Does Anyone Actually hate Christians??

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

The only one making assumptions about other people's beliefs in this conversation is you. I've spent the whole time deconstructing your strawman about atheist beliefs, so I don't know why you'd assume that I'd assume things about your arguments just because you mention an ancient civilization.

well we just disagree then. i have a thread on the subject, cause it's like people assuming the inquisition can be applied to every kind of christianity out there, when protestants were victims of the inquisition, not the creators of it, for example. auto assumption. my assumptions about atheism are not auto-assumed, they were well thought out. i don't think agnostics and atheists are the same thing. is that a federal crime? lol

a reply to: undo

Stating a strawman isn't a federal crime. You are more than allowed to legally state logical fallacies, but the remark about agnostics not being able to be atheist isn't the strawman I'm referring to. I'm referring to calling atheists omniscient.

originally posted by: Klassified

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Klassified

I have to disagree with that, undo. I don't have to be omniscient to know there is no god. All I have to do is look at where the concept of "god" comes from. It's purely a human construct.

well technically, and this is really the rub of the whole thing, the difference between lack of evidence or evidence that suggests otherwise, is not the same thing as absolute proof. to say you have absolute proof would require omniscience.

Alright. Lets run with that. What constitutes godhood? What makes an entity "God" with a capital G?
Was Enki a god? Was he God? Or was he just the creator of our species?

godhood = exist. i am. even the word for god (hayah) means to exist. the famous statement "i am" given to moses, is saying the same thing. he is the existing one. the eternal one. you are made in the image of the existing one. the eternal one. you exist. you are eternal. human body=temp housing facility/bio suit. there are other existing ones, eternal ones. lots of them, apparently.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Well I just feel that the Christian persecution complex that I'm referring to is more of a 1st world problem, mostly in the States. I know that Christians in parts of the third world get discriminated against and they have more than every right to complain about it.

In large part, I agree. Most of the perceived persecution of many social groups is exaggerated. I fail to see how this addresses actual persecution though.

This is true. People persecute what they don't like. The key is to determine if that persecution is widespread throughout the population or if it is just isolated to small groups.

I think this is where our biggest difference lies. I see it as persecution regardless of scale. Now, as it grows, it certainly becomes a larger and larger issue, but all I see change is the scale; the actions of the given social group remain the same.

If we are to define 'actual' persecution by scale, rather than actions, what are the parameters used to define when it becomes 'real' persecution?

At what objective marker do you feel it becomes a problem?

That would work with me. Swear on the object of your desire. Though the whole ritual of swearing to tell the truth is idiotic and just symbolic anyways. Nothing is going to prevent a liar from lying.

Yeah, I think it's pretty silly too.. But it sure does represent the American justice system well!

My point was that one solution provides division, and the other provides equal representation. We will never move into that realm by attempting to eradicate representation of those we perceive to be the opposition.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

Stating a strawman isn't a federal crime. You are more than allowed to legally state logical fallacies, but the remark about agnostics not being able to be atheist isn't the strawman I'm referring to. I'm referring to calling atheists omniscient.

okay, follow me here: if i say i absolutely know that there are buildings on mars because i saw some evidence of square rocks in images, does that mean i absolutely know? or am i theorizing on evidence? cause the likelihood of me being able to prove my theory without actually going there, is very remote. and the likelihood of going there to prove it, myself, is even more remote. and if theorizing on evidence is involved, doesn't that automatically make it an agnostic statement (not sure yet) rather than an atheist statement (absolutely sure)

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I think this is where our biggest difference lies. I see it as persecution regardless of scale. Now, as it grows, it certainly becomes a larger and larger issue, but all I see change is the scale; the actions of the given social group remain the same.

If we are to define 'actual' persecution by scale, rather than actions, what are the parameters used to define when it becomes 'real' persecution?

At what objective marker do you feel it becomes a problem?

Well look at it like this. Christians still have access to many benefits and privileges in the states that other religions don't. Some are institutionalized, some are brought on just because the majority population is Christian. The way I see it, if the amount of benefits your group gets outweighs the persecution you receive, then you have no right to complain. This is why white people complaining about white persecution are laughed at. Sure it exists, but there isn't enough in this country for any large population of whites to TRULY sympathize with the white persecution outside of a persecution complex.

Yeah, I think it's pretty silly too.. But it sure does represent the American justice system well!

My point was that one solution provides division, and the other provides equal representation. We will never move into that realm by attempting to eradicate representation of those we perceive to be the opposition.

I don't want to eradicate the problem. I just want equal representation of all faiths, but there is a problem with that wish. It is physically impossible to cater to every single faith on the planet. There are just too many major religions and each of those major religions (save a few like Scientology) all have denominations branching off of them with diverging beliefs. Then even if you COULD possibly cater to all those religions adequately, new religions pop up as well, so then you have to go about changing everything to cater to them when they appear. This means that the fairest way to cater to all faiths is to cater to no particular faith. In other words, all or none, but since all is impossible the only viable answer is none.

a reply to: undo

That is why most atheists are also agnostic. Yet you seem to refuse to believe that that is possible.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

That is why most atheists are also agnostic. Yet you seem to refuse to believe that that is possible.

i just think it's incorrectly viewed. since theorizing and being absolutely sure, are two different things. if every theory was automatically proof positive, science would be super easy.

a reply to: undo

Well most atheists follow science and understand that science makes no definitive conclusions. Therefore their beliefs on god, by extension, shouldn't be definitive.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

Well most atheists follow science and understand that science makes no definitive conclusions. Therefore their beliefs on god, by extension, shouldn't be definitive.

precisely! here's a fruit smoothie reward hehe

i just had a creepy thought, if stalin was a jesuit, and killed all those catholic russians, the vatican has been the enemy of the catholic people, continuously since the dark ages.

originally posted by: undo

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: undo

That is why most atheists are also agnostic. Yet you seem to refuse to believe that that is possible.

i just think it's incorrectly viewed. since theorizing and being absolutely sure, are two different things. if every theory was automatically proof positive, science would be super easy.

It is correct.

Any honest atheist will also claim agnostic. Agnostic is the default position of "I Don't Know" - - - and its actual meaning is: "God can not be proven or dis-proven".

Agnostic Atheist. Atheist has only one meaning: Lack of belief in a god. It does not mean disbelief, or there is no god, or anti-god, etc. It just means Lack of Belief.

I find it interesting that God believers get insulted and defensive if you tell them they don't know if God exists. They believe, but they don't know. Let me tell ya - - you get all kinds of reasons why they KNOW!

They really should be Agnostic Theists.

a reply to: Annee

The way I think of it is that when asked the question, "Does God Exist" the answer is "I don't know" based on the fact that I haven't seen a convincing reason or evidence to support it.

However when asked the same question where a "Yes or No" answer is demanded from me I say "No" simply because I can't say "Yes" for the same reason above.

By saying "No" doesn't mean I have proof of non-existence, it just means "I don't know" wasn't available so "No" becomes the default position.

a reply to: mOjOm

I also take into account the god in question. If someone is asking about some mythological god (Abrahamic god included) then I will say "No". If someone is talking about some hippy-trippy one/whole/source thing then I will say "I don't know".

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Annee

The way I think of it is that when asked the question, "Does God Exist" the answer is "I don't know" based on the fact that I haven't seen a convincing reason or evidence to support it.

However when asked the same question where a "Yes or No" answer is demanded from me I say "No" simply because I can't say "Yes" for the same reason above.

By saying "No" doesn't mean I have proof of non-existence, it just means "I don't know" wasn't available so "No" becomes the default position.

I would refuse to answer Yes or No.

If someone can't accept Lack of Belief, it's their problem, not mine.

a reply to: mOjOm

well i don't think answers that are not provable or disprovable can be answered with yes or no, unless you have personal testimony or absolute proof to the opposite. if i was agnostic and asked such a yes or no question i would say, "sorry, need a third option", otherwise, can't answer it.

The Right Wing Christians don't make it easy not to hate them.

No Room for Gay Republicans at Colorado Conservative Conference
Organizers of the Western Conservative Summit have told Log Cabin Republicans it can't have a booth there because Log Cabin 'exists to redefine the family.'

A Colorado Christian college sponsoring a conservative political gathering has made it clear one type of conservative isn’t welcome, disinviting the state chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans. The sponsors, Colorado Christian University and its think tank, the Centennial Institute, this week told the Colorado Log Cabin Republicans the group can’t have a booth at the Western Conservative Summit, set for June 26-28 in Denver, and returned the $250 fee Log Cabin paid, The Denver Post reports.

www.advocate.com...

a reply to: Annee

These are the "Christians" I can't stand.

This can't happen (violation of church and state), but . . .

A plan to make the Bible the official state book in Tennessee derailed Thursday when the Republican-controlled Senate sent the measure back to a committee, effectively killing it this year.

Here's the really scary part:

Still, the GOP-controlled Tennessee House approved the bill 55-38 on Wednesday.

www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: Annee

egads. christians need to realize the dominionist stuff is actually a psyop being played on them.