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.
Well if one examines those who claim to be atheists you find that they are a loose knit bunch of people many young who haven't
a clue what an atheist or agnostic is , the gamble attached to their claim the ramifications if serious. Chistians who are lukewarm (at times me included) make me sick as they don't necessarily strut around or pretend anything ,but rather they are emotionless, detached, comatose and ignorant. The amount of stewwardship (helpers) in churches are always the same spirited, suckers that do the bidding for these lame churchgoers from la la land.. Atheists and agnostics pride themselves with glowing wisdom ,philosophies and choose a hell bound option challenging whether there is a hell and simply rolling the dice. A mentally challeged christian having 500 times more intelligence than these losers. The whole bunch of christians who are tardy on scripture and the atheists /aganostics are all fulll of baloney.
Do you offer human sacrifice to Moloch as well, just in case?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,894,840 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by openmike
Well if one examines those who claim to be atheists you find that they are a loose knit bunch of people many young who haven't
a clue what an atheist or agnostic is , the gamble attached to their claim the ramifications if serious. Chistians who are lukewarm (at times me included) make me sick as they don't necessarily strut around or pretend anything ,but rather they are emotionless, detached, comatose and ignorant. The amount of stewwardship (helpers) in churches are always the same spirited, suckers that do the bidding for these lame churchgoers from la la land.. Atheists and agnostics pride themselves with glowing wisdom ,philosophies and choose a hell bound option challenging whether there is a hell and simply rolling the dice. A mentally challeged christian having 500 times more intelligence than these losers. The whole bunch of christians who are tardy on scripture and the atheists /aganostics are all fulll of baloney.
Aaaaannnnndddd..... Salesman of the Month goes to OpenMike!!!
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,894,840 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
That's pretty much every single post made on here by a non-Christian lately.
But Vizio, your ignoring one fact.
People have rights and feelings, ideas don't. Insulting, demeaning, ignoring, arguing against or dismissing your ideas of what is sacred or holy doesn't equate doing the same to you.
Quit with the Christian persecution complex. We have no problem with YOU being Christian, but that doesn't mean we don't think your believe is whack-a-do as all get out.
People have rights and feelings, ideas don't. Insulting, demeaning, ignoring, arguing against or dismissing your ideas of what is sacred or holy doesn't equate doing the same to you.
Quit with the Christian persecution complex. We have no problem with YOU being Christian, but that doesn't mean we don't think your believe is whack-a-do as all get out.
Which is precisely also why "hate the sin, love the sinner" doesn't work. It's a bi-directional problem. Unable to separate beliefs from personal identity, a typical fundamentalist is no more successful at not hating the sinner (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) than they are at not equating disagreement with personal hatred and persecution when it's directed at their beliefs.
If fundamentalists want to sell "hate the sin, love the sinner" then a good first step would be to allow atheists to "criticize / debate the beliefs, not the personhood of the believer". Be able to take in what you can dish out, on the one hand. On the other, confine your critique of things you don't want society to embrace, like homosexuality, to dispassionate and factual discussions of concrete societal harms. When you can make a compelling case backed up by facts and figures then it's not about the people at all, and you have found a common ground for discussion despite the differing beliefs of the parties involved. After all, if god is REALLY anti-gay then there should be good reasons to discuss why it's an actual harm that are quite separate from holy writ, dogma, or tradition. But there's a reason why even an attempt to talk about objective harms quickly breaks down into deeply flawed claims about anal sex and promiscuity which are only tangentially relevant to the discussion and often presented in what would otherwise be a comically naive fashion: there ARE no objective harms to discuss.
The problem is, other than the unsubstantiatable claim that "god says it's wicked", there is nothing behind the disapproval of most of these things. We saw this pattern over and over in the past couple of centuries. Short skirts, alcohol, female suffrage, slave ownership, moviegoing, the utterance of expletives, and a host of other things have been decried primarily as Abominations Unto God, have been used not to argue against harms or to present actual benefits of the status quo; instead, they have been used to shame, disavow and otherize people who don't conform to desired norms. Many of the crusades above -- short skirts (or at least the above the ankle and then above the knee varieties originally railed against), female suffrage, anti-slavery, attendance at movies for the most part -- are not even things modern fundamentalists generally get their knickers in a twist about anymore.
I know there's not a self respecting evangelical who would admit it, but the fact is we atheists don't give a fig if you want to confine yourself to opposite gender marriage with non-smoking, non-cursing, non-working or even non-voting women. It doesn't bother us in the least. What bothers us is attempting to impose those strictures on others.
Which is precisely also why "hate the sin, love the sinner" doesn't work. It's a bi-directional problem. Unable to separate beliefs from personal identity, a typical fundamentalist is no more successful at not hating the sinner (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) than they are at not equating disagreement with personal hatred and persecution when it's directed at their beliefs.
If fundamentalists want to sell "hate the sin, love the sinner" then a good first step would be to allow atheists to "criticize / debate the beliefs, not the personhood of the believer". Be able to take in what you can dish out, on the one hand. On the other, confine your critique of things you don't want society to embrace, like homosexuality, to dispassionate and factual discussions of concrete societal harms. When you can make a compelling case backed up by facts and figures then it's not about the people at all, and you have found a common ground for discussion despite the differing beliefs of the parties involved. After all, if god is REALLY anti-gay then there should be good reasons to discuss why it's an actual harm that are quite separate from holy writ, dogma, or tradition. But there's a reason why even an attempt to talk about objective harms quickly breaks down into deeply flawed claims about anal sex and promiscuity which are only tangentially relevant to the discussion and often presented in what would otherwise be a comically naive fashion: there ARE no objective harms to discuss.
The problem is, other than the unsubstantiatable claim that "god says it's wicked", there is nothing behind the disapproval of most of these things. We saw this pattern over and over in the past couple of centuries. Short skirts, alcohol, female suffrage, slave ownership, moviegoing, the utterance of expletives, and a host of other things have been decried primarily as Abominations Unto God, have been used not to argue against harms or to present actual benefits of the status quo; instead, they have been used to shame, disavow and otherize people who don't conform to desired norms. Many of the crusades above -- short skirts (or at least the above the ankle and then above the knee varieties originally railed against), female suffrage, anti-slavery, attendance at movies for the most part -- are not even things modern fundamentalists generally get their knickers in a twist about anymore.
I know there's not a self respecting evangelical who would admit it, but the fact is we atheists don't give a fig if you want to confine yourself to opposite gender marriage with non-smoking, non-cursing, non-working or even non-voting women. It doesn't bother us in the least. What bothers us is attempting to impose those strictures on others.
This. Very well said Mordant. We are often told that we are "insulting and mocking" a person when we bring up problems/inaccuracies/errors/etc with their religion. Those same people say "hate the sin not the sinner". So why would it be a problem for us to say "hate the religion not the religious"?
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,894,840 times
Reputation: 4560
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Which is precisely also why "hate the sin, love the sinner" doesn't work. It's a bi-directional problem. Unable to separate beliefs from personal identity, a typical fundamentalist is no more successful at not hating the sinner (claims to the contrary notwithstanding) than they are at not equating disagreement with personal hatred and persecution when it's directed at their beliefs.
If fundamentalists want to sell "hate the sin, love the sinner" then a good first step would be to allow atheists to "criticize / debate the beliefs, not the personhood of the believer". Be able to take in what you can dish out, on the one hand. On the other, confine your critique of things you don't want society to embrace, like homosexuality, to dispassionate and factual discussions of concrete societal harms. When you can make a compelling case backed up by facts and figures then it's not about the people at all, and you have found a common ground for discussion despite the differing beliefs of the parties involved. After all, if god is REALLY anti-gay then there should be good reasons to discuss why it's an actual harm that are quite separate from holy writ, dogma, or tradition. But there's a reason why even an attempt to talk about objective harms quickly breaks down into deeply flawed claims about anal sex and promiscuity which are only tangentially relevant to the discussion and often presented in what would otherwise be a comically naive fashion: there ARE no objective harms to discuss.
The problem is, other than the unsubstantiatable claim that "god says it's wicked", there is nothing behind the disapproval of most of these things. We saw this pattern over and over in the past couple of centuries. Short skirts, alcohol, female suffrage, slave ownership, moviegoing, the utterance of expletives, and a host of other things have been decried primarily as Abominations Unto God, have been used not to argue against harms or to present actual benefits of the status quo; instead, they have been used to shame, disavow and otherize people who don't conform to desired norms. Many of the crusades above -- short skirts (or at least the above the ankle and then above the knee varieties originally railed against), female suffrage, anti-slavery, attendance at movies for the most part -- are not even things modern fundamentalists generally get their knickers in a twist about anymore.
I know there's not a self respecting evangelical who would admit it, but the fact is we atheists don't give a fig if you want to confine yourself to opposite gender marriage with non-smoking, non-cursing, non-working or even non-voting women. It doesn't bother us in the least. What bothers us is attempting to impose those strictures on others.
Too many restrictions on repping you. But consider it done! Well said.
Well if one examines those who claim to be atheists you find that they are a loose knit bunch of people many young who haven't
a clue what an atheist or agnostic is , the gamble attached to their claim the ramifications if serious. Chistians who are lukewarm (at times me included) make me sick as they don't necessarily strut around or pretend anything ,but rather they are emotionless, detached, comatose and ignorant. The amount of stewwardship (helpers) in churches are always the same spirited, suckers that do the bidding for these lame churchgoers from la la land.. Atheists and agnostics pride themselves with glowing wisdom ,philosophies and choose a hell bound option challenging whether there is a hell and simply rolling the dice. A mentally challeged christian having 500 times more intelligence than these losers. The whole bunch of christians who are tardy on scripture and the atheists /aganostics are all fulll of baloney.
Yeah, I smell some baloney here
To hell with them all! Burn for eternity!
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.