This is just silly and seems hypocritical
-
ryanb31 wrote:
If only we could enforce the same laws today. There would be no Hollywood.
I suggest you move to a country where those "laws" are enforced. They exist. Tell us how it goes.
-
wizardzz wrote:
It shouldn't bother the religious groups, since there is no god given power given to the aethiests, but it does bother them because they might actually be seeing how silly they look to us.
To my way of thinking why would another group care? Unless both of the following are true. 1. They thought such a thing was possible - thus their religion must allow it. 2. They thought that the people of the other religion could enact a power of a different religion.
Pretty much, but even the second point needs to be qualified with "power of a different religion or non religious belief system, like Capitalism, Marxism, Aithiesm, Gravity, etc"
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
I see. Understandable. I don't want someone screaming in my face either.
Does this extend to political, scientific, mathematical, etc beliefs and ideas differing from yours?Where do you live exactly? I am curious how many times a day a mathematician/scientist walks up to you and starts "screaming" at you about some mathematical topic. And also is there a theme which connects all of the mathematical/scientific discourse or does each one have their own agenda?
The question had to do with his statement that he didn't want other people bothering him with their ideas. So I asked if that extended to non-religious subjects. From the flow of my statements it was easily misunderstood. No, I'm not aware of any "screaming scientists", although I suppose it's possible some exist.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first. If the first act has no meaning and the atheist believes he and nobody else has such power to bless something, then it is hypocritical to perform said powerless act to undo the powerless act of the first. The atheist is "pretending" to beliefs he does not hold to be true. Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is. In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first.
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and from that drawing a conclusion. There is no evidence an little reason to believe that they thought the act would undo anything. Thus the conclusion follows that they did NOT do it to "undo" anything. They had other reasons for doing it.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is.
Specious. And those examples completely ignores the fact that those acts are protected in the US as well. And would likely draw some media attention too.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
Based on that one can claim that child molestation should be tolerated as well, because there are certainly people claiming that that is ok. Most atheists have no problem with you practicing your religion in your church and your home. Obviously that is not what happens. And the act that was the original source obviously demonstrates that. And just as obviously demonstrates an intolerance for one religion for another.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
My only point is the hypocrisy the atheists make in desiring to proscribe religious speech, yet want protection for theirs.
Muddled description. Free speech is a right. Freedom of religion is a right. Two rights not one. The rights are distinct even though they might overlap in some areas they can also conflict (and done so) in others. Additionally atheists want obvious religious idioms, and ones that are specifically related only to one type of religion, removed from the pervue of the government. As it should be given that church and state are supposed to be separate.
Speech is still speech, and the atheists want protection of theirs and prevention of others.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
wizardzz wrote:
When people of any group do something that is absurd, it will likely be satired.
What a clever way to hide and justify your bigotry.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
jschell wrote:
Pretty sure atheists can try to attract media attention just like any other group.
I'm pretty sure that was the object as well as to mock and deride other people for their beliefs.
jschell wrote:
Also rather certain that they can be intelligent enough to understand what they are doing has no metaphysical meaning.
Certainly. Which makes them all the greater hypocrits
jschell wrote:
Versus the vast number of hypocrisies that exist within religions?
False logic. But thanks for the tacit agreement that what they did was hypocritical and intolerant.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was the object as well as to mock and deride other people for their beliefs.
And I can believe you are wrong.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Certainly. Which makes them all the greater hypocrits
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and then drawing a conclusion from that.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
False logic. But thanks for the tacit agreement that what they did was hypocritical and intolerant.
You are claiming that religions do not have hypocrises? As to the second - I made no such statement.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first.
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and from that drawing a conclusion. There is no evidence an little reason to believe that they thought the act would undo anything. Thus the conclusion follows that they did NOT do it to "undo" anything. They had other reasons for doing it.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is.
Specious. And those examples completely ignores the fact that those acts are protected in the US as well. And would likely draw some media attention too.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
Based on that one can claim that child molestation should be tolerated as well, because there are certainly people claiming that that is ok. Most atheists have no problem with you practicing your religion in your church and your home. Obviously that is not what happens. And the act that was the original source obviously demonstrates that. And just as obviously demonstrates an intolerance for one religion for another.
jschell wrote:
your church and your home
My home is also the public sphere in which I reside. But atheists want to prevent all public expressions of religion.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Speech is still speech, and the atheists want protection of theirs and prevention of others.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Speech is still speech, and the atheists want protection of theirs and prevention of others.
I am rather certain that the supreme court, the framers of the US constitution and many current religious leaders would disagree with your attempt to bundle religion and speech into the same thing.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was the object as well as to mock and deride other people for their beliefs.
And I can believe you are wrong.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Certainly. Which makes them all the greater hypocrits
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and then drawing a conclusion from that.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
False logic. But thanks for the tacit agreement that what they did was hypocritical and intolerant.
You are claiming that religions do not have hypocrises? As to the second - I made no such statement.
jschell wrote:
And I can believe you are wrong.
Go ahead.
jschell wrote:
You are ascribing intent
No, they stated their intentions.
jschell wrote:
claiming
I make no claims. I was referring to the fact that you used your claim of hypocrisy in one group to justify hypocrisy in another.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Atheists use ‘unholy water’ to ‘unbless’ Florida highway[^] Since atheists don't believe in God or the Divine nor in the Holy or in Blessings, how can they believe in anything "unholy" or in "unblessing"? If you are "undoing" something doesn't that mean you give credence to the "doing" of a thing? Just a thought. I don't really care one way or the other. Just seems contradictory and hypocritical to me for an atheist to "undo" anything that a religionist "does".
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von BraunIt is hypocritical. It is hard to know exactly what atheists do believe. According to Dictionary.com[^] an atheist is someone "who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." So, everyone atheist I have ever met is hypocritical because they all believe in a supreme being. They just do not believe in the God that religions preach. According to the article the organization is http://www.floridahumanist.org/index.htm[^]. I didn't look too hard but I didn't see their website claim that they were atheist so for all we know it may just be poor journalism labeling them incorrectly.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
-
jschell wrote:
your church and your home
My home is also the public sphere in which I reside. But atheists want to prevent all public expressions of religion.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
My home is also the public sphere in which I reside
No it isn't. In my home I have the right to defecate any place that I feel like. I do not have that right outside my home.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
But atheists want to prevent all public expressions of religion.
You are wrong. Rights are not absolute - your rights only extend so far as they do not infringe on my rights. Thus you can no more erect a 1000 ft statue festoned with laser of your god on the court house steps than you can on your own property because such a monstrosity would infringe on numerous others.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Speech is still speech, and the atheists want protection of theirs and prevention of others.
I am rather certain that the supreme court, the framers of the US constitution and many current religious leaders would disagree with your attempt to bundle religion and speech into the same thing.
Speech entails more than using words coming out of your mouth and from pen on a piece of paper. Speech also actions. Flag burning is speech. Protesting is speech. Civil disobedience is speech. All constitutionally protected forms of speech. Religion is all about words coming from my mouth, my pen and it is all about my actions and how I comport myself with other people. All forms of speech. Speech that you want to prevent.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I hope you meant "your" in the 2nd person, and even then, bigotry is probably the wrong word for what you are trying to express.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
No I wasn't claiming "you" are bigoted, I have no evidence of that.
wizardzz wrote:
wrong word for what you are trying to express.
Maybe, I'm not as articulate as I'd like to be.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
ahmed zahmed wrote:
My home is also the public sphere in which I reside
No it isn't. In my home I have the right to defecate any place that I feel like. I do not have that right outside my home.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
But atheists want to prevent all public expressions of religion.
You are wrong. Rights are not absolute - your rights only extend so far as they do not infringe on my rights. Thus you can no more erect a 1000 ft statue festoned with laser of your god on the court house steps than you can on your own property because such a monstrosity would infringe on numerous others.
jschell wrote:
No it isn't.
The Supremes disagree. I can certainly carry on religious activities anywhere I like in public. It may require a permit in some cases, just like have a demonstration may require a permit, but it's allowed.
jschell wrote:
right to defecate
Religious expression is not defecation.
jschell wrote:
You are wrong.
No, I'm correct. That is the stated goals of most atheist organizations: to remove religion from the public sphere and inhibit the free speech rights of a significant portion of the population.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
ahmed zahmed wrote:
My home is also the public sphere in which I reside
No it isn't. In my home I have the right to defecate any place that I feel like. I do not have that right outside my home.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
But atheists want to prevent all public expressions of religion.
You are wrong. Rights are not absolute - your rights only extend so far as they do not infringe on my rights. Thus you can no more erect a 1000 ft statue festoned with laser of your god on the court house steps than you can on your own property because such a monstrosity would infringe on numerous others.
jschell wrote:
In my home I have the right to defecate any place that I feel like.
I do not have that right outside my home.Anymore... those lucky pioneers and natives enjoyed outdoor shatting. BTW, you are trying to explain the same points I was, though you are being a little more direct and confrontational, you are being much more humorous about it. Your thread is killing me. :laugh: :laugh:
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
mark merrens wrote:
I don't recall preaching.
mark merrens wrote:
I have no interest in your personal insanity./blockquote> Just saying. :-D
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
That is not preaching that is me telling you to fock off and leave me alone!
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
I doubt it would have made any difference.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
mark merrens wrote:
I doubt it would have made any difference.
No, it wouldn't have. Hence the :) .
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
Sorry: missed it: knackered, long day.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
It is hypocritical. It is hard to know exactly what atheists do believe. According to Dictionary.com[^] an atheist is someone "who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings." So, everyone atheist I have ever met is hypocritical because they all believe in a supreme being. They just do not believe in the God that religions preach. According to the article the organization is http://www.floridahumanist.org/index.htm[^]. I didn't look too hard but I didn't see their website claim that they were atheist so for all we know it may just be poor journalism labeling them incorrectly.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
ryanb31 wrote:
So, everyone atheist I have ever met is hypocritical because they all believe in a supreme being.
Ergo, every 'atheist' you ever met did not know the meaning of the word atheist. I would consider that most unlikely, but perhaps in American everyday usage 'atheist' means 'not religious'. I don't believe in gods. There, now you've 'met' one.
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon