Atheists who attack Christianity

Pithy is a funny word. By itself it has almost no definition, if you look it up in a dictionary. The most common definition is something like "a forceful and brief comment" (Varies by dictionary, obviously). I'll accept Sardonic as being a possible interperation of pithy, because I often see pithy used to mean just that, but I wont argue the point - fine, I was sardonic. Either way, my point stands, since I chose the word pithy long after my comment was made: My phrase was deliberatly chose, not out of ignorance.



But you would agree, I would think, that some laws are nessasary for a healthy functioning of society, right? I think its unrealistic to ask people to completely seperate themself from what, by your own admission, makes up a core of their belief system. To most christians, abortion and murder are /exactly the same thing/, and no, to them, it is not something that can be explained away by semantics. But would you say a law against murder is unfairly imposing someones morality on another?



Your looking at the extreme elements, though, just like Kevn is looking at the extremist athiest elements.

I have an accordian, but I'm not an athiest. Where does that leave me?

Only if you spell my name right

I found this one (well, nevermind where I found it) and just had to share - the most twisted around churchsign I've seen yet.

Mmm, a multi-orgasmic Latino ...

....

I am a lawyer, .......



...... Stil, I do feel we are under a christian assault in this nation.

I think people would rather rid the World of lawyers than rid it of Christians

I think people would rather rid the World of lawyers than rid it of Christians

That's why I don't waste my time bashing other belief systems.

Discuss....

Dood, I havn't read most of the posts (can't stand the topic) but you seem to be doing everything you can to attack alternate belief systems. Give it a rest! And I do wish religion bashers would do the same... they same pretty hateful at times too. Simply not reading and not clicking the stupid threads is nice, but it's a little over the top when every other thread is about a topic that by definition can't be proved one way or another.

Speaking as a religion basher myself, I'd like to say in at least my own defense that I don't so much hate the religious themselves (at all, in fact) as their religions, much as I don't hate followers of Nazi philosophy or members of the KKK personally so much as I hate the dangerous and wholly unreasonable ideas they believe.

Of course, I still stand in defense of their right to those beliefs, just as I hope to retain my own right to identify said beliefs as dangerous, irrational and terrible, which they are.

But hatred (of people themselves)? That's a terrible misuse of energy. If there's any hope for human beings, it will be found in love and mutual understanding, not hate.

I don't hate gay people, I just hate homosexuality.

Of course, I defend people's right to be gay, just as I hope to retain my own right ot identify such practices as sick, twisted, and amoral, wich they are.

I don't hate gay people, I just hate homosexuality.

Finally. It's about time I got accused of intolerance.

Anyway, your analogy is, of course, hopelessly flawed,

and your logic could easily be used to defend absolutely any collection of ideas, including in fact Nazi philosophy or the beliefs of the KKK.

You can read back to see my reasoning (I explained a little earlier in this very thread), or I suppose I can explain it all again, if you prefer.

I am offended and have ARed this post.

Just kidding!

~Ulrika~

Finally. It's about time I got accused of intolerance.

I said nothing about tollerance. Any extrapolation of intollerance out of that statement was your doing, not mine.

Only as flawed as that which spawned it.

My logic could do nothing of the sort, actually. I'm honest about my feelings: I hate nazis, klansmen, etc. I don't tollerate them. I don't respect them, I don't respect their opinions, and I will have nothing to do with them. I very much have a problem with them, and don't try to claim that I only dislike their opinions.p

Read and filed away. Believe it or not, I can reject your arguement even after having read and understood it.

Comparing religion to homosexuality is just silly. The former is purely a learned set of ideas and behaviors, the latter is not. It's not a choice.

Wrong. Your logic amounts to "no idea or collection of ideas or beliefs can ever be challenged, or it's a kind of intolerance exactly like being intolerant of a group of people for something they can't help, such as homosexual people for being homosexual."

Comparing a collection of unjustified beliefs to biologically determined sexual orientation is an extremely poor analogy. (Of course, you can challenge the idea that it is biologically determined after all, but then you face the reality that the preponderance of present scientific data stands opposed to you).

Yet you (seem to) hold that ideas are sacred and above reproach if only their origin is religious.

I do not choose what I believe. I never have.

Bollocks. I'll be right over to try and sell you a bridge in Brooklyn and some oceanfront property in Kansas. Oh, and I have ten million bucks in a Nigerian bank that you may be able to help me transfer to the states.

Here's a fun little test: Believe that the moon is made of hamburger.

Go on. Believe it.

That might have been possible before I learned, observed, and reasoned otherwise.