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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,916,433 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
After 3 days and 113 posts, we have established a few things.
1. No christian has been able to cite any examples of religious persecution.
2. Jeff wants to claim constitutional protections for his viewpoints, but is unwilling to extend them to others.
3. Jeff feels that all atheists are mean to him at all times, despite many contrary examples.
You've pretty well described our Jeff.
Bet he's a nice guy if we actually met him though.
After 3 days and 113 posts, we have established a few things.
1. No christian has been able to cite any examples of religious persecution.
2. Jeff wants to claim constitutional protections for his viewpoints, but is unwilling to extend them to others.
3. Jeff feels that all atheists are mean to him at all times, despite many contrary examples.
After 3 days and 113 posts, we have established:
Atheists continue to play the game of:
1. Demanding evidence or examples, evidence and examples are presented.
2 Atheist IMMEDIATELY ignores or rejects it.
3. Atheist smugly claims no evidence or examples presented.
4. I have yet to meet one single atheist who was nice to me. And no one here has presented a single bit of evidence to the contrary. The rudeness even continued in this thread. But rude mean spirited people rarely seem themselves that way.
In conclusion, you established NOTHING. This thread is a pointless waste.
When all you can offer as evidence regarding the OP are areas in which you consider curtailing your ability to be mean and spiteful and discriminate against others to be mistreatment and persecution , why should we care ?
Your responses have been one big whinefest, and have established that if someone like you cannot come up with anything substantial to complain about , no mistreatment actually exists . And THAT has been the point , and you have gone a loonnnggg way in helping establish it .Your version of persecution and mistreatment by atheists can be summed up as :
1) We don't get to violate the Constitution at will
2) We can't be mean to homosexuals anymore without consequences
3) Atheists on CD disagree with me
Life is certainly tough for you .Perhaps you will get a feast day named for you for all your suffering .
Last edited by wallflash; 02-21-2016 at 10:06 PM..
Jeff, what we are asking for is verifiable evidence. You left out that bit. Bible quotes don't count.
When you say, "meet one single Atheist", do you mean on here in real life? Here we argue and debate. This is something I seldom do in real life. I don't challenge Christians beliefs. In my parts of the world religion isn't very big. I have one work colleague who is Christian and out of respect to him I never mention religion. He keeps it to himself.
When all you can offer as evidence regarding the OP are areas in which you consider curtailing your ability to be mean and spiteful and discriminate against others to be mistreatment and persecution , why should we care ?
Your responses have been one big whinefest, and have established that if someone like you cannot come up with anything substantial to complain about , no mistreatment actually exists . And THAT has been the point , and you have gone a loonnnggg way in helping establish it .Your version of persecution and mistreatment by atheists can be summed up as :
1) We don't get to violate the Constitution at will
2) We can't be mean to homosexuals anymore without consequences
3) Atheists on CD disagree with me
Life is certainly tough for you .Perhaps you will get a feast day named for you for all your suffering .
Again, I laided out clearly the steps of persecution with real life examples here, and you blew it off with "wahh". Now you are trying to look superior by characterizing my responses as "whinefest" (which is rude btw).
Again, I laided out clearly the steps of persecution with real life examples here, and you blew it off with "wahh". Now you are trying to look superior by characterizing my responses as "whinefest" (which is rude btw).
Can you direct me to those posts? I'm sorry, but I must have missed them.
I have yet to see a single atheist EVER be nice or friendly to a Christian. Not once. More specifically, you have a group like the Freedom from Religion Foundation who takes the Constitution and molds it to force communities to surrender any remotely trace of faith. You know it's a group that wants to tear down Christianity when their slogan is "nothing fails like prayer". It serves absolutely no benefit to society to demand things like removing a cross memorial from a 9/11 museum. That is pure meanness as many ppl could actually get comfort from such a memorial.
Your charge that such attacks do not count because it involves Constitutional law is not fair because they are misinterpreting the Constitution to their advantage. Any remote display or act of a religious nature does not automatically equate to a government office endorsing a particular religion. The Supreme Court has ruled this way too. So groups like FRRF operate only out of pure meanness and spite for Christians. Funny how they don't see to go after Muslims or other religions.
I did find one with a couple of examples, but they are easily addressed. For example, your claim that the FFRF doesn't "go after" Muslims or other religions. I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the overwhelming majority of theists in the U.S. are Christian and thereby create the most offenses against the Constitution of all religions. The other religions are generally more passive and as minorities haven't the power to assert themselves into U.S. civil law. Nevertheless, when the FFRF is made aware of an offense by a Muslim, or any other religious zealot, they act upon it. They don't only protect the non-religious from Christians, but Christians from Muslims, Muslims from Christians, anywhere that religious tenets of any religion are invoked or instituted into public policy.
Again, I laided out clearly the steps of persecution with real life examples here, and you blew it off with "wahh". Now you are trying to look superior by characterizing my responses as "whinefest" (which is rude btw).
I don't recall the specifics of the exchanges but you will note upon careful reading of virtually ANY exchange here that no one is denying saying what they said. What it at issue is whether or not they are, as Stan Laurel would mangle it, "bounding over their steps" or not (overstepping their bounds). While this is a somewhat subjective consideration, the point that is being made is that you are seeing offense where none is intended.
"Rude" is defined as "offensively impolite or ill-mannered". Which kind of requires someone to be offended -- a subjective response that is more or less up to you, even aside from the subjective consideration of what constitutes ill manners.
For the word to have meaning as a label there'd have to be a consensus within this social subgroup / context that the person offends most people's sensibilities. But what I see as a pattern here is one person being offended -- you.
I don't agree with most of what you post, Jeff, but it's not rude of me to say so or to say what my reasons are. And unfortunately if I don't agree with you, the inescapable implication is that I think your reasoning is absent or faulty. This is simply a fact, that doesn't have to carry with it any sort of judgment. After all MY reasoning isn't flawless -- no one's is. But you live in a very judgmental tribe, and I think you tend to assume judgment / condemnation is happening whether or not it actually is. And to amplify it quite a bit when it's actually present.
As someone else a few messages up suggested, you're probably a nice person in person and I completely agree. If I met you we might well end up having coffee together and with the benefit of body language and voice intonation you might be able to take a lot of my disagreement in stride that you can't here.
So unless being offended is itself a deflection, I respectfully suggest you take it down a couple of notches and try to really HEAR others instead of looking for ways to be offended. But ... I suppose you will say it is rude for me to suggest that you are looking for ways to be offended, and here again, it's merely an honest observation, and if you want to ascribe negative motives to it that's sort of on you.
4. I have yet to meet one single atheist who was nice to me. And no one here has presented a single bit of evidence to the contrary. The rudeness even continued in this thread. But rude mean spirited people rarely seem themselves that way.
When you get a chance can you please tell me how you identify atheists outside of this forum?
I don't recall the specifics of the exchanges but you will note upon careful reading of virtually ANY exchange here that no one is denying saying what they said. What it at issue is whether or not they are, as Stan Laurel would mangle it, "bounding over their steps" or not (overstepping their bounds). While this is a somewhat subjective consideration, the point that is being made is that you are seeing offense where none is intended.
"Rude" is defined as "offensively impolite or ill-mannered". Which kind of requires someone to be offended -- a subjective response that is more or less up to you, even aside from the subjective consideration of what constitutes ill manners.
For the word to have meaning as a label there'd have to be a consensus within this social subgroup / context that the person offends most people's sensibilities. But what I see as a pattern here is one person being offended -- you.
I don't agree with most of what you post, Jeff, but it's not rude of me to say so or to say what my reasons are. And unfortunately if I don't agree with you, the inescapable implication is that I think your reasoning is absent or faulty. This is simply a fact, that doesn't have to carry with it any sort of judgment. After all MY reasoning isn't flawless -- no one's is. But you live in a very judgmental tribe, and I think you tend to assume judgment / condemnation is happening whether or not it actually is. And to amplify it quite a bit when it's actually present.
As someone else a few messages up suggested, you're probably a nice person in person and I completely agree. If I met you we might well end up having coffee together and with the benefit of body language and voice intonation you might be able to take a lot of my disagreement in stride that you can't here.
So unless being offended is itself a deflection, I respectfully suggest you take it down a couple of notches and try to really HEAR others instead of looking for ways to be offended. But ... I suppose you will say it is rude for me to suggest that you are looking for ways to be offended, and here again, it's merely an honest observation, and if you want to ascribe negative motives to it that's sort of on you.
Another great post Mordant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffbase40
After 3 days and 113 posts, we have established:
Atheists continue to play the game of:
1. Demanding evidence or examples, evidence and examples are presented.
2 Atheist IMMEDIATELY ignores or rejects it.
3. Atheist smugly claims no evidence or examples presented.
4. I have yet to meet one single atheist who was nice to me. And no one here has presented a single bit of evidence to the contrary. The rudeness even continued in this thread. But rude mean spirited people rarely seem themselves that way.
In conclusion, you established NOTHING. This thread is a pointless waste.
I am one single atheist. As far as I am aware, I have been nice to you. Mordant is another single atheist. Seems to me, he's been nice to you as well. So there's two of us for a start.
I am very much within my rights to be offended by what you have said about atheists on this thread. I am an atheist and you have insulted all atheists with your '100% rude' character assassination.
If what you want, is for atheists to always be on the offensive then you are going about it the right way.
Of course you aren't going to get along with everybody, of course not. There are always going to be people, especially in an internet environment, where people hide behind anonymity and think that gives them free reign to say whatever they please to whomever they please.
BUT, you can't condemn an entire swathe of atheists and character assassinate them all based on exchanges you have had with individuals on a forum - because that's exactly what you are doing. And as long as you continue doing that, nothing is going to change. So it's your call.
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.
