[quote]pat wrote:
No, I wanted to stir the pot. Everything else was a bonus.[/quote]
So you actually didn’t have any particular reason to be condescending?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
My post was responding to Push who said the only reason people got mad was because of WHO it was about and acted as if everyone who got offended only did because they love the guy who Pat said it about. That is not true in my case and it likely isn’t in everyone else who has posted case. [/quote]
I believe it is true in your case. I’ve NEVER seen you castigate someone who’s said disparaging things about religious folks. NEVER.
N
E
V
E
R[/quote]
Then you haven’t paid attention. More than once I’ve responded to atheist videos as saying this is not the way I feel and this guy doesn’t speak for all people who don’t believe.
And considering the amount you post and read on here you have seen it you just conveniently chose to ignore it.
I
G
N
O
R
E
I
T.
[quote]H factor wrote:
The difference is I’m not saying you need to live by a certain code. You need to follow a certain rule book. You need to live like this. As an agnostic I’m not telling you how you should act. Many believers are. Maybe not all of them/ Follow this way, act this way, be like this person. They are telling others how to live and then failing to live up to it. So yeah, maybe I don’t have something that was written down 2,000 years ago telling me how to act. I don’t think that is a big deal anyways. [/quote]
Vocal Militant Atheists certainly are trying to tell people how to live their lives and what they should believe. Maybe you don’t see it, because of where you’re standing while viewing it, but as someone who has now spent a decent amount of time on both sides, I can attest that it isn’t just fun and games behind the ridicule, rhetoric and blathering of the Militant Atheist. There is just as much a general air of superiority on both sides.
But irrelevant, your paragraph illustrates my point. The Atheist has to rule book to live up to. It has no set code to violate. It can’t be held to the same standard it holds religious others. That makes criticism from an Atheist, about the imperfections and hypocritical actions of the religious, particularly the devout, rather moot and baseless.
If an electrician came and rewired your home, and then the next day the garbage man came in and went on and on about how the electrician violated this code, and that procedure would you have as much faith in his opinion as you would if a different electrician came in and made the same remarks as the garbage man?
Unfortunately my wife used to watch this show, which means I’ve seen quite a few episodes. Not a single time did I see any of them proclaim how much better they were than other people. Not a single time.
You were doing fine until the very end. Maybe it is where I live but I’ve never had anyone tell me that I had to follow what they think (outside of politics). Most times it was an offer to be told their ways, and once it was “I would feel like a failure if I didn’t bring you so that when you are older, and if your mind changes you know what it is about.”
Yes there is hypocrisy within the religious community, and an awful lot of it. But again, my point was that the Atheist CAN’T be a hypocrite by these same standards, so their eternal toddler-esk whining about it falls on deaf ears. Mainly because why the Atheist is pointed out as a massive hypocrite for something, they have no consequence other than temporary embarrassment. The religious, due to their faith, have significant “explaining” to do, well and beyond the opinion of other humans.
I never stated as much, and it seems your setting up a strawman.
[quote]H factor wrote:
If millions of people (Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc) all have rulebooks and none of them can agree on which rules to follow and which rules not to follow is that really that different from following no book? [/quote]
Stop looking at the individual trees and see the separate forests for how they are similar and you’ll see the point.
Yes there are different sets of “rules” to follow in the micro sense, in the macro however, they are all just forests.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I have two people in my family who are special needs. And that was irrelevant anyways it was going to be in a bigger idea that I didn’t put in. You put most people only get upset when it is someone they don’t like saying it. That didn’t have anything to do with the point I was making. Your post wasn’t about what was being discussed.
My post was responding to Push who said the only reason people got mad was because of WHO it was about and acted as if everyone who got offended only did because they love the guy who Pat said it about. That is not true in my case and it likely isn’t in everyone else who has posted case. [/quote]
I wish the very best for those members of your family who are special needs. I wouldn’t want to say I pity or feel sorry for them because most of the special needs people I have met wouldn’t want that, nor my sympathy.
Keep in mind that a derogatory statement about one person does not make it about all people with a condition. I am not a politician.
So if I offended you in that way, I apologize.
On the other hand, if I had said something like that say against Pope John Paul 2, I am pretty sure you wouldn’t have been the least bit bothered by it, like Push said.
Your no angel either bud, you have said many derogatory things about people, including myself. You’ve chased me from thread to thread just to do it.
So I am not sure I buy your “offended” act.
But if you feel members of your family were insulted in someway by what I said, then for that I do apologize. It wasn’t a slight against handicapped people, just a single handicapped person.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
The difference is I’m not saying you need to live by a certain code. You need to follow a certain rule book. You need to live like this. As an agnostic I’m not telling you how you should act. Many believers are. Maybe not all of them/ Follow this way, act this way, be like this person. They are telling others how to live and then failing to live up to it. So yeah, maybe I don’t have something that was written down 2,000 years ago telling me how to act. I don’t think that is a big deal anyways. [/quote]
Vocal Militant Atheists certainly are trying to tell people how to live their lives and what they should believe. Maybe you don’t see it, because of where you’re standing while viewing it, but as someone who has now spent a decent amount of time on both sides, I can attest that it isn’t just fun and games behind the ridicule, rhetoric and blathering of the Militant Atheist. There is just as much a general air of superiority on both sides.
But irrelevant, your paragraph illustrates my point. The Atheist has to rule book to live up to. It has no set code to violate. It can’t be held to the same standard it holds religious others. That makes criticism from an Atheist, about the imperfections and hypocritical actions of the religious, particularly the devout, rather moot and baseless.
If an electrician came and rewired your home, and then the next day the garbage man came in and went on and on about how the electrician violated this code, and that procedure would you have as much faith in his opinion as you would if a different electrician came in and made the same remarks as the garbage man?
Unfortunately my wife used to watch this show, which means I’ve seen quite a few episodes. Not a single time did I see any of them proclaim how much better they were than other people. Not a single time.
You were doing fine until the very end. Maybe it is where I live but I’ve never had anyone tell me that I had to follow what they think (outside of politics). Most times it was an offer to be told their ways, and once it was “I would feel like a failure if I didn’t bring you so that when you are older, and if your mind changes you know what it is about.”
Yes there is hypocrisy within the religious community, and an awful lot of it. But again, my point was that the Atheist CAN’T be a hypocrite by these same standards, so their eternal toddler-esk whining about it falls on deaf ears. Mainly because why the Atheist is pointed out as a massive hypocrite for something, they have no consequence other than temporary embarrassment. The religious, due to their faith, have significant “explaining” to do, well and beyond the opinion of other humans.
I never stated as much, and it seems your setting up a strawman.
[quote]H factor wrote:
If millions of people (Christians, Muslims, Mormons, etc) all have rulebooks and none of them can agree on which rules to follow and which rules not to follow is that really that different from following no book? [/quote]
Stop looking at the individual trees and see the separate forests for how they are similar and you’ll see the point.
Yes there are different sets of “rules” to follow in the micro sense, in the macro however, they are all just forests. [/quote]
I’m not a vocal militant atheist and I don’t know nor care who is. I have never met one in my life. I have never once had my door knocked on by an atheist but I have from all sorts of believers.
Does it seem as if the agnostics/atheists on this board are militant? I don’t see it. We do defend ourselves when others make fun of our intelligence for coming to a different conclusion than them which is quite often. In fact I bet you can find more pro belief threads than pro athesim threads by far. The vast majority of religous threads are started by believers and centered around believers who can’t believe we think differently from them. It isn’t even really close on this board. Very few non believing threads centered around getting people to think like a non believer.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I have two people in my family who are special needs. And that was irrelevant anyways it was going to be in a bigger idea that I didn’t put in. You put most people only get upset when it is someone they don’t like saying it. That didn’t have anything to do with the point I was making. Your post wasn’t about what was being discussed.
My post was responding to Push who said the only reason people got mad was because of WHO it was about and acted as if everyone who got offended only did because they love the guy who Pat said it about. That is not true in my case and it likely isn’t in everyone else who has posted case. [/quote]
I wish the very best for those members of your family who are special needs. I wouldn’t want to say I pity or feel sorry for them because most of the special needs people I have met wouldn’t want that, nor my sympathy.
Keep in mind that a derogatory statement about one person does not make it about all people with a condition. I am not a politician.
So if I offended you in that way, I apologize.
On the other hand, if I had said something like that say against Pope John Paul 2, I am pretty sure you wouldn’t have been the least bit bothered by it, like Push said.
Your no angel either bud, you have said many derogatory things about people, including myself. You’ve chased me from thread to thread just to do it.
So I am not sure I buy your “offended” act.
But if you feel members of your family were insulted in someway by what I said, then for that I do apologize. It wasn’t a slight against handicapped people, just a single handicapped person.[/quote]
Instead of telling me how you think I would feel like Push does why not ask me? In the case of what you think I would feel about saying that about the Pope you are incorrect. I’ve said this many times but I didnt’t even know who you said it about until I went back. Retarded cripple sticks out regardless of who it was said about.
And I’m sorry if you feel like I follow you around I can assure you that is not the case. I do not even post on this board enough to follow anyone around. Definitely not the case. And I haven’t made up a name about you like some people who are obsessed with others choose to do.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I am certain I am wasting my time here, but the point was I said what I said to make a splash, to cause a ruckus. To cause a ruckus is not unheard of in Christianity, here is an example.
Get it? I didn’t think so. [/quote]
So your point was to expose the hypocrisy of others? Ok, fine. I personally do not think you did it well, but fine.
But do you need to make the point while coming off as impossibly arrogant and condescending as you sound here?
Seriously, reread your post here. Did you have a point to make with that level of condescension as well?[/quote]
Pat feels better than other people because he is a believer. He feels it makes him superior. You don’t come to the same conclusion as him therefore something must be wrong with you. It’s all over his religious postings which makes him different from most other religious posters on here. Most will debate and talk to you about things. Pat has an air of superiority. He doesn’t just think you’re wrong he thinks he’s better than you because you don’t get what he does.
Look at him break his shoulder congratulating himself in here as he tries to save face by making everything look like it was all an elaborate plan. He’s like a 16 year old girl on facebook “look what I did.” In reality he’s just not capable of not losing it in religious threads. He does it time and time again. I did this to expose whatever is just his attempt to drag away from his initial dickhead comment. But hey at least Sloth got him to quit thinking he was acting Christ like with it.
[/quote]
lol… you mad.[/quote]
Your attempts at saving face are cracking me up. In the middle of a gigantic rant you posted something pretty bad. Most people had an issue with it. You didn’t put any thought into it at the time. I’ve written long posts like that before, just saying what pops in your head. I get it. Instead of editing it or apologizing first you blamed other people, (new atheists play mean!) attempted to play the Christ could get angry game, and then moved on to I planned it all along to expose others! It did what I wanted! You sound like a politician. And isn’t lying a sin as well?
[/quote]
No law requires you to believe me and if you don’t, I don’t really care. The whole post was written to stir shit up, not just the one line. People are choosing to focus on what they choose to focus on.
Knowing your record, and your intense dislike for me, it wouldn’t have mattered much what I said, you would have found something wrong and hammered on it for pages.
[quote]H factor wrote:
I’m not a vocal militant atheist and I don’t know nor care who is. I have never met one in my life. [/quote]
You haven’t paid much attention on this very forum then.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
No, I wanted to stir the pot. Everything else was a bonus.[/quote]
So you actually didn’t have any particular reason to be condescending?
[/quote]
No, I did. I wanted to make people mad.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I’m not a vocal militant atheist and I don’t know nor care who is. I have never met one in my life. [/quote]
You haven’t paid much attention on this very forum then. [/quote]
Where are all the threads? I’m not gonna say none exist, but I have been around for a while and the vast vast majority of threads about religion aren’t started by non believers. We have very few threads that start with a non believer calling out the religous. Far fewer than threads started by believers and it isn’t even close.
Hell you’re posting in a thread that was designed to call out agnostics and atheists for their lack of belief. That’s precisely what this thread is.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
When an atheist goes on rants about hypocrite this, and religious people that, I tune it out. Mainly because they have no code, and no common basis from which to build a code. Therefore, because they are relativists by definition, they can’t be held to the same standards of the people they are deriding. Which in turn makes criticizing religious people not only easy, but sheltered from any sort of having to “walk the walk”.
A person who calls themselves a Jew, a Christian or Muslim, whatever have a rule book. They, at the very least, have a set of certain rules they are supposed to follow. The atheist has… nothing.
The Christian has something to lose based on their actions and words. The atheist has nothing to lose other than public favor.
The Christian is judged by the actions of others. “Oh look at the Duggars, another religious freak diddling kids” The atheist isn’t. I mean the vast majority of child abuse isn’t done by ultra devout “fringe” religious people, and when black people are judged as a whole based on crime stats, the same people calling for the head of religion suddenly get all indignant and want people seen as individuals.
The Christians among us can and will be imperfect. Just like the atheists. But socially they are held to a different standard. And maybe it is backlash for centuries of being the “leadership” of social norms, or maybe it is a general lack of ethics on the part of the detractors, or maybe the devout…
I don’t know the answer, but I do know the rather weakness presented in the absurdity of those that have no rule book outside what they deem at that moment appropriate, judging those that have one, and fail to be perfect. I mean, it’s hard to not be perfect when your entire moral and ethical code is made up within yourself. [/quote]
The difference is I’m not saying you need to live by a certain code. You need to follow a certain rule book. You need to live like this. As an agnostic I’m not telling you how you should act. Many believers are. Maybe not all of them/ Follow this way, act this way, be like this person. They are telling others how to live and then failing to live up to it. So yeah, maybe I don’t have something that was written down 2,000 years ago telling me how to act. I don’t think that is a big deal anyways.
So when the Duggars talk about how great they are and one of them is a child molester yeah that sticks out. When “pro family values” politicians end up having sex with others yeah that sticks out. When priests are having sex with little kids that sticks out. Because this is happening from people who are telling and representing a way of life predicated on saying you must follow what I think. When someone who is constantly banging the good book drum turns out to act like a dickhead yeah that sticks out. It gets called out.
The idea that having a rule book makes someone better is false anyways. Plenty of people who follow that rule book are pricks. Some of history s biggest dickheads had a rule book and followed it. Many people without that rule book are good honest hardworking people. Some aren’t. You’re correct in that generalizing is a mistake and I will be the first to admit it. So sure in that regard I’m a hypocrite as well. Never would claim to be perfect nor claim that I don’t do one thing and say another.
As an agnostic I’m not telling others what to think, feel, and act. I don’t think this makes me better or worse than anyone else. And I certainly don’t think I’m perfect because I don’t have a rule book…but I definitely don’t think I’m any less of a person either.
If people are going to walk around and say you should think this way, feel this way, act this way and then don’t do that themselves it is always going to stick out. [/quote]
Ah, but when you say ‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you supposed to act this way and believe that way…’ your telling people how to act from your agnostic point of view. But if you have not really studied any theology, then you are not speaking from a point of knowing.
I am not required to act any differently than anybody else. Moral law is independent of religion. Religion affirms moral law, it doesn’t nor did it create it. It’s also why you see other ancient societies and religions affirm some of those same morals, because they already existed. Morals to speak to a particular religion, they speak to a moral law giver. Whether you think that ‘Giver’ is animate or inanimate is another matter.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
When an atheist goes on rants about hypocrite this, and religious people that, I tune it out. Mainly because they have no code, and no common basis from which to build a code. Therefore, because they are relativists by definition, they can’t be held to the same standards of the people they are deriding. Which in turn makes criticizing religious people not only easy, but sheltered from any sort of having to “walk the walk”.
A person who calls themselves a Jew, a Christian or Muslim, whatever have a rule book. They, at the very least, have a set of certain rules they are supposed to follow. The atheist has… nothing.
The Christian has something to lose based on their actions and words. The atheist has nothing to lose other than public favor.
The Christian is judged by the actions of others. “Oh look at the Duggars, another religious freak diddling kids” The atheist isn’t. I mean the vast majority of child abuse isn’t done by ultra devout “fringe” religious people, and when black people are judged as a whole based on crime stats, the same people calling for the head of religion suddenly get all indignant and want people seen as individuals.
The Christians among us can and will be imperfect. Just like the atheists. But socially they are held to a different standard. And maybe it is backlash for centuries of being the “leadership” of social norms, or maybe it is a general lack of ethics on the part of the detractors, or maybe the devout…
I don’t know the answer, but I do know the rather weakness presented in the absurdity of those that have no rule book outside what they deem at that moment appropriate, judging those that have one, and fail to be perfect. I mean, it’s hard to not be perfect when your entire moral and ethical code is made up within yourself. [/quote]
The difference is I’m not saying you need to live by a certain code. You need to follow a certain rule book. You need to live like this. As an agnostic I’m not telling you how you should act. Many believers are. Maybe not all of them/ Follow this way, act this way, be like this person. They are telling others how to live and then failing to live up to it. So yeah, maybe I don’t have something that was written down 2,000 years ago telling me how to act. I don’t think that is a big deal anyways.
So when the Duggars talk about how great they are and one of them is a child molester yeah that sticks out. When “pro family values” politicians end up having sex with others yeah that sticks out. When priests are having sex with little kids that sticks out. Because this is happening from people who are telling and representing a way of life predicated on saying you must follow what I think. When someone who is constantly banging the good book drum turns out to act like a dickhead yeah that sticks out. It gets called out.
The idea that having a rule book makes someone better is false anyways. Plenty of people who follow that rule book are pricks. Some of history s biggest dickheads had a rule book and followed it. Many people without that rule book are good honest hardworking people. Some aren’t. You’re correct in that generalizing is a mistake and I will be the first to admit it. So sure in that regard I’m a hypocrite as well. Never would claim to be perfect nor claim that I don’t do one thing and say another.
As an agnostic I’m not telling others what to think, feel, and act. I don’t think this makes me better or worse than anyone else. And I certainly don’t think I’m perfect because I don’t have a rule book…but I definitely don’t think I’m any less of a person either.
If people are going to walk around and say you should think this way, feel this way, act this way and then don’t do that themselves it is always going to stick out. [/quote]
Ah, but when you say ‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you supposed to act this way and believe that way…’ your telling people how to act from your agnostic point of view. But if you have not really studied any theology, then you are not speaking from a point of knowing.
I am not required to act any differently than anybody else. Moral law is independent of religion. Religion affirms moral law, it doesn’t nor did it create it. It’s also why you see other ancient societies and religions affirm some of those same morals, because they already existed. Morals to speak to a particular religion, they speak to a moral law giver. Whether you think that ‘Giver’ is animate or inanimate is another matter.[/quote]
Christianity as I know it. You talk of studying theology but clearly you have come to different conclusions about behavior than Sloth. I’m not telling you how to act by saying you aren’t acting like we think of most Christians. You may act however you want, but if you’re going to call yourself Christian and act like that then even other Christians are calling you out on it in here. Doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t act like it.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Instead of telling me how you think I would feel like Push does why not ask me? In the case of what you think I would feel about saying that about the Pope you are incorrect. I’ve said this many times but I didnt’t even know who you said it about until I went back. Retarded cripple sticks out regardless of who it was said about.
And I’m sorry if you feel like I follow you around I can assure you that is not the case. I do not even post on this board enough to follow anyone around. Definitely not the case. And I haven’t made up a name about you like some people who are obsessed with others choose to do. [/quote]
So, if I think Hawking is an asshole and think he’s short sighted and whack, why can’t I call him a mean name? What about calling him a retarded cripple is so bothersome? The points where I disagree with him are not about the area of his expertise, theoretical physics, but his use of it to expand in to areas where he is not an expert which is theology, religion and philosophy.
So if I feel he is deliberately misleading people, abusing his position to do so, and relying on his handicap to avoid criticism, or if I just really dislike him for any other reason, why can I not mock him?
I am taking the use of mocking right out of the new atheist play book. If they can use it, why cannot I use it as well?
If it’s ok to make fun of the cripples at Lourdes, call priests child molesters, etc. Why cannot I mock a prominent atheist who put himself out there, way out there?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I’m not a vocal militant atheist and I don’t know nor care who is. I have never met one in my life. [/quote]
You haven’t paid much attention on this very forum then. [/quote]
First recent pages of threads in this forum:
Believer based: this one, intro to christianity, a loud cry, ask moshe, abortion and the risk of cancer, peaceful muslims irrelevant (believers hating on other believers!), scientology, gods not dead movie
Atheist based: confusions weird threads (which include atheists starting a thread calling him out saying you aren’t like us,).
I find one thread from one guy that might fall under militant atheism and the response it got was from one of the boards atheist saying quit calling yourself that.
If you’re talking about the last 2 or so years that I have been on you will find it hard pressed to find a lot of militant atheist people or threads. You will find far more threads where believers called out non believers than the other way around.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Ah, but when you say ‘You’re a Christian, aren’t you supposed to act this way and believe that way…’ your telling people how to act from your agnostic point of view. But if you have not really studied any theology, then you are not speaking from a point of knowing.
I am not required to act any differently than anybody else. Moral law is independent of religion. Religion affirms moral law, it doesn’t nor did it create it. It’s also why you see other ancient societies and religions affirm some of those same morals, because they already existed. Morals to speak to a particular religion, they speak to a moral law giver. Whether you think that ‘Giver’ is animate or inanimate is another matter.
Christianity as I know it. You talk of studying theology but clearly you have come to different conclusions about behavior than Sloth. I’m not telling you how to act by saying you aren’t acting like we think of most Christians. You may act however you want, but if you’re going to call yourself Christian and act like that then even other Christians are calling you out on it in here. Doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t act like it.[/quote]
Sloth and I primarily agree. He disagrees with me in this case. Perhaps he’s better than me. But rather than put forth a thoughtful, agreeable post to be ignored, I decided to rant and get attention. Yep, I did it for attention.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
Instead of telling me how you think I would feel like Push does why not ask me? In the case of what you think I would feel about saying that about the Pope you are incorrect. I’ve said this many times but I didnt’t even know who you said it about until I went back. Retarded cripple sticks out regardless of who it was said about.
And I’m sorry if you feel like I follow you around I can assure you that is not the case. I do not even post on this board enough to follow anyone around. Definitely not the case. And I haven’t made up a name about you like some people who are obsessed with others choose to do. [/quote]
So, if I think Hawking is an asshole and think he’s short sighted and whack, why can’t I call him a mean name? What about calling him a retarded cripple is so bothersome? The points where I disagree with him are not about the area of his expertise, theoretical physics, but his use of it to expand in to areas where he is not an expert which is theology, religion and philosophy.
So if I feel he is deliberately misleading people, abusing his position to do so, and relying on his handicap to avoid criticism, or if I just really dislike him for any other reason, why can I not mock him?
I am taking the use of mocking right out of the new atheist play book. If they can use it, why cannot I use it as well?
If it’s ok to make fun of the cripples at Lourdes, call priests child molesters, etc. Why cannot I mock a prominent atheist who put himself out there, way out there?[/quote]
You can mock and call people any mean name you want. Go for it, I’m tired if discussing it. It bothers other people, but you’re really worked up about how unfair it is that anyone called you on it. Go for it.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I’m not a vocal militant atheist and I don’t know nor care who is. I have never met one in my life. [/quote]
You haven’t paid much attention on this very forum then. [/quote]
First recent pages of threads in this forum:
Believer based: this one, intro to christianity, a loud cry, ask moshe, abortion and the risk of cancer, peaceful muslims irrelevant (believers hating on other believers!), scientology, gods not dead movie
Atheist based: confusions weird threads (which include atheists starting a thread calling him out saying you aren’t like us,).
I find one thread from one guy that might fall under militant atheism and the response it got was from one of the boards atheist saying quit calling yourself that.
If you’re talking about the last 2 or so years that I have been on you will find it hard pressed to find a lot of militant atheist people or threads. You will find far more threads where believers called out non believers than the other way around. [/quote]
This is rather pathetic.
So now someone has to start a thread in order to achieve this?
Stop pretending you’re this dumb and accept the fact that your brethren in the anti-religion crowd aren’t any better than religious people when it comes to your “tell you how to live” strawman.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
I’m not a vocal militant atheist and I don’t know nor care who is. I have never met one in my life. [/quote]
You haven’t paid much attention on this very forum then. [/quote]
First recent pages of threads in this forum:
Believer based: this one, intro to christianity, a loud cry, ask moshe, abortion and the risk of cancer, peaceful muslims irrelevant (believers hating on other believers!), scientology, gods not dead movie
Atheist based: confusions weird threads (which include atheists starting a thread calling him out saying you aren’t like us,).
I find one thread from one guy that might fall under militant atheism and the response it got was from one of the boards atheist saying quit calling yourself that.
If you’re talking about the last 2 or so years that I have been on you will find it hard pressed to find a lot of militant atheist people or threads. You will find far more threads where believers called out non believers than the other way around. [/quote]
This is rather pathetic.
So now someone has to start a thread in order to achieve this?
Stop pretending you’re this dumb and accept the fact that your brethren in the anti-religion crowd aren’t any better than religious people when it comes to your “tell you how to live” strawman. [/quote]
You tend to find anything that doesn’t confirm you pathetic and then turn to personal attacks it seems beans, As for strawmen you just completely built one about what I’m saying. I won’t attack your intelligence though. Even though I don’t have a rule book to tell me not to.
People who I’ll point out for the sake of argument.
AngryChicken, who has recently scaled back to not even commenting on religion. I don’t know why, but it’s been a welcome change, in my opinion. He had very valid points and criticism, that were largely lost with his inability to keep his emotion out of it. Based on his description of his past, that inability is very understandable, but to an outside observer, it was hard to watch someone so intelligent and whom you respect go off like that and cross the line into bigot territory at times.
Bigflamer. He (I assume it was a he) doesn’t post much anymore. He was an exceptionally intelligent poster who’s posting style left a lot to be desired in terms of using ridicule and sarcasm to project his world view on the believers.
The latest iteration of our British friend who came into Doogie’s thread and shit all over it with his assumptions and bias. The fact you ignored the living shit out of this irritation isn’t going unnoticed, as it is a perfect example of the Atheism Issue.
You want to continue to pretend away the short comings and loud mouthyness of the non-believers fine, but don’t try and play off this “empirical” cherry picked “evidence” of who started a thread to do it. You’ve proven over and over you’re vastly more intelligent than that.