sarah Palan get treated for being a strong Christian? Who did the demonizing? Groups behind issues of the far left liberals.

Like it or not, there is a definate movement to defeat religions, and it comes from the most liberal left, who can only achieve thier social issues by the defeat of religions, and further erosion of beleiving in God or Scripture. They are the roadblocks to most all of these social issues that separate the religious and non-religious sides. Denegrating religious teachings and writings, denying God or Gods existance, is the key to all these social issues becoming reality.