|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 2, 2018 22:48:52 GMT
Allow me to use this analogy. I don’t have a problem with cigarette smokers, as long as their habit doesn’t affect me. If that’s something people want to do to themselves, then they have that right. It’s only when I have to be stuck in a confined place where someone is smoking that I get pissed off, because now their habit is affecting my health. But as far as smoking in general goes, I neither hate people who do it, nor people who sell cigarettes to make a living. However, I also think it’s generally speaking an unhealthy thing that people shouldn’t do. And that the world would ultimately be healthier and more prosperous if cigarettes didn’t exist. That all sounds like a roundabout way of saying that you do have a problem with cigarette smokers. Unless they keep themselves firmly within the closet whenever they are anywhere near you.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 2, 2018 22:50:44 GMT
How do you reconcile wanting to get rid of Christianity with not having a problem with Christianity? I can't even begin to understand how this works. If you don't have a problem with it, why do you want to get rid of it? Allow me to use this analogy. I don’t have a problem with cigarette smokers, as long as their habit doesn’t affect me. If that’s something people want to do to themselves, then they have that right. It’s only when I have to be stuck in a confined place where someone is smoking that I get pissed off, because now their habit is affecting my health. But as far as smoking in general goes, I neither hate people who do it, nor people who sell cigarettes to make a living. However, I also think it’s generally speaking an unhealthy thing that people shouldn’t do. And that the world would ultimately be healthier and more prosperous if cigarettes didn’t exist.  |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 3, 2018 19:09:47 GMT
tpfkar It's not surprising to me that so many atheists also happen to be statists. The power of the state is their god. A collectivist "utopia" is their heaven. And John Lennon's "Imagine" is played on repeat. What are the key advocacies you ascribe to "statists"?
German Catholics lose church rights for unpaid tax |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 3, 2018 20:28:41 GMT
Allow me to use this analogy. I don’t have a problem with cigarette smokers, as long as their habit doesn’t affect me. If that’s something people want to do to themselves, then they have that right. It’s only when I have to be stuck in a confined place where someone is smoking that I get pissed off, because now their habit is affecting my health. But as far as smoking in general goes, I neither hate people who do it, nor people who sell cigarettes to make a living. However, I also think it’s generally speaking an unhealthy thing that people shouldn’t do. And that the world would ultimately be healthier and more prosperous if cigarettes didn’t exist. That all sounds like a roundabout way of saying that you do have a problem with cigarette smokers. Unless they keep themselves firmly within the closet whenever they are anywhere near you. No. Only while they are actually smoking! |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 4, 2018 11:02:06 GMT
No. Only while they are actually smoking! Then, if I can counter with my own analogy, that's exactly the same logic that, say, a homophobe would use when they try to claim they don't have a problem with gays unless the gays are flaunting their homosexuality, wanting to promote their 'gay agenda', get married to each other in public, etc.. Either these people should accept gay people as they are, or stop lying to themselves and pretending they don't have a problem with them. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 11:32:14 GMT
No. Only while they are actually smoking! Then, if I can counter with my own analogy, that's exactly the same logic that, say, a homophobe would use when they try to claim they don't have a problem with gays unless the gays are flaunting their homosexuality, wanting to promote their 'gay agenda', get married to each other in public, etc.. Either these people should accept gay people as they are, or stop lying to themselves and pretending they don't have a problem with them. There is a difference between homosexuals and cigarette smokers/religious proselytizers: Homosexuals don't affect you directly. When two people of the same gender are walking hand in hand, or getting married, they are not forcing me to become homosexual. They are not asking me to marry someone of my own gender. They aren't even asking me to kiss a person of the same gender, not even during Pride Week. But when smokers smoke in my presence, I have to breathe the smoke. So their behaviour affects me directly. As for religious people: If they don't try to convince me of their religion, I don't have a problem with them. But when they start proselytizing, their words become acoustic pollution comparable to the way cigarette smoke is pollution of the air. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 12:02:10 GMT
 What an idiotic and bigoted statement to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 4, 2018 13:31:20 GMT
As for religious people: If they don't try to convince me of their religion, I don't have a problem with them. But when they start proselytizing, their words become acoustic pollution comparable to the way cigarette smoke is pollution of the air. Is it also acoustic pollution when people try to persuade you regarding non-religious matters? |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 13:36:36 GMT
As for religious people: If they don't try to convince me of their religion, I don't have a problem with them. But when they start proselytizing, their words become acoustic pollution comparable to the way cigarette smoke is pollution of the air. Is it also acoustic pollution when people try to persuade you regarding non-religious matters? Like sales people? When they call me on the phone: Yes, it is. When I walk into a store: Not really. After all, when I walk into a religious building, I can expect that the master of ceremonies will advertize their religion. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 4, 2018 14:10:26 GMT
As for religious people: If they don't try to convince me of their religion, I don't have a problem with them. But when they start proselytizing, their words become acoustic pollution comparable to the way cigarette smoke is pollution of the air. So you resent Christians exercising their right to freedom of expression and would deny them this basic right that should be afforded to everybody, simply because the resulting 'acoustic pollution' is offensive to you? (And that's the only way you are affected. You are not obliged to convert to Christianity, or even listen to the person who is proselytising, so stop being so precious). I'm just astounded that you make this argument. If that isn't an absolutely solid case of "having a problem with Christians and Christianity", then I can't even begin to imagine what would classify. |
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 4, 2018 14:44:27 GMT
As for religious people: If they don't try to convince me of their religion, I don't have a problem with them. But when they start proselytizing, their words become acoustic pollution comparable to the way cigarette smoke is pollution of the air. So you resent Christians exercising their right to freedom of expression and would deny them this basic right that should be afforded to everybody, simply because the resulting 'acoustic pollution' is offensive to you? (And that's the only way you are affected. You are not obliged to convert to Christianity, or even listen to the person who is proselytising, so stop being so precious). I'm just astounded that you make this argument. If that isn't an absolutely solid case of "having a problem with Christians and Christianity", then I can't even begin to imagine what would classify. People like phludowin are the worst kind. Always crying about bigotry and intolerance yet never think to take a look at themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 15:32:54 GMT
As for religious people: If they don't try to convince me of their religion, I don't have a problem with them. But when they start proselytizing, their words become acoustic pollution comparable to the way cigarette smoke is pollution of the air. So you resent Christians exercising their right to freedom of expression First, I only resent it when they blow it in my face. Second, their right to freedom of expression is limited. Where I live, there are laws against aggressive marketing and begging. Just a few months ago, a Salafist group was prohibited from proselytizing. I agree with the prohibition. and would deny them this basic right that should be afforded to everybody I don't think it should. See above. simply because the resulting 'acoustic pollution' is offensive to you? (And that's the only way you are affected. You are not obliged to convert to Christianity, or even listen to the person who is proselytising, so stop being so precious). It's mildly annoying. Offensive may be too strong a word. I'm just astounded that you make this argument. If that isn't an absolutely solid case of "having a problem with Christians and Christianity", then I can't even begin to imagine what would classify. It's a problem I have with all aggressive marketeers, preachers, or beggars. I agree with the laws prohibiting them behaving aggressively to bypassers. If they want to preach in speaker's corners, or in Internet forums, they can do it until they are blue in the face (unless they violate the terms of conduct). But harassing bypassers, bystanders or invading your homes is not ok in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 4, 2018 16:37:23 GMT
No. Only while they are actually smoking! Then, if I can counter with my own analogy, that's exactly the same logic that, say, a homophobe would use when they try to claim they don't have a problem with gays unless the gays are flaunting their homosexuality, wanting to promote their 'gay agenda', get married to each other in public, etc.. Either these people should accept gay people as they are, or stop lying to themselves and pretending they don't have a problem with them. Here are the differences. 1) There is no such thing as “the gay agenda”. That is a homophobic term invented by homophobic people to demonize anyone who stands for equal rights for the LGBT community. The “agenda” is for them to have equal rights and treatment, so anyone who stands against that does not have a moral high ground. 2) There is no such thing as “gays flaunting their homosexualality”. Well, technically there is (at something like a pride parade or in an LGBT establishment), but that’s usually not what the homophobes are talking about. They are usually talking about gay people who are simply “out” and walk around with their same sex partners or even have the audacity to speak about their same sex partners in public. Apparently that is “flaunting their homosexuality”, but when straight people do exactly the same thing it’s somehow NOT flaunting their heterosexuality. 3) Even IF gay people did that, that doesn’t have any harmful effect on a non gay person beyond just making them feel “uncomfortable”, in which case they could simply leave. By contrast, cigarette smokers smoking next to me is harmful to my health. Similarly, religious zealots preaching the gospel in front of me and telling me that I’m going to hell because I’m an atheist or gay is a direct attack on me. Those things are not comparable to a gay person expressing themselves in public, which is neither an attack against anyone else, and doesn’t harm anyone else. So for multiple reasons, it’s a failed analogy in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 4, 2018 20:38:32 GMT
It's a problem I have with all aggressive marketeers, preachers, or beggars. I agree with the laws prohibiting them behaving aggressively to bypassers. But you are not talking about laws prohibiting aggressive behaviour. If you read over what you said, you are talking about the fundamental right that Christians have, like any other person in any remotely civilized country, to basic freedom of speech. That's what you are saying you have a problem with, because, for some reason, it 'affects' you. |
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 4, 2018 20:49:33 GMT
So for multiple reasons, it’s a failed analogy in my opinion. You completely missed the point. I don't care about the comparative arguments to justify the case for bigotry against religious people, smokers and homosexuals exercising the freedoms that society has given them - for what it's worth I don't believe in a gay agenda either - but my point is that you all use EXACTLY the same logic when you try to justify it. I thought I had made that clear. The fact that you interpret a Christian's fundamental right to freedom of speech as being " a direct attack on you" when he exercises it in your presence speaks volumes. How can you possibly say that and at the same time put on a straight face and say that Christians don't bother you? Good grief, man, be honest with yourself for once. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 4, 2018 21:11:02 GMT
It's a problem I have with all aggressive marketeers, preachers, or beggars. I agree with the laws prohibiting them behaving aggressively to bypassers. But you are not talking about laws prohibiting aggressive behaviour. If you read over what you said, you are talking about the fundamental right that Christians have, like any other person in any remotely civilized country, to basic freedom of speech. Another thing I have a problem with is people putting words in my mouth and pretending I said things which I never said. Like in this case. I didn't even mention "basic freedom of speech". |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 5, 2018 1:42:26 GMT
So for multiple reasons, it’s a failed analogy in my opinion. You completely missed the point. I don't care about the comparative arguments to justify the case for bigotry against religious people, smokers and homosexuals exercising the freedoms that society has given them - for what it's worth I don't believe in a gay agenda either - but my point is that you all use EXACTLY the same logic when you try to justify it. I thought I had made that clear. You made your opinion clear. But your opinion is based on the FALSE premise that I am exhibiting some sort of “bigotry”, and you’re trying to make a moral equivalency between someone who has a problem with people who do things that threaten your health and/or rights, and other people who just have a personal disgust of others because of they way they are. You want “honesty”, okay then here it is. You have a problem of interpreting things through a lens of emotional biased towards Christianity. Giving me your unsolicited opinion that I’m going to hell is not you exercising your “freedom of speech”, it’s you intentionally being a DICK, and then hiding behind the fake morality of religion and “freedom of speech”. And that’s the problem that I have with you, and others like you. That’s why I don’t have a problem with other Christians who don’t. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 5, 2018 12:25:46 GMT
I am amazed that no one here has taken issue with the casual claims being made that atheism - the absence of belief in God - is 'a religion'. It has not appeared in any encylopedia or dictionary of religion I have ever consulted. If not believing in God is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
And it is true that no one has ever killed 'in the name of atheism', although there have been vile regimes which are officially atheist but that's not at all the same thing. But looking around the world today it is very easy to point to conflicts which have a background, or basis, in religious argument. The struggle between, or inside, religions has been a feature of history for centuries, from who inherited Muhammad's pyjamas (or something), through the Crusades and Reformation, onto the wars of Catholic Spain, right down to the Daesh-inspired terrorism of the present day. Of course any god could put a stop to this at once, by just showing itself unambiguously to all.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 5, 2018 12:39:10 GMT
I can only speak from my perspective. I've been born again for 33 years. I am deeply entrenched in my faith. It would take something earth-shattering for me to even consider nudging. And I'm only talking about nudging. I'm not talking about actively pursuing an anti-theist philosophy. At worst, I can imagine myself becoming like Mel Gibson in Signs where I just want to keep to myself. I cannot fathom becoming someone who actively and loudly desecrates what I once held dear and holy. If I did, it would beg the question: did I ever look on it as holy or dear in the first place? Or was I just a faithless scholar? A Pharisee if you will. Can you think of anything that would falsify your god, Winter? I can think of plenty of 'red lines' which would compel immediate belief in the god which so unambiguously proved itself beyond reasonable doubt. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 5, 2018 16:41:25 GMT
I can only speak from my perspective. I've been born again for 33 years. I am deeply entrenched in my faith. It would take something earth-shattering for me to even consider nudging. And I'm only talking about nudging. I'm not talking about actively pursuing an anti-theist philosophy. At worst, I can imagine myself becoming like Mel Gibson in Signs where I just want to keep to myself. I cannot fathom becoming someone who actively and loudly desecrates what I once held dear and holy. If I did, it would beg the question: did I ever look on it as holy or dear in the first place? Or was I just a faithless scholar? A Pharisee if you will. Can you think of anything that would falsify your god, Winter? I can think of plenty of 'red lines' which would compel immediate belief in the god which so unambiguously proved itself beyond reasonable doubt. Yes, I can think of hundreds of things. But the book is shut, so to speak, on the revelation (pun intended) of who God is. There is nothing more to be added and there has not been since the first century A.D. I've had personal experience communicating with this deity and I've found none of it lacking. Ultimately, though, most of what I know about him is revealed in Genesis through Revelation. I have put the scriptures to the test many times in my life and I have always found them perfect. |
|
