UK Pensioner Could Face Arrest For Atheist Poster
from the best-use-of-police-time? dept
Along with ridiculous libel cases, the UK is also infamous for laws that are designed to stop people hurting the feelings of others. Maybe that's a laudable aim, but the end-result is that they can cast a chill over freedom of speech. Here's a classic case from the English town of Boston in Lincolnshire:
A Boston OAP [Old Age Pensioner] who vowed to defy police advice and display an atheist poster has attracted national interest -- and an offer of support from the National Secular Society.
Following the outcry that greeted this story, the Lincolnshire police naturally responded by issuing a press release:
John Richards was advised that putting up a poster at his Vauxhall Road home denouncing religions as 'fairy stories' could be an offence under the Public Order Act.LincolnshirePolice have not advised Mr Richards that he faces arrest for the specific posters he is displaying and he is not committing any offences by doing so.
So the good news is that the police haven't told Mr Richards that he faces arrest for his atheist poster -- yet; the bad news is that if someone says they are offended by his poster, and the police decide that a reasonable person would agree with them, then he will indeed face arrest unless he takes it down.
The 1986 Public Order Act states that a person is guilty of an offence if they display a sign which is threatening or abusive or insulting with the intent to provoke violence or which may cause another person harassment, alarm or distress. This is balanced with a right to free speech and the key point is that the offence is committed if it is deemed that a reasonable person would find the content insulting.
If a complaint is received by the police in relation to a sign displayed in a person’s window, an officer would attend and make a reasoned judgement about whether an offence had been committed under the Act. In the majority of cases where it was considered that an offence had been committed, the action taken by the officer would be to issue words of advice and request that the sign be removed. Only if this request were refused might an arrest be necessary.
Since the UK government claims that the current threat level from terrorism is "substantial", you can't help feeling that one way of tackling that would be to free up the police from having to worry about posters in a pensioner's window.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: atheism, boston, libel, lincolnshire, police, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Reason
It assumes a binary state - either no god, or the god of 1 particular religion. Depending on how you count, there are at least 7 or 8 major religions in the world. Of those, there are literally thousands of sects and offshoots, all of which claim to be the correct and only way to receive the rewards promised.
The wager also fails to consider a key aspect of what most religions claim - that their god is omniscient and would know whether someone taking the wager really has the beliefs, or is faking it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Reason
For the whole premise to work, you'd either have to have a god who can't actually tell the difference between lip service and actual worship, or one who doesn't care either way, as long as the people at least appeared to be worshiping him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: absolutely correct
The officers should then respond to his complaint in the same manner and request all those other offensive signs be removed.
Fair is fair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: absolutely correct
Not if the person making the original complaint objective is an attack on religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: absolutely correct
Friend, thy name is hypocrisy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: absolutely correct
Many go much further than suggest someone else's opinion or belief is a bit silly (which is all this poster does). Some call for killing those who do not share the religion.
So on one side we have someone suggesting other peoples' beliefs are a bit silly, and on the other side we have groups whose doctrine calls for non members to be killed. You think the first person is the one doing the attacking. We can conclude from this that you lack common sense, good sense and a sense of proportion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: absolutely correct
Religious freedom is treated as more important than ANYTHING in this country, including civil liberties (churches encouragement to maintain ban on gay marriage, anyone?).
If the fighting tommies were still around, they'd be spewing at the gutless wretches that now infest this country.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, in a case involving a preacher admitting he belonged to al-Qa'ida and actually posting hate messages of Christians and atheists who is still walking the steets (pending deportation for criminal offenses,) this is clearly not the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Equal treatment does not matter when it comes to a law that affects everyone.
I consider myself a reasonable individual, and I find hate speech offensive -- but I would not demand that someone give up the right to display a "niggers suck" sign in their bedroom window because I find the sign offensive. My emotional response to legal expression should not become a valid reason for government agents to infringe upon another person's legal right to free expression (vis-a-vis arrest or another form of punishment).
On the flip side: if you find yourself offended by my usage of the term "nigger", will you ask Techdirt to ban me from its comment sections or ask the government to arrest me based on my usage of racial slursm regardless of the context? Should I face jail time or other legal recompense because I said a "bad word" and "offended" you?
The emotional response of offense cannot serve as the only reason to restrict another person's civil liberties. We don't have the legal right to not feel offended; if we did, we wouldn't have comedy, tragedy, or...hell, any form of valid artistic expression.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Whoops, need to proofread my crap better. Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Bill Maher finally says something with which I can completely agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The true test of freedom of speech is if you can say something many find offensive and not be arrested, fined or otherwise punished by law.
This law is bad for free speech regardless of equal application. Worse without of course, but still bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or, in other words, "You must be tolerant of my intolerance!" To which the appropriate response is, "No, I absolutely must NOT. I am, however, free to mock you mercilessly."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually I don't find it offensive because I think it's just silly, and sad. But I could choose to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In my experience, you're either not taking any notice or don't live near a lot of evangelical style churches. There's certainly a lot of them out there, and I grew up in a relatively sedate part of England as opposed to the fire-and-brimstone preaching style of many US churches I've seen.
I don't personally find them anywhere near as offensive as people shutting at me in streets or ringing my doorbell on my day off to try and assault me with their brand of religion, but they're at least on the same level as the sign in the article, often far worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My favorite one was ...
"I Kissed A Girl. I Liked It. Then I Went To Hell!"
Made the national news in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
/kissed a girl
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
1) The bottom line read "Children at 8 to 9". The new message at the top was "Harvest Festival dinner this weekend".
2) The bottom line read "Day school openings available". The new message at the top was "Worth dying for".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW, England's idea of "free speech" is not exactly the same as the US's version. Close, but not quite identical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
> a dictatorship than anything ever seen in the UK
Anything? Really?
'Cause it seems like the UK has some kings in its history that were a little more dictatorial than what's going on there now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The UK came into existence with the Acts of Union 1800, which came into force in 1800. Which Kings since 1800 have been dictatorial rulers of the UK?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> same thing? Interesting...
I don't just think it, it's true.
'Dictatorship' is a descriptor of a ruler with few to no checks on his/her power, not a category of leader in and of itself. Dictators can come in many forms-- from military strongmen like Saddam Hussein to, yes, monarchs. The Pope of Rome is technically a dictator, although a benevolent one in modern times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"threatening or abusive or insulting with the intent to provoke violence or which may cause another person harassment, alarm or distress."
Anyone who thinks the former equals the latter needs help. Seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"OR cause another person distress."
That covers pretty much anything anyone doesn't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
'threatening or abusive or insulting with the intent to provoke violence or which may rustle someones jimmies'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it doesn't contain offensive language or artwork, it's nothing different from posters features bible verses or political slogans, and those are most certainly protected as free speech.
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion."
-- Robert M. Pirsig --
"Religion is like a penis. It's fine if you have one, its fine if you're proud of it, but please don't whip it out in public and wave it around, and please don't try to shove it down children's throats."
-- Lee --
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They're insecure in their beliefs.
Otherwise they'd just go "lol athiesm" just as athiests who firmly believe there is no god will go "lol christianity/islam/shintoism"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another take
What is the character of a person who sees a sign like that in a pensioner's window, and runs to the police to complain?
Could a person with such character stand up, against great odds, in the face of the the very casques that did affright the air at Agincourt? Could such a person do his duty, as England expected, at Trafalgar? Could such a person keep calm and carry on? Would such a person fight on beaches, on landing grounds, in fields and streets, in the hills, and never surrender? Is such a person capable of having a finest hour?
I ask because of this: societies that make rules like this one, encouraging its citizens to scamper mewling behind the skirts of the government when faced with the least offense, produce people with the character necessary to take them up on the offer. It is hard to imagine how a nation run by people of that character can endure — or at least, how it can endure as anyplace you'd want to live.
This is hardly a UK-specific problem. We're doing it to ourselves here in America, what with our nanny-state obsessions and overreaching anti-bullying laws.
You try (or at least I do) to steer your kids away from being "tattle-tales" and teach them to choose their battles, only to have schools and life in general encourage the polar opposite response to every single, minute offense. More reason than ever to fear for the future of the nation(s).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NSS
Seriously, why would you put a little poster like that in your window except to try and provoke a response that you can then portray as some kind of "persecution"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSS
The same reason why religious people shove propaganda material through my letterbox?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSS
If you read the link, it says exactly why he did it:
"I am an atheist and I feel people are being misled by religion. I wanted to show people that if they thought they were alone there was at least one other person who thought that."
As an atheist myself, I understand that exactly. For years growing up, I knew religion was a crock - but I was too scared to say it because I thought I was the only one. Only after hearing many others "come out of the closet" was I able to have the courage to stand up and tell my friends, family, and now even strangers my feelings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSS
That little poster he put up was not a serious attempt at propaganda nor was it some kind of badge of identity. Its only possible purpose was to provoke. The NSS does this kind of stunt all the time.
As for those who want to show that "you are not alone if you don't beleive in religion". Frankly that is tosh.
I was an atheist until the age of about 15-16 and I never felt I was alone or needed courage to tell my friends etc. Just go down to the local supermarket on a Sunday morning and compare the numbers there with the numbers in your local church. (I'm talking UK here - I admit US may be different).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: NSS
Of course it does - the point is not to be provoked!
If the person who sets out to provoke you finds that his provocation is ignored then he ends up just looking silly!
That is exactly how Mr Richards and the NSS will look if no one plays ball with them.
I like nothing better than a good honest debate with those who disagree with me on this point. What I hate is the naive extremists on both sides of the argument.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSS
Who are you to unilaterally declare the reasons this man had for putting up the poster? He said what his reasons were - if you want to call him a liar, please come out and do so unequivocally.
And yes, the US is quite different when it comes to this subject.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSS
> 15-16 and I never felt I was alone or
> needed courage to tell my friends etc.
And your personal experience is the singular objective definitive experience for everyone, then?
It's not possible that other people might have had a different go of it because it didn't happen to you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: NSS
The fact that other people have other feelings to you in the same circumstances does not make anyone's feelings less real than your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSS
fair is fair, right?
How do you become an atheist?????
easy, read the bible
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NSS
easy, read the bible"
Ain't it amazing how any given sect of any given religion will tell any OTHER sect of any other religion that they're heathens and are destined for Hell????? Us against them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NSS
> poster like that in your window except
> to try and provoke a response that you
> can then portray as some kind of
> "persecution"?
The same reason religious people put up signs saying "Repent or go to hell".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why should we be offended?
Why anyone would regard Mr Richards' little poster as a threat is a mystery to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why should we be offended?
"70 years of Atheist purges under Stalin and his successors. "
Ah, never mind, another idiot who thinks atheism was the problem. Carry on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
> only that it is most recent and shortest
> lived attempt to wipe out his beliefs.
And it's wrong. Stalin purged the religious not because of any real belief in atheism, but because organized religions were a challenge and threat to state power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
In any case his point was not an attack against atheism, but how thin skinned some people are ... including some atheist. Oh, by the way I also am an atheist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
> of a purge does it really matter why
> they're trying to wipe you out.
Perhaps not. But it does matter to history and now here we are 70-some-odd years later discussing it, it's good to get the facts straight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
No. But, it does feel fitting that the people retelling the story gets it right so that history does not repeat itself, no? I know that if I were murdered due to the colour of hair I have, that my descendants don't warn that they were killed because their eyes were blue.
"In any case his point was not an attack against atheism, but how thin skinned some people are ... including some atheist."
Yet, people don't accept any criticism of Christianity in response. Seems a little hypocritical don't you think?
"Oh, by the way I also am an atheist."
Great. But, consider this - why do you tolerate the removal of the rights of others when their only defence is in the pages of a book you don't hold sacred? If you're American, of course. If you're not American, why do you feel the need to pre-emptively defend yourself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why should we be offended?
-the salem witch trials
-the killings of those who didn't accept the peaceful ways of Jesus or who did but believed in a flavor that was considered heresy
-pedophile prists
-those faith healing idiots who don't take their children to the doctor and let the child die
And I get to blame all religion for the 9/11 attack on the WTC and misc Islamic extremism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
"...Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirt of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."
That was said by an incredibly famous, popular leader. Initials "AH", I think.
/Godwin
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
I grew up in the Republic of Ireland, which has a majority Catholic Christian population. The three schools I went to were all staunchly Catholic, although the last one was a bit more liberal in that its Religious Education classes (even when taught by a Marianist priest) actually taught about other religions and philosophies, without comparing them to Christianity (as compared to my primary schools, which in religion, taught only from the Bible).
Growing up, I was a Christian, as I believed what all these priests and brothers taught to me. I believed in the Pope and the Cardinals as the leaders of the Church that Jesus commanded to be built.
Then, the sex abuse scandals broke. I learned that there were many priests who regularly sexually abused children. Not only that, but these priests were actually sheltered by their superiors. The stink of corruption reached all the way to the Holy See, where a lack of communication was publicly interpreted as unofficial tacit approval of the sexual abuses.
When the people preaching to you about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are now revealed as lying scumbags who abused children for their own gratification, its quite reasonable to blame Christianity itself for this. It was Christianity that gave them the authority to do this.
Lastly, a direct challenge to your own Jewish beliefs, since I love doing this. You saw Jews are God's chosen people. I presume that to mean that at the end of time, they will be saved and all the rest of humanity will burn in hell or suffer some other doom. What does that say about your God? Should I suffer simply because I don't cut off my foreskin and work on the Sabbath?
What I'm challenging here is the belief in ritual and dogma, rather than in a true faith in a loving God. It is what has led me to become a non-theist. I don't believe in organized religion, because time after time after time, they reduce themselves to worshippings of trappings and dogma. A true God wouldn't care if I went to church every Sunday or not, or ate a piece of bread at said church, or if I didn't pray 5 times a day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
that guy??? who didn't care about slaves, only preserving his Almighty country, that guy?? sure you want to quote him??
learn some history
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why should we be offended?
But I didn't "blame" atheism (as a philosophy) for the purges. I merely used the adjective "atheist" to distinguish the purges that Stalin perpetrated against believers from those that he perpetrated against just about anybody else. So you don't get to blame Christianity as a whole for all that other stuff.
Please look at my main point - which was that Christians (and those of other religions) who take offence (and or demand laws to protect themselves against offending material) are scoring a completely unnecessary own goal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or lets use another angle, let's say I'm profoundly distressed by the erosion of free speech, would that mean the cop trying to enact this law should be arrested for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, Jul 5th, 2012 @ 4:01am
Let me get you started.
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=church+signs&ion=1&bav=on .2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=1171&bih=691&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&so urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=SHj1T6DgOaKs2wXUyN39Bg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell..
I mean forever? Come on lol we're only here for 70 years. It would be impossible to do enough bad shit to warrant sending someone to hell for all of eternity.
I do agree with the morals most religions follow. They are in general a good way to be a good person. If there was a god I really doubt hell even exist.
In comparison with infinite knowledge we are just too stupid to be held accountable. It's not something we could even ever begin to grasp. No finite mind ever could plain and simple.
If someone wants to be an asshole online people do not have to read it or even visit the site. It's not like the owner is holding a gun to his users head making them go on his site just to read comments posted by an Atheist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's like walking up to a fan of Batman and telling him "Hey, you know your guy is imaginary right? Yeah, he aint real."
Well, to me God is more real than half the people I see on the streets when I walk in the morning. I won't tell an atheist to believe in god if that's their own belief but they should at least have the decency to respect my beliefs too and not try to demean them.
Still, getting arrested is a bit much, someone just call him a dick for me and that'll be good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Show objective evidence. Considering that's never been done, you manage to do it you'll have a Nobel Prize headed your way in no time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My proof is that Jesus rose from the grave. Waiting on your proof now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, but your "proof" is as objective and convincing as the claim that "Today is beautiful and I feel great" is *proof* that a God must exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You will notice that nobody is asking you to "please provide objective evidence that the missing link does not exist"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Plus, if all that's requred for a claim to be valid is that no one can prove it doesn't exist then I can claim any silly thing I want as long as I meet that bizarre test of validity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can't use stories from the bible as proof that the bible is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I can't prove god doesn't exist because it's impossible to prove a negative (try it for yourself - prove that unicorns don't exist. Go ahead, I'll wait), but seeing as I've seen no objective evidence that god does exist, I therefore assume he doesn't.
And no, proof from the Bible, vicars or something like 'today is very nice and sunny, therefore God exists because he made it' will not be accepted. They are objective/can be attributed to other factors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, my evidence is 12 men witnessed Jesus resurrection and went to their deaths proclaiming it. We put people in the electric chair on the word of 12 people who only hear evidence but don't actually witness a crime, but you easily dismiss 12 witnesses. So there is my evidence. Oh, that and my personal experience with being saved for which there is no evidence but my word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In that case, harry potter books are true becuase everyone in those books who weren't muggles witnessed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, you are ignoring my statement on my own salvation so I am not just taking a books word for it, I experienced it. But the more you look into the bible, the more you see it is true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2. In what way have you experienced it? I keep hearing people say this but they never have been able to actually tell me anything of substance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was raised in church, but it was a luke warm church that didn't really teach the word at least not with any real conviction. I didn't know what being born again meant nor what conviction was. If you had asked me, I would have said yes, I am a Christian and I am saved, whatever saved is. When I was about 24, I was happily married (and still am), had my first job out of college and enjoyed it and the people I worked with. Life was good, I didn't know I needed anything else and wasn't looking. I was doing fine, I was happy and I was not doing anything "wrong". I was not a thief, a liar, an adulterer, etc.
Then one day I felt sick but not an illness, this was different. I knew I was being convicted by God for my sins. I knew I was being saved. And before that moment, I didn't know what conviction was or being saved (born again) was. But when happens you know what it is, what is going on. My eyes were opened. It still took me a long time to be able to say with confidence that I was saved and would go to heaven when I died but I finally realized it was true.
So my personal salvation is what convinces me that the bible is true. So for me, I want everyone to know this. People get mad at Christians for "preaching" to them and many may be going about it the wrong way. It cannot be forced on someone. But a Christian is, or should be, doing it because they don't want to see anyone go to hell not out of any kind of moral superiority. I believe hell is real and I don't wish to see anyone go there. I am not better than anyone else for the bible says that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But He provided a way out that requires nothing from us but to accept it. Who wouldn't accept a million dollars if it was given to them? But many of those will reject salvation which is also free and worth many, many times more than any amount of money.
I have many friends, co-workers, acquaintances and family that are atheists and I love them for who they are. I will talk to them about it when I can, but I don't force it on anyone. It just doesn't work that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
ignorant, delusional, and resistant to logic and rational thinking ! ! !
congrats, YOU are part of the problem why thisy here 'civilization' is circling the drain...
*PLEASE* rapture the fuck out of here and leave us reality-based nekkid apes alone...
(*AND* too stupid to boot to UNDERSTAND the arguments made against their sky daddy...)
you see, i don't want a theocracy whether it is a 'bad' one like islam, or a -you know- 'good' one like xtianity...
*snicker*
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
BTW, whether you want a theocracy or not, you have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then how do you explain diseases that develop strains that are immune to human-developed antibiotics that never existed before we developed them, in a direct response to us introducing them?
Oh yeah, "god did it". Sigh...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See, history books say jews were gassed to death. We can prove that it's possible with animals with simular enough biology.
There is no proof that a god can exist or that life after death is possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
By your logic those other religions are also true becuase scriptures are "historic textbooks"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> your
> statements
> you
> ignore all
> historical
> texts?
Only one more than you do. Or do you also believe in all the historical texts documenting the Greek and Roman gods?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> were put to death
> for their belief
> and not one recanted.
Many, many Muslims go to their deaths willingly and gladly for their beliefs as well.
If that's the criteria, then Islam must be completely true also. Yet it contradicts much of Christianity.
How does that work?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> did I
> say it
> was THE
> criteria
> for
> believing,
> just one
> of many.
You claimed that the willingness of the apostles to die rather than recant was evidence that their claims were true.
So why doesn't that work the same way with Muslims?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No your evidence is a book written 300 years after the fact that says 12 people saw and believed something.
Any of these would be fine options to provide you with evidence supporting evolution. http://richarddawkins.net/articles/519620-from-gould-to-dawkins-best-evolution-books
Or you could enroll in any of these institutions and pursue a major in evolutionary biology. https://bigfuture.collegeboard.org/college-search
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No one thinks Socrates actually wrote the books attributed to Socrates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your second statement is no less confusing, nobody thinks Socrates wrote the books attributed to him??? Then why attribute it to him?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn't write shit, his followers wrote stuff and attribute it to him. They attribute it to him because they claim they are his teachings. Kind of like your boy Jesus. Of course the difference is no one tries to oppress or kill anyone because of the Socratic method.
As far as the bible the earliest claims I could find on google are 200 years. Where do you get
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
12 men whose story was told up to 100 years after the fact after they'd spent their lives defending him. Yeah, nice unbiased sample you have there - from a book we know to have been edited after the fact no less. Which was translated from at least 2 different languages into English well before your ancestors ever read it. Excuse me if that's not a "gospel" to me.
"Oh, that and my personal experience with being saved for which there is no evidence but my word."
Saved from what? Your own problems or some original sin that your god made up to begin with?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What'chu talkin' about? Information is added and taken away from DNA all the time! Something so simple as a cold virus can subtly alter your DNA - obviously not enough to actually cause any damage, but there are viruses that change genes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nobody has been able to prove that information can be added to DNA, only that it can be taken away."
FFS, read some actual science, you tool.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> stories of how the universe came to be but
> no proof.
Why do you assume the 'universe came to be', that there was some time before the universe exsited?
Humans assume that because they are finite that everything else must be finite, too.
Perhaps the universe has always existed in one form or another and had no beginning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There's plenty written about Batman (and it didn't need translation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As for this comment by PaulT: "The same reason why religious people shove propaganda material through my letterbox?"
If that's the worst thing you atheists have to 'endure,' I don't feel sorry for you in the least. Christians face more persecution around the world each and every year than any other group of people. Each year about 160,000 Christians are martyred simply for their chosen belief, not taking into consideration all the verbal and physical abuse/torture, suppression and intolerance, much of it being caused by atheist (communist) and muslim governments. In contrast, an atheist living in a predominantly Christian nation just sits there with their neverending stream of BS criticism, attacking religion every chance they can get. I've yet to hear horror stories about atheists being persecuted by Christians for their non-belief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's discrimination, not persecution. Persecution is enduring physical harm or being killed. North Korea's gulags built specifically for slave Christian labor -- that's persecution. BTW, I seem to recall a prominent atheist holding office named Jesse Ventura.
"Non Muslims banned from marrying Muslims in some nations isn't persecution and contries that force the study of a particular religion in public education aren't persecuting those that do not believe?"
The former is discrimination and the latter forced indoctrination. I'm interested to know what country is forcing the study of a specific religion at school. My guess would be a muslim nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Our country has a confirmed athiest as Prime Minister (Australia). Though we also as at last census (2011) have over 25% of the country as non-religious (basically agnostic or atheist).
Also religion is NEVER used in political situations, most Aussies would instantly un-elect anyone who brought their religion or faith into ANY political decision. religion is a non-issue for politics here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That law is unconstitutional. All someone has to do is challenge it and it will be struck down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I do respond when a christian talks shit about atheism as a whole or use some absurd logic to justify their belief in god but I don't actively mock christianity or any other religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Maybe so but as soon as it becomes government-enforced, atheists display a disturing tendency to unite and the situation quickly escalates into mass genocide, particularly of religious groups. There's absolutely no justification for such blatant hatred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You mean to say "historically accurate and ongoing," right?
Note to Christians: try living in a communist state such as China, North Korea, etc. and professing your faith. See where that leads you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I am loathe to step into this off-topic debate, but I feel the need to highlight this incident from Iraq in 2004:
The rest of that Easter was spent under siege. Insurgents held off Bravo Company, which was called in to rescue the men in the compound. Ammunition ran low. A helicopter tried to drop more but missed. As dusk fell, the men prepared four Bradley Fighting Vehicles for a “run and gun” to draw fire away from the compound. Humphrey headed down from the roof to get a briefing. He found his lieutenant, John D. DeGiulio, with a couple of sergeants. They were snickering like schoolboys. They had commissioned the Special Forces interpreter, an Iraqi from Texas, to paint a legend across their Bradley’s armor, in giant red Arabic script.
“What’s it mean?” asked Humphrey.
“Jesus killed Mohammed,” one of the men told him. The soldiers guffawed. JESUS KILLED MOHAMMED was about to cruise into the Iraqi night.
The Bradley, a tracked “tank killer” armed with a cannon and missiles—to most eyes, indistinguishable from a tank itself—rolled out. The Iraqi interpreter took to the roof, bullhorn in hand. The sun was setting. Humphrey heard the keen of the call to prayer, then the crackle of the bullhorn with the interpreter answering—in Arabic, then in English for the troops, insulting the prophet. Humphrey’s men loved it. “They were young guys, you know?” says Humphrey. “They were scared.” A Special Forces officer stood next to the interpreter—“a big, tall, blond, grinning type,” says Humphrey.
“Jesus kill Mohammed!” chanted the interpreter. “Jesus kill Mohammed!”
A head emerged from a window to answer, somebody fired on the roof, and the Special Forces man directed a response from an MK-19 grenade launcher. “Boom,” remembers Humphrey. The head and the window and the wall around it disappeared.
So, I think it's fair to say that every American lives in a country that has used Christianity as a weapon in the past 100 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All this proves is that those military generals, probably acting on behalf of some higher authority, were instigating violence and looking to ignite Christian discrimination within the region. In effect, this lends credence to the notion that certain generals do not care in the slightest if they compromise both our troops' safety and Iraq public opinion of our nation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What would you do if you were being besieged in a building and the guys outside were insulting your religion? The people in Leigh's quote just had to poke their heads outside a window to respond.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What would you do if you were being besieged in a building and the guys outside were insulting your religion? The people in Leigh's quote just had to poke their heads outside a window to respond."
There is no justification for military generals using Jesus' holy name as a means to kill/incite violence. NONE.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There may be no justification for it, but what you have just described is precisely what we are talking about: "using Christianity as a weapon"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if the generals don't believe in Jesus? If I were an American general, and I had a bunch of Iraqi enemies holed up in a building, I would have insulted their religion, to provoke them to respond. The guys in the building were stupid enough to poke their heads out to respond.
I do concede that Jesus is quoted as teaching "Thou shalt not kill" and that to use him as an excuse to kill anyway is wrong, but I also hold it to be a valid military tactic - in war, if your enemy isn't thinking straight, more than likely because you insulted something they believe in, then so much the better for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, you opposed Bush because he said that god sent him to war, then? Wow, I also opposed a pointless war that has killed more of your citizen than the event it was supposed to avenge! Glad you agree!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
An atheist does something bad - "they did it in the name of atheism!".
A Christian does something bad - "hey now, let's not all blame Christianity"
Do I have that right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
-If an atheist does something bad, then obviously it was due to their atheism.
-If a (insert religion here) person does something bad, then people just say 'well a true (insert religion here) would never do something like that, so they don't count.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Christians, muslems and shintoists and other such non athiests have all instituted a kill all who disagree law at some point.(also historically accurate and onging)
You can't just have atheism as a boogieman while ignoring the fact that theists have done the same.
*Also historically accurate and ongoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You can't just have atheism as a boogieman while ignoring the fact that theists have done the same.
*Also historically accurate and ongoing."
Theists have done the same, true. And there's no justification for it. But still... as far as Christianity is concerned, we're talking about roughly 50,000 people over the course of five centuries. Compare that with over 160 million dead by communism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Atheists states ONLY that there is no god, it does NOT tell you to put all your money in a big basket and share with everyone, kill christians or any of that other crap that went on.
I say this as a capitalist atheist.
Also ayn rand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If they thought that religion will give them control over the populace they would give out as many "free" bibles/korans/ect as they could afford with state sponsered churches on every corner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> one massive
> coincidence
> that
> communist
> states
> specialize in
> persecuting
> religious
> people,
> right?
No, it's not a coincidence. But neither is it done because of a belief in atheism. It's done to consolidate power in the state alone. Groups of religious people banding together represent a threat to state power. Communist regimes persecute them (as well as any other organized non-religious groups) for that reason, not because they have some great belief in atheism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
How would you like it if I said what you said about ateists but replaced "atheist" with "theist"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
To nowhere near the same degree as atheism.
"How would you like it if I said what you said about ateists but replaced "atheist" with "theist"?"
Wouldn't matter. History has already proven my point. Further, Christian persecution is ongoing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Delusional, not going to bother.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not that you're not going to bother but rather that you have lost the debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Or does intent count for nothing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Same goes for the more extreme christian groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
As do religious people, of all creeds. Which is why it's important to keep religion out of politics. Which god or gods you do or don't happen to believe in shouldn't dictate affect the job you're doing for the people of every faith who elected you. Funny how you ignore the theocracies in an attack on atheist governments for the same behaviours.
It's also worth noting that atheism is not a religion, it's simply a lack of belief. I have more in common with the average Twilight fan than I do with some atheists, and I *despise* Twilight and their fanbase.
That's fine though, because I don't talk about religion nor care about it... at least not until some religious person brings it up in my face...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not true. Christians are not uniting to persecute.
"Which is why it's important to keep religion out of politics. Which god or gods you do or don't happen to believe in shouldn't dictate affect the job you're doing for the people of every faith who elected you. Funny how you ignore the theocracies in an attack on atheist governments for the same behaviours."
Atheist (communist) governments play out their anti-religious intolerance on a considerably more violent level than as does a democracy. But I agree that religion and politics shouldn't mix.
"That's fine though, because I don't talk about religion nor care about it... at least not until some religious person brings it up in my face..."
If you say so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In some areas they do. Some sects are worse than others, but don't pretend that claiming adherence to a relgion makes them incapable of persecution, especially in areas where they represent a majority.
"Atheist (communist) governments play out their anti-religious intolerance on a considerably more violent level than as does a democracy"
So, you are stupid, thanks for admitting it. Communism and democracy are political systems. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. They have nothing to do with each other, and it's perfectly possible to have an atheist democracy (or at least secular, which is what most western democracies are).
It's when you think that *your* religion is equal to the truth of how things should be when things get sticky, whatever religion that is. Theocracies that commit atrocities in the name of a god are just as problematic as any that do so to eradicate them.
"If you say so."
I do. Is it a problem for me to state my honest opinion now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You keep bringing this up as if Christians have a natural tendency to persecute. Where is all of this persecution occurring? It's not. The only persecution occurring is in predominantly atheist states like North Korea or in muslim nations, most of which target Christians.
http://expertscolumn.com/content/muslim-attacks-against-christians
http://www.scot tmanning.com/content/communist-body-count/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXjlkaM-ikY
http://w ww.youtube.com/watch?v=gbgDlMmAGaw
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, you keep ignoring the other religions when their persecution is brought up so who else am I supposed to address in your argument? SO far, all you've brought to the table is "well, worse societies have existed/do exist that belong to other religons so Christianity can't be criticised". It's rather childish.
"The only persecution occurring is in predominantly atheist states like North Korea or in muslim nations, most of which target Christians."
yes, I know, I know - deflect and say that because there's worse people out there then Christians aren't to blame for the crap they pull. I've heard that before, and it's never anything other than an attempt to deflect criticism from yourself. Pathetic.
BTW North Korea has as much to do with the average Western atheist due to their lack of religion as it does to America just because it happens to have "democratic" in its official name. The start of this thread was addressing problems with in your country, stop deflecting.
Keep your bullshit to yourself, or at least stop moving the goalposts just so you don't have to agree there are bad people that belong to your religion too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
'No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Most do, until idiot Christians try to push their religious beliefs upon others. I don't give a crap about your religion 9whatever it is), but try to use it as a reason to pass laws that negatively affect my freedom or that of others? Then we have a problem.
"If that's the worst thing you atheists have to 'endure,' I don't feel sorry for you in the least"
Ah the persecuted Christians crap along with "it's OK for us to be obnoxious assholes because people have done worse things". Yawn.
"Each year about 160,000 Christians are martyred simply for their chosen belief, not taking into consideration all the verbal and physical abuse/torture, suppression and intolerance, much of it being caused by atheist (communist) and muslim governments."
If you think atheist and communism are the same thing, you're a moron. If you think that Christians in other parts of the world don't commit their own atrocities, you're stupid. If you ignore the Muslims, Hindus and people of other religions who are also persecuted, you're ignorant.
"In contrast, an atheist living in a predominantly Christian nation just sits there with their neverending stream of BS criticism, attacking religion every chance they can get"
No they don't, just as not every Christian is joining Fred Phelps' protests. Try putting down your prejudices and broad brushes on this issue, they just make you look stupid.
"I've yet to hear horror stories about atheists being persecuted by Christians for their non-belief."
I've got stories of doctors murdered, clinics bombed, terrorist attacks carried out by Christians for decades, mental and physical torture carried out in the name of your God. What do you want to hear?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Idiot Christians," huh? You're wearing your hate on your sleeve. BTW, atheists certainly are not shy about being push and aggressive.
"Ah the persecuted Christians crap along with "it's OK for us to be obnoxious assholes because people have done worse things". Yawn."
If you wanna talk about obnoxious, have a look in the mirror.
"If you think atheist and communism are the same thing, you're a moron."
There is absolutely no seperating communism from atheism. Communism is essentially state-enforced atheism. No matter how you try to white-wash it, that's what it is.
"If you think that Christians in other parts of the world don't commit their own atrocities, you're stupid."
Christians committing atrocities is a misnomer as a Christian isn't simply a title, it's a way of life. Murder is inherently anti-Christian.
"If you ignore the Muslims, Hindus and people of other religions who are also persecuted, you're ignorant."
Muslims may face persecution but, far as I know, it's usually brought about by infighting among muslim nations.
"No they don't, just as not every Christian is joining Fred Phelps' protests. Try putting down your prejudices and broad brushes on this issue, they just make you look stupid."
Every prominent atheist, from Richard Dawkins to Bill Maher, proves otherwise.
"I've got stories of doctors murdered, clinics bombed, terrorist attacks carried out by Christians for decades, mental and physical torture carried out in the name of your God. What do you want to hear?"
What did God say? Thou shalt not kill. Furthermore, those are isolated incidents of fanaticism whereas muslim and atheist persecution of Christians is an ongoing, widespread phenomenon. You're really in no position to stand on a pedestal and talk down upon others considering atheism's history of bringing about mass genocide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, the persecution complex again. Note that I didn't say that *all* Christians were idiots, only the ones who try to push their belief upon me. Plus the stupid broad brush attacks come back again. Nice.
"Every prominent atheist, from Richard Dawkins to Bill Maher, proves otherwise."
You ignore the prominent Christians who promote violence, hatred and other things against those of other faiths, despite you quoting the mention of one of them above. Nice.
Oh, and again - I can disagree with everything Dawkins and Maher say and still be an atheist. Are you too stupid to realise that atheism does not involve following another person? Neither of those men mean anything to me, I just happen to not believe in the same thing they don't believe in. Hell, as an atheist I'd never heard of Dawkins until American fundamentalist Christians started whining about his criticism of their attacks on scientific education.
"Christians committing atrocities is a misnomer as a Christian isn't simply a title, it's a way of life. Murder is inherently anti-Christian."
Then how do you explain the many Christian murderers out there? You're not going for the no true Scotsman fallacy are you? Surely you're more intelligent than that?
"Muslims may face persecution but, far as I know, it's usually brought about by infighting among muslim nations."
"as far as I know". Thanks for admitting you're not interested in educating yourself and base your arguments on assumptions. Oh, and religions other than Islam and Christianity exist on this Earth and their followers are often persecuted for their beliefs. Educate yourself.
"What did God say? Thou shalt not kill."
Yes he did, according to a book at least. What are his self-proclaimed followers' excuses for disobeying that and other rules?
"You're really in no position to stand on a pedestal and talk down upon others considering atheism's history of bringing about mass genocide."
Still too stupid to realise that an action committed by an atheist is not the same as it being done in the name of atheism, huh? Too stupid to realise that someone can lack a belief in a deity and still condemn those with a similar lack of belief?
"You're really in no position to stand on a pedestal and talk down upon others considering atheism's history of bringing about mass genocide."
Why, what does my lack of belief in god have to do with the actions of others? I also don't believe in Allah. Does that make me personally responsible for 9/11, or is that OK because you don't believe in him either?
Oh, and thanks for the implicit admission that you're not interested in looking at the atrocities committed in the name of your own religion. I suppose it helps when you can reduce the complexity of life into us vs. them childrens' stories.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn't ignore anything. BTW, who are you referring to? Both Dawkins and Maher are prominent atheists.
"Oh, and again - I can disagree with everything Dawkins and Maher say and still be an atheist. Are you too stupid to realise that atheism does not involve following another person? Neither of those men mean anything to me, I just happen to not believe in the same thing they don't believe in. Hell, as an atheist I'd never heard of Dawkins until American fundamentalist Christians started whining about his criticism of their attacks on scientific education."
I never said that you couldn't disagree with them, but in what way does that invalidate what was said? I disagree with other Christians from time to time. So what?
"Then how do you explain the many Christian murderers out there? You're not going for the no true Scotsman fallacy are you? Surely you're more intelligent than that?"
You say this yet go on to say:
"Still too stupid to realise that an action committed by an atheist is not the same as it being done in the name of atheism, huh? Too stupid to realise that someone can lack a belief in a deity and still condemn those with a similar lack of belief?"
So in other words, if someone persecutes another in the name of Christianity (against the religion, I might add) and we condemn it, that still implicates Christianity as the guilty religion? But if an atheist government slaughters millions of Christians, atheism is exempt. Oh wait...
"Why, what does my lack of belief in god have to do with the actions of others?"
It's not that you're personally responsible for the actions of others but rather how you turn a blind eye towards the atrocities committed under atheist states.
""as far as I know". Thanks for admitting you're not interested in educating yourself and base your arguments on assumptions."
It's not that I don't care to educate myself but rather that I don't hear stories about muslims suffering persecution.
"Oh, and religions other than Islam and Christianity exist on this Earth and their followers are often persecuted for their beliefs. Educate yourself."
And atheists?
"Oh, and thanks for the implicit admission that you're not interested in looking at the atrocities committed in the name of your own religion. I suppose it helps when you can reduce the complexity of life into us vs. them childrens' stories."
Implicit admission? What's there to research? Over the course of five centuries and an estimated 50,000 people died. Now compare that with communism: over 160 million dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Then how do you explain the many Christian murderers out there? You're not going for the no true Scotsman fallacy are you? Surely you're more intelligent than that?"
You say this yet go on to say:
"Still too stupid to realise that an action committed by an atheist is not the same as it being done in the name of atheism, huh? Too stupid to realise that someone can lack a belief in a deity and still condemn those with a similar lack of belief?"
So in other words, if someone persecutes another in the name of Christianity (against the religion, I might add) and we condemn it, that still implicates Christianity as the guilty religion? But if an atheist government slaughters millions of Christians, atheism is exempt. Oh wait...
There's a difference. You point to Christians who have committed atrocities and say "they are not true Christians" - he is simply saying that the actions of other atheists have nothing to do with him. He's not denying that they are atheists.
Do you see the key difference here? It's important:
Atheism is not a prescribed way of life. The term merely describes a lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not describe a moral structure, a code of behaviour, a set of rituals, or any of the other things that comprise a religion as a whole.
What you are saying is that someone can say "I believe in Jesus" but still not be a true Christian because they do not follow the tenets of the faith - and as such they do not reflect on you. Fair enough.
By that exact same token, someone can say "I do not believe in a god" without their behaviour reflecting on others who don't believe in a god - because there may be absolutely no other connection between those people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you see the key difference here? It's important:
Atheism is not a prescribed way of life. The term merely describes a lack of belief in a god or gods. It does not describe a moral structure, a code of behaviour, a set of rituals, or any of the other things that comprise a religion as a whole.
What you are saying is that someone can say "I believe in Jesus" but still not be a true Christian because they do not follow the tenets of the faith - and as such they do not reflect on you. Fair enough.
By that exact same token, someone can say "I do not believe in a god" without their behaviour reflecting on others who don't believe in a god - because there may be absolutely no other connection between those people."
I can't argue with that. However, he was indeed trying to downplay atheism's role in communism. To the point, there is no such thing as a Christian communist state committing mass genocide in the name of God.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a strangely specific criteria. I'm sure that there are many Christian crusades or inquisitions that came close if you remove the "communist" part, and I'm sure there are many who would love to do such a thing were many Christians not mired in secular society. That's also not to say that such a thing cannot happen in the future just because many of the the 20th century despots happened to use atheism instead of Christianity as their platform.
That's not to accuse all Christians, of course, but you do have a strangely loose criteria when dealing with them compared to your all-or-nothing stance on atheists when related to particular political platforms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Where do you get these numbers? Christians have killed more than 50K for being heathen savages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For starters:
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=9255
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps not deliberately, but you do seem to be ignoring inconvenient truths.
"BTW, who are you referring to? Both Dawkins and Maher are prominent atheists."
So was Douglas Adams. If you're going to ascribe beliefs on me by proxy, at least pick someone I actually *like*...
"I never said that you couldn't disagree with them, but in what way does that invalidate what was said?"
I need not believe a single thing they say or do other than their lack of belief in a god, yet you seem to be ascribing their actions to me and other atheists. I wouldn't paint Christians with such a large brush, yet you have to at least have some of the same basic belief to be a Christian. Why not do us the same courtesy?
"It's not that you're personally responsible for the actions of others but rather how you turn a blind eye towards the atrocities committed under atheist states."
I've done no such thing, yet you still build that strawman. I've not said anything about those atrocities, except to state that Christians and other religious people are no better.
"So in other words"
In other words, you REALLY didn't understand what I wrote there, did you? You seem to have read the exact opposite of what I said.
"And atheists?"
Atheists are also persecuted, and have been guilty of atrocities. They didn't do the latter in the "name of atheism" unlike the perpetrators some religious atrocities, however. Stalinists killed in the name of Stalin and Mother Russia, not atheism.
"Over the course of five centuries and an estimated 50,000 people died."
Bullshit. At least state which selective reasoning you're using so I can refute it.
"Now compare that with communism: over 160 million dead."
Compare it with Nazism, headed by a self-proclaimed Christian. But you won't, will you...
Nor will I, by the way, but your dishonesty is rather obvious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Right, and there is absolutely no separating squares from rectangles. Squares are essentially ratio-enforced rectangles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You have no valid argument so you must resort to making sarcastic comments. That communism is atheism in government form isn't even open to debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Right no such thing as capitalistic atheists, or anarchistic atheists. Atheists do not support republics or democracy.
Not believing in god = communist.
Just like totalitarian dictatorship is Christianity in government form and that isn't even open to debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Lol. I love the way your defend capitalism as Christian. I seem to remember some disciples being convinced to give up all worldly possessions and help the poor, while Jesus kicked the shit out of some bankers...
"Atheists do not support republics or democracy. "
I'm an atheist who supports democracy. Go on, debate my actual opinion if your dare.
"Not believing in god = communist."
Wrong.
"Just like totalitarian dictatorship is Christianity in government form and that isn't even open to debate."
Ah, the thing that questions the morals of *your* belief is open to debate and that of others is unquestionable. Interesting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
*runs away*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you are so sure you're right that you can't even see the point I'm making because you are in such a hurry to dismiss it as sarcasm.
But, if you feel it is not open to debate, I would suggest you stop debating it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Communism (as it's suppose to be) is everyone working for the betterment of human kind. What you see (Socialism I think is the word), is government enforced sharing of everything. In Communism, there is no government.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god. It's not even the belief that there is no god, it's just the lack of belief in god. That's it, there is nothing more. Any more that you see is ether added on top of atheism or by your own prejudices.
Communism and Atheism are not intertwined. You can have a religious communism. Think about the origin of the term "Drinking the kool ade".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Define "sin". For example, in the context of American right wingers who are trying to outlaw abortion in the name of God, who is the biggest sinner - the woman who aborts a fetus or the person who forces a girl to have a child conceived by incest by her father against her own wishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, not when you refuse to debate it, I suppose. It's a shame you won't do the research to realise this is not the case, but hey at least this makes a change from people claiming I'm a thief because I support Kickstarter and Spotify...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's rich coming from the guy claiming to have proof that god exists. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's funny because A) I never claimed proof of God and B) my belief in God is predicated on faith and hope. LOL!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
a.k.a. blind superstition. Do you have anything outside of a 2000 year old book of fiction that proves it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Once again, I believe because I have faith. In my way of thinking, it's only logical that this universe, all the laws which govern it, the very existance of life, the way the world is structured meticulously into a hierarchy of life-forms, et al. makes it evident that it was not just one huge cosmic accident but rather was created by God.
There's just no way that a butterfly's wings are the result of a random, aimless event wherein life came into existance of its own accord, became sentinent, decided to replicate itself, and grow/evolve into what it has become. Yet this is exactly what many scientists are claiming is responsible for life as we know it. Common sense dictates that mammals, lizards, insects, etc. do not magically spring forth randomly. Should the "chain of life" become crippled in significant fashion, e.g. fish become extinct or near-extinct, it will have severe consequences on most other species, further lending weight to my belief that all life was structured intentionally so as to maintain sustenance on this planet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We don't know; it is a mystery. God is not subject to the laws of the universe He created. He exists outside the restraints of space and time. Granted Jesus stripped Himself of His divinity in order to become like us, suffer, die, and was resurrected.
To put it another way, if somebody designs a video game, whatever rules governing that artificial world have no bearing on his life -- it's a work of imagination. The point being, we have to manipulate preexisting materials in order to create something. Only God has the power to create something out of nothing. Not even the angels can perform such a task, they can only make suggestions to God, e.g. "Let us make man in our own image."
As it stands, we cannot travel safely to another planet in our own solar system and make it back in one piece, yet we act as if we understand how this entire universe, comprised of an estimated 150 million billion stars, functions, let alone how it came to be (quite a feat, I might add). What do we know? Where have we traveled? What have we accomplished in the grand scope of things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you accept the premise that something as complex and perfect as an all powerful creator god can "just exist" then you must also accept that something complex and imperfect like the universe (and those butterflies of yours) can just exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's way to hard to believe that live is the result of billions of years of evolution therefore a man in the sky made it. That makes perfect sense.
The web of life is delicate because it was made by trial and error not because it was designed to be delicate. Everything moves in harmony with everything else because the system would correct itself if it moved any other way.
Ignorance is no excuse to go around thinking you are the sum total of all creation!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Never gonna happen, yet that's what you consider to be science.
Therefore, since neither you nor the pro-evolution scientists were around to witness the birth of life on this planet, it must be said that your belief in evolution is predicated on faith.
I have a firm grasp of common sense and it dictates that 'random event' doesn't equal 'life,' nor do species develop by slow degrees over extraneous periods of time (observed by nobody). We're humans and we procreate after our own kind, as do tigers, bears, bees, whales, and everything inbetween. If tigers were to go extinct, that's the end of the line for them. Now if evolution were hard fact, there'd be nothing to worry about. Just give it enough time and they'll magically spring forth from random event.
Again, not gonna happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No god will just make more.
"the pro-evolution scientists "
You mean legitimate scientists?
"I want to observe an organism go from random combination which meets up, naturally, by pure chance, and onward into great complexity with my own two eyes. "
Just like you watched god make the earth and all the animals? No your theory comes from a 2000 year old collection of stories. Obviously more credible then hundreds of years of scientific study.
But keep remaining ignorant and bashing what you do not understand.
Despite all evidence to the contrary the earth is only 10s of thousands of years old and dinosaurs are a pagan-atheist practical joke.
As far as watching evolution how about the strains of viruses that are evolving to be resistant to antibodies? The flue virus is constantly evolving. Insects developing immunity to pesticides. Or is that all just the devils work?
You don't get to watch evolution because a fucking tiger just doesn't shoot out a lion one day and BAM new species. You are right that is idiotic and only uniformed morons like yourself seem to think evolution works that way. Read a fucking book.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Obviously. I have faith in my religious views. Similarly, you have faith in scientists claiming that it took millions or billions of years for us to evolve into human beings.
"Despite all evidence to the contrary the earth is only 10s of thousands of years old and dinosaurs are a pagan-atheist practical joke."
I don't know how old the earth is nor do I go around presuming that I do. As far as dinosaurs, yes, they existed. It even says so in the Bible.
"As far as watching evolution how about the strains of viruses that are evolving to be resistant to antibodies? The flue virus is constantly evolving. Insects developing immunity to pesticides. Or is that all just the devils work?"
Sorry, building up immunity is not the same thing as evolving into a completely different life form.
"You don't get to watch evolution because a fucking tiger just doesn't shoot out a lion one day and BAM new species. You are right that is idiotic and only uniformed morons like yourself seem to think evolution works that way. Read a fucking book."
You don't get to watch evolution occur because it never happened in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think about that one smart guy. "The plantaris muscle is used by many animals for gripping and manipulating objects with their feet. Humans are born with this muscle, but it is so underdeveloped that it is often taken out by doctors to reconstruct other areas of the body. Approximately 9% of the human population is born without the plantaris muscle."
http://www.toptenz.net/top-10-recent-signs-evolution-is-real.php#ixzz1zuczXMvI
Don't forget junk DNA, our extra ear muscle, our 3rd eyelid, our TAIL bone. Why do we have all these useless body parts? Is god just sloppy? He throws in whatever extra pieces are laying around the shop? Or maybe we have evolved and don't need these things anymore? Leftover remnants of what our species use to be?
Maybe God's original blueprint had us as a hairy ape with reptile eyes, and monkey feet? He just forgot to take out all those parts when he scraped the design? OR the devil did it, he tried to sabotage us didn't he?
http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/
http://www.time.c om/time/health/article/0,8599,1931757,00.html
http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/120607-1.html
http:/ /www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/are-we-still-evolving.html
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jan/ human-genome-reveals-signs-of-recent-evolution/
How does any of that fit your worldview?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All lies. Everything reproduces according to its original state. Humans never had tails, have always had eyes of various shades of color, hair, organs, etc. Nothing's changed at all.
Evolution: aimless, purposeless ridiculously impossible... that's what you choose to believe in. Macroevolution has NEVER been observed yet you accept it as fact. Evolution has no explanation for the existance of life, of consciousness, self-awareness, emotion, etc. It all just "happened." All the right pieces came together at just the right moment and developed in just the right way. Junk science at its finest.
If evolution were really science and not dogma, explain why atheists are so hell-bent on trying to push it on anyone who says that the universe was intentionally created by God. Could it be that you're defensive because reality itself stands in defiance of your beliefs, that the pro-evolutionists are terrified of something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Neither has your god, and we have a LOT more proof of evolution. No, before you start, that shoddy book of fiction is no more proof of god than The Odyssey is proof of the Greek gods.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But there's a difference between having faith in a religious belief and in an unproven "scientific" belief. Since when did science become a religion? Regardless, all the evidence speaks to an intelligent Designer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
All you've shown us is "I want to believe"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, there is. One is based on falsifiable evidence and is subject to change if the evidence insists that it's wrong (look at the shift from Newtonian physics to Einstein, for example). The other is an unshifting adherence to a bunch of folk tales written be sheep herders.
"Regardless, all the evidence speaks to an intelligent Designer."
Unless you're looking at a completely different group of "evidence"... no, it doesn't. In fact, you'd have to be a moron to believe one creation myth among the many others without provable evidence to back it up. Are you a moron?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I have no problem if you want to believe God engineered evolution. The existence of god and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
I do have a problem when real life runs afoul of your believe system and book of fairy tales wins and a new generation gets indoctrinated with your bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's funny how the fundamentalists miss this as they try to push their myths on educated people...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, you are uneducated...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Hell, you don't even have to go that far. Remember how disease germs can be seen to develop immunity over generations to our standard defences against them? Evolution.
"I have a firm grasp of common sense"
But not of science, that's clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ah, no. That was capitalism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What I find strange, and reason why i am re;plying now is your statement
"What did God say? Thou shalt not kill."
The Bible, any version, or testament does NOT state "thou shalt not kill" it states "thou shalt not commit murder" which is an altogether different legal concept.
It's like the other constantly misrepresented commandment of "thou shalt not lie" it's wron. the original and what we base ALL our laws on is "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour" which means that you shall always tell the truth when talking about what you have witnessed in a legal forum.
Please get your own religious texts right. Context is everything, and it's always annoyed me how little most religious people actually know about their own rule-set.
On a personal note: Hope you had a great 4th of July, thought of what it the holiday means, enjoyed the fireworks and had good time with family and friends.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And atheists could say the same thing about every evangelical that insists I'm going to hell, insists all homosexuals are going to hell, insists on teaching everyone's children their fairy tales in science classes, insists... oh heck, I could go on all day.
Each year about 160,000 Christians are martyred simply for their chosen belief, not taking into consideration all the verbal and physical abuse/torture, suppression and intolerance, much of it being caused by atheist (communist) and muslim governments
That you see atheism as identical to communism shows how tragically misinformed you are. Communism is a belief structure built much the same way as religions - communism has beliefs unsupportable by evidence, belief in a glorious (radiant) future, and even a holy book - although whether it was the original holy book of Marx, or the latest revelations of Mao is equivalent to a religious sect.
I've yet to hear horror stories about atheists being persecuted by Christians for their non-belief.
Then you're not listening. As an atheist living in the south (aka The Bible Belt), I have a few of my own, and hear plenty of others. Though, admittedly, we generally don't have it as bad as homosexuals, who get persecuted by Christians more than atheists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If evangelicals are judging you, they're going against what Jesus said: Do not judge lest you be judged.
"That you see atheism as identical to communism shows how tragically misinformed you are. Communism is a belief structure built much the same way as religions - communism has beliefs unsupportable by evidence, belief in a glorious (radiant) future, and even a holy book - although whether it was the original holy book of Marx, or the latest revelations of Mao is equivalent to a religious sect."
Sorry but communist states are atheist states. Darwinism wrought Marxism wrought Stalin/Mao etc. etc. There's a direct correlation. It's no accident that communist states decree that religion is superstitious and its membership predominantly atheist.
"Then you're not listening. As an atheist living in the south (aka The Bible Belt), I have a few of my own, and hear plenty of others. Though, admittedly, we generally don't have it as bad as homosexuals, who get persecuted by Christians more than atheists."
While there's no justification for a Christian physically attacking/killing a homosexual, we're still in the realm of isolated incidents, not widespread, government-enforced persecution. If either the government or a church declared that homosexuals are to be discriminated against and treated as lesser humans, you'd have weight to your argument. But as of right now, when somebody attacks a homosexual, they are rightly condemned for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
*giggle*
Wow, you really are something, huh? I bet you believe this too.
"It's no accident that communist states decree that religion is superstitious and its membership predominantly atheist."
It's not, but not for the reasons you seem to think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I never said they weren't. Communists following the book are atheists. Not all atheists are communists. All I was saying is that they are not the same - and that communism is a belief structure similar to many religions.
Atheism - lack of belief in a god or gods. That's it.
It's no accident that communist states decree that religion is superstitious and its membership predominantly atheist.
Of course its not an accident - for exactly the reason I stated. Communism is a belief structure - having a competing belief structure (religion) would end up with people having divided loyalties. Of course communist states suppressed religion. They didn't do it because they were atheists - they did it because they were communists.
If either the government or a church declared that homosexuals are to be discriminated against and treated as lesser humans, you'd have weight to your argument.
I live in North Carolina.
Perhaps you missed it, but this state just amended its constitution to do just that thing.
That particular amendment was widely supported by the Catholic and many other churches.
So I guess my argument has weight. Thanks for confirming it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or they just fed up with holier-than-thou types like you boasting about their moral superiority. And of course about your ilk having too much influence in general, base on nothing more than crackpot ideas.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Complaining of less than a century of hardship, after well over a millennium and a half or perpetrating similar or worse hardships on others. The irony is positively pouring from your post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's the reason why signs on churches in the UK are more moderate too. There's always a balancing line, as with all laws, but I'd far rather not be bombarded with religion than enforce a free speech law that does nothing but allow haters to hate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am offended by the speed limit signs posted within your jurisdiction. I find them threatening, alarming and causing distress. Please take the appropriate action against yourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But that's the same for any religion or belief isn't it? There are stupid people hiding behind all kinds of beliefs along with the smarter people within those beliefs. There's no point in generalizing either your own belief or the ones you don't believe in as being intolerant or rude.
Because deep down, you know people on your side did it anyways.
Also, stop bringing up the needless cruelty of past people, different times, different assholes. I got a new bunch of assholes in my religion to get embarrassed about. It's not the belief itself that caused those things, but the people behind them who did.
Remember, a belief is only as good as the person who adopts it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2 rules to be an atheist
2. I hate God.
The hate I see in these posts are amazing. Every time religion comes up here, people pile on the insults and name calling. Then they walk around patting themselves on the back for being so reasonable, learned and tolerant. If atheists want to prove their way is so much better, then why not walk it and talk it. Why be so insecure with your beliefs or lack thereof?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Otherwise, why would we care less? We don't need to spend any time ranting against Zeus or the Easter Bunny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
The problem originates not from religion or non-religion, but human nature. People hate each other universally. Religion, race, or gender are not reasons for hate, but excuses. Some people just hate by nature and will find any reason.
This is not isolated to just one group, there's an equal distribution of assholes throughout the world. They just tend to congregate with like minded individuals and be vocal about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
2. I hate God."
I wonder if you're the AC who trolls music threads? You seem to be using the same tactic - come up with some bullshit strawman, attack that...
If you wish to discuss someone's actual beliefs, please do. Hint: neither of the above is true for all atheists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Good point, where are all the christians/atheists who aren't posting because they are firm in their (non/)belief? Why are those people?
Oh right, that's it. They're not posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
People are "saving" an old guy expressing his view via poster in his window from jackasses like you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
The fact that if they do, this man could face jail time is the issue being discussed, not whether or not anyone has complained *yet*.
Methinks you are the one that owns a man of straw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
I'm an atheist, yes, but my belief structure is rationalism. (I'm an atheist as a result of being a rationalist, and because there is no evidence of there being a god. If someone were to discover evidence of god, I'd still be a rationalist, but accept that a god did exist.)
I'm trying to save people from living in ignorance and believing in fantasies (or fairy tales, bronze age myths, whatever you want to call them). I'm trying to stop people from perpetuating irrational beliefs - whether it is religion, new age mysticism, faith healing or other quackery, psychics, or whatever else people are believing in without evidence.
there is no eternal consequence from their beleif, right?
There are direct consequences now, in this world, that I am trying to stop. Things like the destruction of science education, the increasing religious fundamentalism in government, the proliferation of bigotry, and much more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
I don't hate anyone because they are religious, or because they believe in irrational things. I argue against those things and hope to convince people to see my point of view by relying on evidence and logic and to give up their fantasies.
I can hate irrationality without hating people who believe in irrational things. To put it in religious terms: You can hate sin without hating people who are sinners - at least, that's what I was taught in Sunday school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
So maybe its about time we stop letting people be homophobic or attack scientists because it doesn't sync up with their outdated moral code or their book of fables.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Do you have any evidence to support your assertion or just what you were taught by some cleric?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Secondly, those of us that "walk the walk" and "talk the talk" are usually just amused by stories like this.
I have no ill feelings for anyone, of any color, religious belief (or lack thereof)or sexual preference.
I react to ignorance and intolerance, those are my "chosen" enemies, not the people whom spout such.
I am a Solipsist the ultimate in atheist/agnostics.
I treat everyone with dignity and respect, until they show me that they do not deserve them.
By your actions you are known.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
I would suggest that you "walk it" and stop being so insecure about your beliefs; you seem to be misinterpreting quite a few of the posts here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
But don't get me wrong, I am not offended by it or the guy's sign this blog post is about. I don't get offended by anything. My posts here only point out the hypocrisy of many of those condemning Christians for the very same actions they are taking here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Wait, you say that's stupid?!
HOW DARE YOU SPEW SUCH HATE?!
PERSECUTION OF MY BELIEFS MUST END!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
What I do hate those who use god as a jusification to fly planes into buildings, go to war against non aggressive countries and think that god would not want them to take their child to the doctor when they're sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
It's funny to see you going for adhoms simply because people dare to disagree with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
you take EVERY opportunity to deflect whatever actual debate is going on to CONSTANTLY harp on your adversaries 'attacking' you with normal name-calling, and then equating that as xtian persecution...
grow a pair, milquetoast...
(Tips and Tricks for surfing the inertnet webs: EVERYONE gets cussed out for being a moron, not just stupid xtian crybabies...)
IF -as you prove- you are unable or unwilling to hold a debate with your opponents -on the inertnet tubes, for dog's sake!- without bitching about what people are (often justifiably) calling you, YOU ARE A PUSSY and a coward...
(um, not to mention a world class hypocrite: because you may not use 4-letter words, does not mean you aren't insulting and 'attacking' your opponents, too, dimbulb)
no, keep on with your faith-based idiocy, xtian hypocrite, you only serve to denigrate your own cause...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
lol, name calling is adult conversation. Most parents try to teach their children not to do that.
I have never deflected the conversation but many here have. Please point to where I have done that.
Wow, more name calling. You do realize when you start name calling, cussing or raising your voice you have already lost the debate? But don't worry, I can handle it whereas apparently you cannot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
M.
G.
(not)
as i have said, you appear incapable of rational discourse untainted by your received catechism; locked in an authoritarian mode that brooks no logical assault on your beliefs...
telling a person who lacks awareness of a new concept is at least possible; but a person who simply refuses to acknowledge the validity of a concept because it will conflict with their 'faith' (*snicker*), is impossible to reason with...
(Hint: the problem is that pesky word 'reason'; so-called 'faith' allows for no reason...)
*sigh*
i mean, FORGET about even having a meta-conversation about you (AND your ilk) continuously BITCHING about 'everyone' 'attacking' you by name-calling... (*gasp* it is -like- the *worst*, it makes me sniffle and cry...)
...you just come back with your childish bullshit:
'mommy, that mean man said bad words, he must not know anything...'
what an "argument"... works every time, huh, xtian ?
(seriously, i'm embarrassed for you: you either do not notice, or are pointedly ignoring the multiple 'whooshes' that go over your head...)
*and* -regardless of YOUR 'faith'- many -if not most- of your xtian brothers and sisters have NO problem with: 'he is not of our 'faith', therefore evil, therefore it is not only 'good' that we kill him, but our God commands us to do so !'
oh ? you say you're not *that* fundie ? you're not *that* old testament ? you're one of them-there hippie-jesus, new testament type xtians ?
sure you are...
when/if those faux-moral bastards enforced a theocracy, i KNOW EXACTLY whose side you are on, i don't give a crap what lies you tell yourself and us...
sanctimonious xtians bitching about how they are repressed and 'persecuted' ? yeah, what's not to love about that hypocritical crybabying...
tell me, xtian, how many atheist channels are there on tee vee ? (and -no- the cartoon channel doesn't count) how many religious/xtian channels ?
tell me, how many xtian radio stations can you tune in where you're at ? i know where i live, its approximately a million; but, so far, i ain't found ONE atheist station...
uh huh, yo' sho' is persecuted...
um,*HOW MANY* politicians 'come out' as atheists again ? could you run those numbers down for me ? ? ? ...and, um, HOW MANY politicians profess to be religious/xtian ?
here, i'll tell you that one: approximately 100%, minus about a handful in the whole stupid country...
wow, that sho' is some upside-down persecution there, bible boy...
i'm wondering, in your neck of the woods, if you told everyone you were xtian, would they even bat an eyelash ?
is it something they just assumed ? or possibly not even an issue of any significance ? ...possibly ?
i'm betting that is the experience of 99.99% of amerikans...
there's no stupid fucking crybaby xtians being 'persecuted' in amerika, THEY are doing whatever persecution is being done to people...
stay in your stupid god-house and get fleeced by your stupid church 'fathers', what the fuck to i care; but start imposing your stupid skydaddy myths on me through the laws/gummint, and i will kick your stupid ass straight to whatever hell you believe in...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
"as i have said, you appear incapable of rational discourse untainted by your received catechism; locked in an authoritarian mode that brooks no logical assault on your beliefs..."
What logical assault? This whole debate is a turd-throwing contest! There is no logic here!
telling a person who lacks awareness of a new concept is at least possible; but a person who simply refuses to acknowledge the validity of a concept because it will conflict with their 'faith' (*snicker*), is impossible to reason with...
(Hint: the problem is that pesky word 'reason'; so-called 'faith' allows for no reason...)"
I can see where people could fit in modern science in with religion. However, you have to consider the amount of SYMBOLISM in the Bible. Ever heard of symbolism? Or did you sleep through your english classes? As for things that are impossible to reason with, ever listened to yourself?
"*sigh*"
This is what I do when I read anything you write. Usually accompanied with facepalm.
"i mean, FORGET about even having a meta-conversation about you (AND your ilk) continuously BITCHING about 'everyone' 'attacking' you by name-calling... (*gasp* it is -like- the *worst*, it makes me sniffle and cry...)
...you just come back with your childish bullshit:
'mommy, that mean man said bad words, he must not know anything...'
what an "argument"... works every time, huh, xtian ?"
So that means I can namecall too? Okay! Dickweed.
"(seriously, i'm embarrassed for you: you either do not notice, or are pointedly ignoring the multiple 'whooshes' that go over your head...)"
Yeah, there's a lot of hot air coming out of you guys.
"*and* -regardless of YOUR 'faith'- many -if not most- of your xtian brothers and sisters have NO problem with: 'he is not of our 'faith', therefore evil, therefore it is not only 'good' that we kill him, but our God commands us to do so !'"
Seems like you'd think so, since you lack any tolerance at all.
"oh ? you say you're not *that* fundie ? you're not *that* old testament ? you're one of them-there hippie-jesus, new testament type xtians ?
sure you are...
when/if those faux-moral bastards enforced a theocracy, i KNOW EXACTLY whose side you are on, i don't give a crap what lies you tell yourself and us..."
Then why don't you tell us that we are all atheists? That might help your cause more.
"sanctimonious xtians bitching about how they are repressed and 'persecuted' ? yeah, what's not to love about that hypocritical crybabying..."
Examples please? I don't hear this happening often, I'd like to see.
"tell me, xtian, how many atheist channels are there on tee vee ? (and -no- the cartoon channel doesn't count) how many religious/xtian channels ?
tell me, how many xtian radio stations can you tune in where you're at ? i know where i live, its approximately a million; but, so far, i ain't found ONE atheist station..."
Maybe nobody wants to hear some asshole bitching about everyone else's religion?
"uh huh, yo' sho' is persecuted..."
Doubling down on baseless arguments? Seriously?
"um,*HOW MANY* politicians 'come out' as atheists again ? could you run those numbers down for me ? ? ? ...and, um, HOW MANY politicians profess to be religious/xtian ?
here, i'll tell you that one: approximately 100%, minus about a handful in the whole stupid country..."
Maybe look up some statistics for once in your entire goddamn life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Statistics
"wow, that sho' is some upside-down persecution there, bible boy..."
That's because you're pulling everything out of your ass except your head.
"i'm wondering, in your neck of the woods, if you told everyone you were xtian, would they even bat an eyelash ?
is it something they just assumed ? or possibly not even an issue of any significance ? ...possibly ?
i'm betting that is the experience of 99.99% of amerikans..."
78.4% are christians. Anyway, what the hell does this have to do with anything? Atheists are a minority, get over it. And you certainly won't be recruiting anyone to your cause like that.
"there's no stupid fucking crybaby xtians being 'persecuted' in amerika, THEY are doing whatever persecution is being done to people..."
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html
(I recommend you use this site, I find it useful in thoroughly tearing apart your 'arguments'. Not that the fallacy here matters since you have no proof for any of your claims.)
"stay in your stupid god-house and get fleeced by your stupid church 'fathers', what the fuck to i care; but start imposing your stupid skydaddy myths on me through the laws/gummint, and i will kick your stupid ass straight to whatever hell you believe in..."
Feel lucky that you aren't in 16th century England getting your head cut off for saying that. And would you kindly actually be tolerant of others religion, instead of being openly hostile? I'm not bitching at you for outright denying the existence of a deity without proof, I'm only bitching at you for being a jackass and not having the social skills to carry on a debate with valid arguments that are thought-provoking, are backed up with evidence, and make sense. In your current state, you are no better than these 'christians' you complain about. Now, with all due respect (and intended pun)...
Go to hell.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Look familiar?
Think of atheism as a religion in this case (I know it's a lack of religion). By making that poster, wasn't that guy doing what this quote says NOT to do? You are only stereotyping. I'm agnostic, so I understand both sides of the issue very well. And, to be honest, I'm having a lot of trouble sympathizing with you guys, since it's clear you lack any social skills and only care about being right.
A lot of christians are nice people once you get to know them. If you could actually practice tolerance once in a while, (i.e. shut your goddamn mouth and stop bitching whenever someone says God) then you might have more success in forming relationships with people who have a religion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
And a lot of christians belong to groups like the Westboro baptist church: i.e not nice people (and not very christian, imho).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Seriously, don't bring them up in a religious argument. Even the KKK and Jerry Falwell hate(d) them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
Seriously, don't bring them up in a religious argument. Even the KKK and Jerry Falwell hate(d) them."
Yet, many Christians use a similar minority of Al Qaeda members to demonise Islam, and I'm sure there's a couple of gentlemen here who will judge every atheist by the actions of Dawkins or Maher alone.
Nobody really thinks that Westboro, Catholic paedo priests or abortion clinic bombers represent the whole of Christianity. It's just a little rich that some Christians will attack other groups based on the actions of fringe members, while expecting the rest of us to ignore the bad apples in their own barrel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
2. I hate God.
Can you get more confused? If I don't believe in a God, how can I hate what's not there? You don't need to hate anything just to not believe in it. I don't even hate jackasses like you who are so delusional as to claim moral superiority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
If I, an atheist, believe there is no God (or, to be more accurate, have a lack of a belief in God)...how can I hate God? How can someone hate something that they don't believe exists?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No intent == No crime
"A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress ..."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No intent == No crime
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No intent == No crime
> drugs with no intention to give them
> to anyone else and still be charged,
> prosecuted and imprisoned for "intent
> to supply".
Yes, it's called a rebuttable presumption and it's hard to get out from under, but it can be done.
Basically the law says if you have more than X amount of drugs (more than one person can reasonably use themselves), you will be presumed to be in possession of them in order to sell them to others.
However, since we have a Constitution which doesn't allow the government to just assume guilt, the courts have required these presumptions to be rebuttable by defendants.
The presumption shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant, who must then prove that he had no intent to sell the drugs by a standard of 'clear and convincing evidence'. That standard is less strict than 'beyond a reasonable doubt', but it's more than just a 'preponderance of the evidence'.
If the defendant meets the burden, the presumption is considered rebutted and an acquittal on the charge is entered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here ya go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here ya go...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you believe you should treat your slaves well???
Do you believe it is ok to kill your family because they don't believe in your god??
Science doesn't have all the answers, but religion has none
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
atheist poster
In short the government is the enemy within.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real point isn't about the person's stance/belief/opinion, it's what has already been said earlier, speech should be protected unless there's a very good reason to do, and benefit of the doubt should be given to the speech when the reason for stopping it boils down to hurt feelings or challenged perceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 2 rules to be an atheist
That is the most ignorant comment I have ever seen. I can say with confidence that even christians hate them. They put a bad image on the face of christians. Might I mention that they are all lawyers and might as well be copyright trolls with all the legal shit they try to pull? They also have a population of 40. I am struggling to understand what you mean by a lot of christians, but I think you probably mean a 'lot' of 'christians'. But seriously, even the fucking KKK said they were hatemongers. And Jerry Falwell. You can't just assume that everyone is a Westboro Baptist Church nutcase.
And art guerilla, as for your rant...
I am AGNOSTIC. It means that I believe in the values of the Bible (ie. the 'moral' to the story) and practice tolerance towards people of other religious groups, and I celebrate Christmas and related holidays (maybe that's why you guys are so cranky all the time...) Or you could say I'm half-atheist and half-christian.
The breakdown:
"as i have said, you appear incapable of rational discourse untainted by your received catechism; locked in an authoritarian mode that brooks no logical assault on your beliefs...
telling a person who lacks awareness of a new concept is at least possible; but a person who simply refuses to acknowledge the validity of a concept because it will conflict with their 'faith' (*snicker*), is impossible to reason with...
(Hint: the problem is that pesky word 'reason'; so-called 'faith' allows for no reason...)
*sigh*
i mean, FORGET about even having a meta-conversation about you (AND your ilk) continuously BITCHING about 'everyone' 'attacking' you by name-calling... (*gasp* it is -like- the *worst*, it makes me sniffle and cry...)
...you just come back with your childish bullshit:
'mommy, that mean man said bad words, he must not know anything...'
what an "argument"... works every time, huh, xtian ?
(seriously, i'm embarrassed for you: you either do not notice, or are pointedly ignoring the multiple 'whooshes' that go over your head...)"
Special pleading much? I agree with you. What an 'argument'.
"*and* -regardless of YOUR 'faith'- many -if not most- of your xtian brothers and sisters have NO problem with: 'he is not of our 'faith', therefore evil, therefore it is not only 'good' that we kill him, but our God commands us to do so !'"
Stereotyping. Strawman. Could you put some evidence behind your claims next time? Debates aren't fun when they are pure bullshit.
"oh ? you say you're not *that* fundie ? you're not *that* old testament ? you're one of them-there hippie-jesus, new testament type xtians ?
sure you are...
when/if those faux-moral bastards enforced a theocracy, i KNOW EXACTLY whose side you are on, i don't give a crap what lies you tell yourself and us...
sanctimonious xtians bitching about how they are repressed and 'persecuted' ? yeah, what's not to love about that hypocritical crybabying...
tell me, xtian, how many atheist channels are there on tee vee ? (and -no- the cartoon channel doesn't count) how many religious/xtian channels ?
tell me, how many xtian radio stations can you tune in where you're at ? i know where i live, its approximately a million; but, so far, i ain't found ONE atheist station...
uh huh, yo' sho' is persecuted...
um,*HOW MANY* politicians 'come out' as atheists again ? could you run those numbers down for me ? ? ? ...and, um, HOW MANY politicians profess to be religious/xtian ?
here, i'll tell you that one: approximately 100%, minus about a handful in the whole stupid country...
wow, that sho' is some upside-down persecution there, bible boy...
i'm wondering, in your neck of the woods, if you told everyone you were xtian, would they even bat an eyelash ?
is it something they just assumed ? or possibly not even an issue of any significance ? ...possibly ?
i'm betting that is the experience of 99.99% of amerikans...
there's no stupid fucking crybaby xtians being 'persecuted' in amerika, THEY are doing whatever persecution is being done to people...
stay in your stupid god-house and get fleeced by your stupid church 'fathers', what the fuck to i care; but start imposing your stupid skydaddy myths on me through the laws/gummint, and i will kick your stupid ass straight to whatever hell you believe in..."
Ok, this is where your rant went straight to hell (no pun intended). I have no fucking clue what you are trying to say.
Now, let's see how long it takes for people to not read anything I said but still be able to make a 'logical' (and I say that with massive sarcasm quotes) rebuttal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]