Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
we don't "mock"
we "criticize"
we "challenge"
Yes you do, on all three counts and I am trying to explain that so you might understand better. I mean this is academic Dale Carnegie stuff here
Mad. How you insult while you call it challenging, I call it arguing and if ones comparing an Easter bunny to god isn't mocking then I suggest you
explain why then use such a comparison? When AncientVoid adds not one not two BUT FOUR lauging emoticons in a row arfter he uses an analogy to convey
something incredulous, do you not think I take that as him lauging AT me and not with me? That I wouldn't see it as arrogant or condescending? This
is the same kind of thing your own celebrated Atheist Author Sam Harris is trying to get you guys to understand.
Saying they are improvable doesn't cut it. I can prove the Easter bunny exists in the context of its traditional invention to the costume one wears
at Easter. I will not see what that has to do with the other. I suggest you can't see God for the same reason you are having trouble seeing other
distinctions in your post ,, you just refuse to.
That's your choice but with it comes the consequences that you would rather see as some conspiracy rather then reality that you get back what you put
out and generally you get it back ten fold.
it's ok to think that women must be absolutely submissive to their husbands
as each other, I don't see how that is a problem unless you think she is doing it against her will? If that is the case then I would tell you
you're adding a new context that this statement is not trying to address. This is NOT implying COMLIANCE under the threat of subversion or coersion
by force or misogynistic discrimination. If interpreting it that way helps you rationalize you world view about the bible and Christianity then I
would expect this is why you are saying many other antagonistic views which are not accurate.
again, the myth of atheist arrogance.
Are you saying atheists are not arrogant? Or are you saying the stereotype is not true? I would suggest to you that it is or I guess i'd be saying OK
OK Jews are always willing to pick up the tab ok ok Japanese don't all walk around with cameras on theor chests OK OK Blacks aren't better boxers
then whites. The fact is Mad,, there is often a reason stereotypes get cast but to deny this is in and of itself a form of arrogance so you are
incorrect.
there was nothing wrong with the post you quoted. it was a reasoned, logical statement that is only offensive to those that find it offensive
to have their views challenged.
there is a big difference between challenging someones views and critisizing them as stupid. It's a matter of diplomacy in conflict resolution.
It's a matter of making your point while they are willing to listen. I don't think I have to explain how you lose your audience the moment you
insult them do I?
you can adopt a child with that view
it's alright to think that medicine is evil and that the only proper cure is prayer you can adopt a child with that life-threatening view
but if you think it's abusive for those two people to impose those dangerous views on impressionable children, it's bad...
(shaking head like a cartoon) what! there you go again Mad, making sweeping generizations about religious people that simply just are NOT true. I am
sure there are some religions that believe medicine is evil but I can tell you the hospitals are filled with catholics, Baptists, lutherans and many
other people with religious convictions and YOU KNOW THIS but you insist on seeing them through this convoluted perception of reality and we are a
reflection of your attitude towards us.
we "point out the logical inconsistencies"
Well allow me then to point out one of your own
see below:
we don't call people who have religious beliefs stupid.
we just believe that the religious beliefs are stupid, not the people who follow them.
You can not call religious beliefs stupid without calling the religious BELIEVER stupid also. Do you not see that?
Ill explain again,
I can call religion stupid and religion won't be offended but when I call the person who believes in religion stupid by adding the very word belief
in religion is where you make it personal and where the believer takes it personal. It is the same with drugs and drug use only in this case no one
will argue the negative but for illustration purposes I can say for instance, drugs are stupid and drugs won't be ashamed or feel stupid but when I
say "drug use" is stupid, it is the USER you are talking about in drug use no less then the BELIEVER you are talking about regarding religion and
belief.
Drug use is to the USER what religious belief is to the believer. No matter which one you are talking about, saying they are stupid, shames the drug
user and insults the religious believer.
You can assume one doesn't convict and the other doesn't insult all you like but you are ultimatley the sum total of the choices you make no matter
how you think others should feel about yout treatment of them.
It is best to understand human nature the way it tells us rather then how we think it should act. When I say that something offended Vall or myself
the first thing you do is argue with me why it shoudn't rather then LISTEN you impose these same Athesist protocols. That invalidates my feelings
tells me you either think I am either a liar or I don't have a right to be upset. THEN, you expect me to sympathize with your cause and consider it
is all a conspiracy.
I CAN NOT.
I will not because it isn't a conspiracy, it is a bad attitiude that in many cases you manifested by the way you are treated by others and you got to
ask yourself NOT what is wrong with THEM
but what is wrong with you,, what is it YOU are doing wrong in most cases is what you refuse to examine. Look Mad,, it's this simple,,
All I am saying is if you want a friend,,
BE ONE.
Make sense?
we are persecuted. MM just got banned for no reason.
Mad, everyone thinks they were banned for no reason. I am sure the MOD had a reason but again it is this attitude about such things that you
willfully wish to believe is a conspiracy that "they" (who ever they are I am assuming it is "Christians" again) are out to oppress atheists. I
would wager however, that it had more to do with the vitriol in the manner of her post then it did some prejudice.
In regard to the last part of your post, I have to agree that was wrong for the McDonald's Manager to fire you. I would mention however that as much
as you would like to say you DON'T believe in God that you are atheist, I think it would have been wiser to just tell people you don't have a
church or don't go to one and not risk losing your job. No one knows you are an atheist but when someone asks you questions like that guy was,, it
might suggest to you that he was religious and exclaiming your atheism was a risk didn't have to take.
That doesn't make it right he fired you but I think handling it the way I suggest sure would have been something you could both live with.
The Government may have laws for things like that but bottom line is you can't legislate peoples opinions. The only thing you can so is sue them for
them and that is your choice and I would say you have a case.
Here is where you would lose that case however,,
when I said
"Trust me,, when it comes to why Atheist have so many problems ,,Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with it. "
YOU SAID:
we don't have any
Clever but you missed the point so Ill use your cleverness in the same way and perhaps you might get it then
by your own logic then your discrimination case for firing you based on your religious beliefs How can he fire you on religious beliefs you don't
have?
See how that comes off like a smart ass ? Well that's the same as using that defense when it suits you but be careful,, it can be used against you
in that same way.
Just my opinion.
- Con
[edit on 14-1-2008 by Conspiriology]