Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Another vote for a new thread. I'd love to watch people start making exceptions for who gets respect and who doesn't.
If someone performs actions that are drastically disrespectful like murdering people then no, they lose my respect. But I don't start any new social encounter with the mentality that I'm not going to be nice to you until you EARN my respect. It works the opposite way.
I confess that I do have little to no respect for the vituperative antics of the zealot missionary "New Atheist" guys …
(Prof. Dr. Michael Ruse, himself a professed "atheist," agrees with me that "the 'New Atheists' are a bloody disaster" …)
Of that group, I am most familiar with Dawkins, and I feel he has a bad case of Foot In Mouth disease, fed largely by a tendency to comment on things he doesn't have a very good grasp of and are outside his area of expertise. This unfortunate tendency is accentuated on Twitter, where he's also a bit naive about how to finesse social media. There's no better place to be taken out of context than when trying to address nuanced topics in 240 characters or less. He really should stick to (1) his expertise and (2) in depth formats such as books. On the other hand he's entitled to his opinions, including unfiltered ones, and he seems for the most part not to put them out on social media and then whine about it when people attack them.
That said, "vituperative" is often in the eye of the beholder. Suppose I said for example that Jehovah is a primitive tribal war god of questionable moral character. Is that vituperative simply because it's not complimentary or because it runs counter, perhaps, to your own beliefs? The question is whether your ideology wrongly demands a free ride in the marketplace of ideas, with no obligation to substantiate claims. Fundamentalist ideology constantly conflates mere disagreement ... even sweetly phrased disagreement ... with personal annihilation and persecution. And it conflates indifference or unbelief with hatred and rebellion.
This happens because not being impressed with or not believing in your god is taboo and unthinkable to you, not because there's anything wrong with not being impressed or not believing but because it is demanded on pain of eternal torment.
This is called special pleading. You don't feel obligated to believe in the tooth fairy, but you feel obligated to believe in god, claiming that is an entirely different matter when in fact it is not. Belief is belief, no matter what the object. Unbelief can only be influenced with evidence that's new to and makes sense to the unbeliever. Evidence is just data. If the data is there to look at, and it's as clear and unambiguous as you claim, belief will come and will not be a problem.
The real problem is that believers are offended that not everyone agrees with them that there is evidence, and that it is clear and compelling and sufficient evidence.
My championing of the acknowledgment of God by government has nothing to do with any specific religion. It is simply that an acknowledgment of God is NOT an establishment of religion and does NOT promote any specific religion. By pretending that the Bibles are an establishment clause issue you dilute the prohibition by misapplying it too broadly. It aids and abets those who actually DO seek to eradicate God from the public square.
If someone performs actions that are drastically disrespectful like murdering people then no, they lose my respect. But I don't start any new social encounter with the mentality that I'm not going to be nice to you until you EARN my respect. It works the opposite way.
You are hereby invited to start a new thread.
Last edited by DewDropInn; 12-01-2015 at 03:59 PM..
Oh I can dig up plenty of quotes from the founding fathers which demonstrate belief in Jesus Christ and clear respect for the Bible. And you'll probably counter with some other quote. Do you really want to play the quote game?
And when was the last time you darkened the door of a church? Atheists are almost completely clueless about ministries and community help that churches are doing behind the scenes. Yes, churches do not support homosexuality because it's a sin. No ,I see HATE for Christians. I see atheists relentless mocking and attacking Christians online every day. I see gunmen in America asking victims if they are Christians and then murdering them in cold blood. I see the stereotyping and belittling of Christians with derogatory terms like fundies or calling God a sky fairy as an expression of that hatred. Don't try to white wash it.
Destruction of religious freedom. There's your harm right there.
In other words, as long as they keep quiet about their faith, you are ok with them. You would think I could find just one, just one who could tolerate a different of opinion on religious topics and didn't come off completely disrespectful and rude.
Jeff Jeff Jeff. I used to go to churches every single day for my job. I even attended a few different ones over the last few years to appease people. The fact that you think we are clueless only shows your ignorance about atheists. Most of us used to be religious. We know what goes on in churches.
You know what I see, Jeff? Christians refusing service to people they HATE. Pushing laws that would deny people rights. Killing folks at abortion clinics. If the term "fundy" bothers you, then don't act like a fundy. Only the most fundamentalist of fundamentalists get called fundies. It is simply a shorter word, like a nickname. Would you be offended if your name were Jeffery and people called you Jeff? Saying things like sky fairies is not hating Christians. It is showing the ridiculous nature of some people's beliefs. If you consider that hatred towards the person, then you must hate an awful lot of people.....
You still didn't answer the question Jeff. I didn't ask, "What is the harm if they are FORCED not to do those thing,", I asked, "What is the harm in not doing them?" So c'mon man, answer the question and stop deflecting.
I never said they had to keep quiet. I said they don't PUSH their beliefs on others, not that they never talk about them. There are a few people I work with who I have regular conversations with about faith and similar things. They aren't trying to convert me or push their beliefs down my throat. In the same vein, I am not doing that to them either.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
.....
What I want is to simply see religious freedom and traditions preserved. You can't tell me there is one iota of harm in having the Gideon Bible in a hotel room.
As long as there are no government involvement in it.
Quote:
There is no harm in allowing a coach to pray with his team.
Of course there is. Would you be happy if that Coach pray to Allah? How about Mazda? Or Ra? Or Thor? Or what about to the Virgin Mary? Or to a saint?
Quote:
There is no harm in a cross shaped memorial.
You probably won't hear any arguments from me on this issue.
Quote:
There is no harm in allowing a bakery to refuse serving gay weddings.
Of course there is. As has been debated ad infinitum.
Quote:
You wouldn't be attacking God and his people with such venom and disrespect if you truly believe He did not exist. Of course, you need to say this over and over to convince yourself that there is no God. But you can shout it to the heavens. It won't change the reality that God is real and exists.
We are still waiting for that hundred proofs you say you have of a God that many of us say is a figment of your imagination.
The poster just happened to leave out some of the facts. No matter, facts don't seem to matter to these religious freaks. It's the way to fire up the right wing looneys.
Yes. And the hypocrisy. To conjure up some supposed "lies of atheists" when rhe very thread title and topic are blatant lies.
Methinks the believers sound more desperate and unhinged all the time.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teilhard
I agree …
ALL human beings must be respected for their humanity …
The position/recognition that all human beings have "certain inalienable rights" endowed by The Creator is a CENTRAL feature of our society and guv'mint …
Actually no it isn't. The Constitution is a central feature of the government. The Declaration of Independence is not.
You're free to go back to your Civic classes if you're confused.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
