Probably not speaking from experience, but I’ve heard these types of people are significantly more tolerable when most of your convos with them involve a certain level of trolling.
I know you say you don’t troll, but never say never 
1 Like
Cakeist!!!
1 Like
Apparently ‘the kill religious people one’. I am not athiest. And I still never said it was a religion.
All I said is that atheists can be anti-religious and bigoted toward religious people.
What part of that is hard to comprehend?
I try to be–but I’m also human, and therefore subject to temptation. Thus I’m all but certain there are photos out there of me going down on the likes of a Dolly Madison*, so it’s only a matter of time before I’m brought to heel.
.
.
.
2 Likes
You’ll have to find me some kinda brochure. I definitely missed that tenant
Actually what you said was an atheist baker could legally discriminate against a religious person using the same grounds as the baker in the SCOTUS decision.
Which is patently false, but feel free to shut me up with a court case.
It’s a very simple thought that atheists can discriminate. Absolutely nothing hard to comprehend about it. My 7 year old can comprehend that without breaking a sweat.
Still struggling at using it to legally discriminate though
Descrimination is not base on what you believe, it’s based on hating what the other person is, has, believes, etc.
And being able to discriminate legally on religious grounds (like the example you gave) requires religious objections to the thing you’re discriminating.
Atheism doesn’t provide religious objections that can be used to justify discrimination like religion does.
Your just talking to here yourself speak.
Last time you tried to make a legal claim you were spectacularly wrong about all of it. Sorry if I won’t take your word for it.
NOW you’ve crossed the line, @EyeDentist!
Don’t be hatin’ on Wally World!
(I wonder if Peter Strzok thinks I smell like a Trump supporter?)
1 Like
Apparently. I’m done with the line of convo tbh.
Feel free to find that court case showing it’s legal to discriminate and claim atheism as the root. That’ll sure shut me up.
I’ll take a judges word if you can find it
Maybe you guys need a flag and parades, or something.
God I hope not. I didn’t get wrote out of my grandma’s will just to be stuck with flair.
I share Jennifer Aniston’s view of flair
1 Like
They have one:
2 Likes
Why self select a scarlet letter?! No, but seriously, it could use some revisions. A wee bit plain.
If atheists had active imaginations they’d end up being religious.
That being said, even I could make a better flag than that. Gimme 30 mins. I’ll make a better one
1 Like
Why indeed. Momma didn’t raise no bitch. The scarlet letter is for attention whores (seewutididthar).
I present to you. The flag of Atheism.
1 Like
What about the teaching that there is not God? I think that for example, an employer should not be able to ask someone if they are an atheist, and should not be able to fire them for not believing that there is a god.
What discrimination does that actively call for?
edit: hell, or passively. or anythingly
That’s already a thing.
It was also rolled into currently existing staffing law when the rest of the laws were made concerning not firing people for their Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc views
They believe in a godless universe. All beliefs are positive because all “non-beliefs” are beliefs in a certain kind of cosmos, one that does not require the thing that is not believed in. That is why the so called “burden of proof” on the positive assertion is a fallacy in most cases. The burden of proof on the positive assertion only holds if the positive assertion is logically superfluous, like arguing that atoms vibrate because they are buffeted my imperceptible imps.
It is also why a deterministic universe can not be a component of rational discourse. If the universe is deterministic then all of our conclusions are inevitable, and it is superfluous to also call those conclusions “rational” so rational conclusions do not exist in a deterministic universe.
2 Likes
