24

Pages:
1
…
6
7
8
…
11

24
Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2011, 09:09 PM (4,098 Views)
Incog	Aug 2 2011, 09:02 AM Post #181
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	We should find the Atheist's leader and crucify him so atheists will finally understand the meaning of having a prophet.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


Incog	Aug 2 2011, 09:02 AM Post #182
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	fuck you i know it's completely unrelated, just felt like throwing that out there
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Aug 2 2011, 05:41 PM Post #183
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	From my experience, they already have prophets; Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. But most atheists are fine. It's the militant anti-theists and "New Atheists" who are usually a pain.



Vondongo	Aug 2 2011, 05:46 PM Post #184
Moo. Posts: 5,434 Group: Member Member #130 Joined: October 15, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 2 2011, 05:41 PM From my experience, they already have prophets; Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. But most atheists are fine. It's the militant anti-theists and "New Atheists" who are usually a pain. Correct. I don't dislike atheists. In fact I'm friends with many atheists and I enjoy making friends with people who have different views than I do. But those atheists also don't spew their atheism in my face. And if I meet a "militant" Christian who tries to turn everything into a religious discussion, I may agree with many of the things they believe in, but that doesn't mean I want to hang around them for long at all.



Incog	Aug 2 2011, 06:14 PM Post #185
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	DragonLegend Aug 2 2011, 05:41 PM From my experience, they already have prophets; Hitchens, Dawkins and Harris. But most atheists are fine. It's the militant anti-theists and "New Atheists" who are usually a pain. whaaaat bullshit I don't know any of those people
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Aug 2 2011, 06:19 PM Post #186
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Are you kidding? There have been at least a handful on this forum. In fact, there's a perfect example in this very thread, just a dozen posts ago...



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 2 2011, 06:20 PM Post #187
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	I don't like to consider myself atheist for the very fear of being associated with the, "Militant Atheism," that you describe. There are a number of unpleasant atheists who are as religious as to their lack of faith as some Catholics are to their possession of it, and my personality and habits really cannot associate with any sort of committed faith in any practise or form. For that reason, I think it to be more sensible to consider myself non-religious. Edited by The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom, Aug 2 2011, 06:21 PM.
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Incog	Aug 2 2011, 06:50 PM Post #188
CHEERIO! Posts: 21,769 Group: French Member #6 Joined: December 13, 2007	i'm talking about the names you cited. and no i don't know what a new athiest is, i doubt anyone here is a an anti-theist. I'm against the idea but i don't have a problem with people who are theist so i don't get it.
	Black tulip Tribute to the the greatest of the great.


DragonLegend	Aug 2 2011, 07:07 PM Post #189
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Well, then, you're probably not one of those quasi-religious, militant antitheists/New Atheists. But I don't know your religious/political views, so I couldn't say.



Jack the IV	Aug 2 2011, 07:27 PM Post #190
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	Ultra-Musketeer Aug 2 2011, 06:20 PM I don't like to consider myself atheist for the very fear of being associated with the, "Militant Atheism," that you describe. There are a number of unpleasant atheists who are as religious as to their lack of faith as some Catholics are to their possession of it, and my personality and habits really cannot associate with any sort of committed faith in any practise or form. For that reason, I think it to be more sensible to consider myself non-religious. This.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


Big Richard	Aug 3 2011, 04:08 AM Post #191
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	lol I knew that would generate a plethora of responses I am strongly against religion and yes Harris and Dawkins are intellectuals I admire. I don't normally go yelling at every religious person I see, but whenever religious beliefs interfere with social issues I speak my mind. Abortion and gay rights are examples of said social issues. I am not absorbed in my atheism, I simply get annoyed that its the 21st century and billions of people actually still cling to such fairy tales. I envision a future human species united, irreligious, and scientifically advanced and peaceful and I feel religion stands as a major obstacle in obtaining that vision.



_Saladin_	Aug 3 2011, 05:06 PM Post #192
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 1 2011, 09:16 PM We're discussing whether incest should be legal. You said it shouldn't be legal, because [adult] children can't consent, due to some sort of familial pressure. I asked why this doesn't apply to other things as well. It does apply to other things. There are already laws that prevent people in positions of authority over someone else to get into relationships with them. Quote: But they aren't like us, in the minds of the overwhelming majority of people. Let me re-post my analogy, in case you missed it: Quote: To use another analogy, it's like saying falsely claiming you served in Afghanistan and have a Medal of Honor should be legal, because word meaning is subjective and even though "I have a Medal of Honor and "I was in the US military and fought in Afghanistan" mean exactly that to 99.9% of people, %0.1 believe they both mean "I hugged a bunny yesterday." Words have meaning, and until that meaning is changed, they're going to continue meaning what they currently mean. "I fought with the US military in Afghanistan" = "I fought with the US military in Afghanistan", according to the overwhelming majority of people. Majority > minority, when it comes to word definition. "Marriage" = "Between a man and a woman", according to the overwhelming majority of people. Again, majority > minority. You didn't answer 90% of my post that you quoted, I explained why it's wrong to make the discrimination in the first line of the second paragraph in fact. Definitions should not be grounds to discriminate. As for the comment about atheist prophets, I don't even need to explain how ridiculous it is. Atheism isn't even a religion. It can't ever be branded as one. Furthermore, it's pointless to talk about some atheists. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. Almost everyone on the planet is azuesist, yet can you ever make a meaningful comment about certain azuesists? This demonstrates the utter futility to make any point about atheists really by talking about any atheist. There is no central dogma to tie them together or anything to dictate any of their opinions whatsoever other than that they all don't believe in god. So why bother making a comment like that? Edited by _Saladin_, Aug 3 2011, 05:15 PM.



_Saladin_	Aug 3 2011, 05:18 PM Post #193
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Jack the IV Aug 2 2011, 07:27 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 2 2011, 06:20 PM I don't like to consider myself atheist for the very fear of being associated with the, "Militant Atheism," that you describe. There are a number of unpleasant atheists who are as religious as to their lack of faith as some Catholics are to their possession of it, and my personality and habits really cannot associate with any sort of committed faith in any practise or form. For that reason, I think it to be more sensible to consider myself non-religious. This. Ffs, have some confidence in yourselves.



DragonLegend	Aug 3 2011, 05:35 PM Post #194
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 3 2011, 05:06 PM It does apply to other things. There are already laws that prevent people in positions of authority over someone else to get into relationships with them. I'm not talking about relationships. See my driving example above. Other examples would be education ("If don't go to college, you won't inherit anything from me"), marriage, career choice, etc. Quote: You didn't answer 90% of my post that you quoted, I explained why it's wrong to make the discrimination in the first line of the second paragraph in fact. Definitions should not be grounds to discriminate. And I explained that it's impossible to discriminate against married gays, because 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron in most societies. Definitions are a very good reason to discriminate. There's a universally accepted definition of "Russian citizen", for example. If a Chinese citizen demanded the same rights as a Russian citizen, the Russian government would have every right to deny his request. That wouldn't be 'discrimination.' Quote: As for the comment about atheist prophets, I don't even need to explain how ridiculous it is. Atheism isn't even a religion. It can't ever be branded as one. Furthermore, it's pointless to talk about some atheists. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god. Almost everyone on the planet is azuesist, yet can you ever make a meaningful comment about certain azuesists? This demonstrates the utter futility to make any point about atheists really by talking about any atheist. There is no central dogma to tie them together or anything to dictate any of their opinions whatsoever other than that they all don't believe in god. So why bother making a comment like that? I added an emoticon to show it wasn't a [completely] serious remark. I know atheism isn't a religion, but the militant New Atheist movement does have religious overtones.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 3 2011, 05:44 PM Post #195
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 3 2011, 05:18 PM Jack the IV Aug 2 2011, 07:27 PM Ultra-Musketeer Aug 2 2011, 06:20 PM I don't like to consider myself atheist for the very fear of being associated with the, "Militant Atheism," that you describe. There are a number of unpleasant atheists who are as religious as to their lack of faith as some Catholics are to their possession of it, and my personality and habits really cannot associate with any sort of committed faith in any practise or form. For that reason, I think it to be more sensible to consider myself non-religious. This. Ffs, have some confidence in yourselves. I just don't care enough :<
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


DragonLegend	Aug 3 2011, 06:06 PM Post #196
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	Ultra is an apatheist.



The_Fry_Cook_of_Doom	Aug 3 2011, 06:56 PM Post #197
:OOOOOOOOOOOOMAAANN Posts: 18,587 Group: A414A Member Member #35 Joined: January 11, 2008	:<
	Jam It's okay to be mad at your fiends sometimes


Jack the IV	Aug 3 2011, 08:43 PM Post #198
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	Dude the religious freaks here will crucify me
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


DragonLegend	Aug 3 2011, 09:27 PM Post #199
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	I thought you were Christian.



Jack the IV	Aug 3 2011, 11:30 PM Post #200
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	Used to be the best student in my religion class.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


_Saladin_	Aug 7 2011, 11:49 PM Post #201
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	Quote: I'm not talking about relationships. See my driving example above. Other examples would be education ("If don't go to college, you won't inherit anything from me"), marriage, career choice, etc. Those are impossible to enforce without overstepping on people's liberties.. Incest isn't. You do what you can. Quote: And I explained that it's impossible to discriminate against married gays, because 'gay marriage' is an oxymoron in most societies. Definitions are a very good reason to discriminate. There's a universally accepted definition of "Russian citizen", for example. If a Chinese citizen demanded the same rights as a Russian citizen, the Russian government would have every right to deny his request. That wouldn't be 'discrimination.' It's not impossible. The negative connotation with a separate title is absurd. Are you denying that there isn't a negative connotation there? Quote: Dude the religious freaks here will crucify me In that case, don't put your self in danger then. I was under the impression you were in a liberal city. Wait a minute, you're in minnesota aren't you? You're not even in the bible belt, how bad can it be?



Jack the IV	Aug 8 2011, 12:06 AM Post #202
The Gent's Club Posts: 7,869 Group: Mr. Pink Member #43 Joined: February 19, 2008	Conservative Catholic Germans.
	In battle, in the forest, at the precipice in the mountains, On the dark great sea, in the midst of javelins and arrows, In sleep, in confusion, in the depths of shame, The good deeds a man has done before defend him.


DragonLegend	Aug 8 2011, 02:19 AM Post #203
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 7 2011, 11:49 PM Those are impossible to enforce without overstepping on people's liberties.. Incest isn't. You do what you can. Incest laws already are a violation of liberty. And I can't see why it's perfectly possible to enforce a law banning people from asking family members for sex, but impossible to enforce a law banning people from asking family members to get a job, go to college, or get married. To borrow your favorite word, this is completely arbitrary. Funny how some people are so afraid of the government imposing morality or religion on people, but have no problem using the government to force their own morality and beliefs on others. Quote: It's not impossible. The negative connotation with a separate title is absurd. Are you denying that there isn't a negative connotation there? The truth can't be discriminatory. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore it's not bigoted or discriminatory to think a married gay couple aren't actually married, just as it's not bigoted or discriminatory to say light-haired people have light hair. Facts are facts. By the way, if you loved someone and married them, would you care if others thought your marriage was not real? No, you wouldn't. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance.



Big Richard	Aug 8 2011, 02:38 AM Post #204
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 8 2011, 02:19 AM By the way, if you loved someone and married them, would you care if others thought your marriage was not real? No, you wouldn't. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. thats like saying black people enjoyed slavery because they were employed and were housed and fed, which is what many southerners used to say in opposition to abolishing slavery



DragonLegend	Aug 8 2011, 02:48 AM Post #205
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	No... That's not the same at all... Slavery is a violation of the right to liberty. There is no right to have the government recognize your marriage.



Big Richard	Aug 8 2011, 03:15 AM Post #206
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	I'm saying you're assuming gays wouldn't be against the "separate but equal" bs because its about loving each other. Much in the same way southerners assumed slaves liked slavery because they were treated properly.



DragonLegend	Aug 8 2011, 04:24 AM Post #207
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	That makes zero sense. Seriously, not in the slightest.



Big Richard	Aug 8 2011, 04:33 AM Post #208
Gay People Read This. Posts: 5,323 Group: World's Finest Member #113 Joined: July 26, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 8 2011, 02:19 AM if you loved someone and married them, would you care if others thought your marriage was not real? No, you wouldn't. your argument is based off an assumption



_Saladin_	Aug 14 2011, 04:27 PM Post #209
Major Bullshit Posts: 2,763 Group: A414A Member Member #28 Joined: January 1, 2008	DragonLegend Aug 8 2011, 02:19 AM And I can't see why it's perfectly possible to enforce a law banning people from asking family members for sex, but impossible to enforce a law banning people from asking family members to get a job, go to college, or get married. To borrow your favorite word, this is completely arbitrary. Nope, I'm talking about the law to ban the government recognition of incest, which is totally enforceable. This whole argument is because you wanted a reason why incest should not be recognized as marriage while gays should. That's why. Funny how some people can't keep track of their arguments. Quote: he truth can't be discriminatory. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Therefore it's not bigoted or discriminatory to think a married gay couple aren't actually married, just as it's not bigoted or discriminatory to say light-haired people have light hair. Facts are facts. You totally dodged the statement you quoted. I explained why it's discrimination. Quote: By the way, if you loved someone and married them, would you care if others thought your marriage was not real? No, you wouldn't. There's a difference between tolerance and acceptance. This is akin to saying "shut up and don't fight against your discrimination".



DragonLegend	Aug 15 2011, 12:37 AM Post #210
Field Marshal Posts: 15,575 Group: Member Member #40 Joined: January 19, 2008	_Saladin_ Aug 14 2011, 04:27 PM Nope, I'm talking about the law to ban the government recognition of incest, which is totally enforceable. This whole argument is because you wanted a reason why incest should not be recognized as marriage while gays should. That's why. Funny how some people can't keep track of their arguments. This is akin to saying "shut up and don't fight against your discrimination". Then you must be in the wrong thread. Read the last couple of pages. The discussion is about whether there's a good reason to ban incest, not whether there's a good reason for the government not to recognize that type of marriage. Quote: You totally dodged the statement you quoted. I explained why it's discrimination. "It sucks to be different" does not mean it's discrimination. There's no such thing as gay marriage, just as there's no such thing as a purple-haired brunette. The truth can't be discriminatory. Quote: This is akin to saying "shut up and don't fight against your discrimination". No, it's another way of saying, "Shut up, grow up, and stop trying to force people to accept your lifestyle. Nobody is discriminating against you." The world is going to Hell and people are crying about gay marriage. Jesus...



1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)

Create a free forum in seconds. Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General chat · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
6
7
8
…
11