Fuck religions!Winnow wrote:I'm sure you easily could. "Fuck religions!"miir wrote:So go through that list Winnow and substitue Muslim with Christian and make your arguments from scripture found inthe Old Testament.
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
Fuck religions!Winnow wrote:I'm sure you easily could. "Fuck religions!"miir wrote:So go through that list Winnow and substitue Muslim with Christian and make your arguments from scripture found inthe Old Testament.
No, I know. I've just thought about it a few times recently for whatever reason and tried to think of a good solution. I find the existence of god to be as laughable as you do, and while I do like to see religion taken down a peg whenever possible - I don't know if I agree with getting rid of all of them as far as federal holidays go. I still like to celebrate Christmas, and I like my two days off for itXatrei wrote:I'm not saying in any way that everyone's religious holidays should be federal holidays. I was just pointing out the inequity of one group, allegedly persecuted, having their two major religious holidays observed by federal mandate while no one else does. Personally, I think that there should be no religious holidays at all (no Christmas, no Easter, etc.). Anyone that wants to celebrate their religious holidays should take time off using their personal time, if available and convenient for their employers, or observe the holiday on a day they'd otherwise have off (weekends for most people).Funkmasterr wrote:I'm gonna keep my comments on most of the conversation to myself, however I did want to mention this part. While it might not be done the best way now, can you imagine if we got every damn religious day of the year off? No one would ever fucking work. Granted, companies could just stay open most of those days, give people all a set number of personal holidays and watch everyone take the same days off... I mean, if I didn't celebrate Christmas I wouldn't want to be one of like 3 people in the office that day.
Bingo!Xatrei wrote:To follow up with my own opinion on the subject of "getting up in arms" about Midnyte's years-old comment, "fuck the muslims," I think there's more to it than just being critical of Islam. Often, the rabid anti-Muslim commentary by a lot of Americans, especially after 9/11 seems to be more of a veiled racist attack on the brown people living in Islamic portions of the country than a critique of the religion itself. Midnyte's posting history, particularly at the time that he made the comment, certainly plays into that perception.
I have no problem with anyone saying "Fuck Islam, Judaisim, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and every other religious fantasy," and I'm perfectly willing to say it myself.
Spang wrote:Bingo!Xatrei wrote:To follow up with my own opinion on the subject of "getting up in arms" about Midnyte's years-old comment, "fuck the muslims," I think there's more to it than just being critical of Islam. Often, the rabid anti-Muslim commentary by a lot of Americans, especially after 9/11 seems to be more of a veiled racist attack on the brown people living in Islamic portions of the country than a critique of the religion itself. Midnyte's posting history, particularly at the time that he made the comment, certainly plays into that perception.
I have no problem with anyone saying "Fuck Islam, Judaisim, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and every other religious fantasy," and I'm perfectly willing to say it myself.
They are about as credible as the National Equirer.Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:just because it is worldnet does not mean it cannot be a factual event
oh wait.....it is a right wing organization so that means it CAN be dismissed
Xatrei wrote:My point being that neither of those things are happening on any significant scale in the real world. A handful of vocal, opinionated people (on both sides of the argument) hashing things out on an internet message board doesn't constitute persecution. Plus, if we're going to use that definition for religious persecution, non-Christians suffer far more "persectuion" at the hands of the majority view than any Christian has genuinely experience since Romans used Christians as decorative lighting.Boogahz wrote:Persecute:
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.
Majority or not, it is still persecution.
Cracked me the fuck up. I can't stop laughing at it. I don't know if I'm worse for laughing at the comment or you for saying it.Xatrei wrote:Plus, if we're going to use that definition for religious persecution, non-Christians suffer far more "persectuion" at the hands of the majority view than any Christian has genuinely experience since Romans used Christians as decorative lighting.
miir wrote:They are about as credible as the National Equirer.Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:just because it is worldnet does not mean it cannot be a factual event
oh wait.....it is a right wing organization so that means it CAN be dismissed![]()
A poll of their readers shows that 61% of 'Americans' don't believe that Obama is eligible to be the president.
Breaking news for them is claiming that pro-obama chain letters submitted to a couple of different newspapers were submitted by Obama himself!
If I didn't know better, I would think that it's a comedy/satire site. It's almost as silly as The Onion.
We're not talking about persecution, real or perceived, *here*. This is a small, internet community with a disproportionate population of non-believers with varying levels of hostility towards religion. The idea that imagined "persecution" in this environment is in any way meaningful is about as nonsensical as persecution for being an soccer fan, Republican, OSU fan, liberal or an Irishman. The topic of discussion, if you'd like to join us, is the notion that Christians are the only segment of the population that is acceptable to "persecute" (again, in the real world). The idea that out in the real world, one can attack Christians with no consequences is laughable. What would happen if, say, Katie Couric did a segment mocking Christians as foolish believers of superstition and myth? CBS would be beset by complaints and protesters. At the least Couric would have to issue a mea culpa, and more likely, she would be fired to appease the offended Christians. How would a national political candidate or appointee fare? Just admitting that he doesn't believe in god would effectively disqualify him, let alone actually attacking the inherent nonsense he might believe that Christianity embodies.Boogahz wrote:Xatrei wrote:My point being that neither of those things are happening on any significant scale in the real world. A handful of vocal, opinionated people (on both sides of the argument) hashing things out on an internet message board doesn't constitute persecution. Plus, if we're going to use that definition for religious persecution, non-Christians suffer far more "persectuion" at the hands of the majority view than any Christian has genuinely experience since Romans used Christians as decorative lighting.Boogahz wrote:Persecute:
1. to pursue with harassing or oppressive treatment, esp. because of religion, race, or beliefs; harass persistently.
2. to annoy or trouble persistently.
Majority or not, it is still persecution.
lol, this is funny...
Count the persecution here against atheists. Then count it against Christians and other religions.
We all know how persecuted you are due to living in the bible belt as an atheist, and nobody here is arguing that. We're talking about this board, in case you missed it.
LONDON — For the past 50 years, scientists have scoured the skies for radio signals from beyond our planet, hoping for some sign of extraterrestrial life. But one physicist says there's no reason alien life couldn't already be lurking among us – or maybe even in us.
Paul Davies, an award-winning Arizona State University physicist known for his popular science writing said Tuesday that life may have developed on Earth not once but several times.
Davies said the variant life forms – most likely tiny microbes – could still be hanging around "right under our noses – or even in our noses."
"How do we know all life on Earth descended from a single origin?" he told a conference at London's prestigious Royal Society, which serves as Britain's academy of sciences. "We've just scratched the surface of the microbial world."
The idea that alien micro-organisms could be hiding out here on Earth has been discussed for a while, according to Jill Tarter, the director of the U.S. SETI project, which listens for signals from civilizations based around distant stars.
She said several of the scientists involved in the project were interested in pursuing the notion, which Davies earlier laid out in a 2007 article published in Scientific American in which he asked: "Are aliens among us?"
Those guys are great, I'd never see that site before. Pure comedy gold.miir wrote:Worldnetdaily is right-wing nutjob central.
Bullshit. Barack Obama himself showed legitimate documentation.Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:No one has EVER been able to show legitimate documentation that Obama was born here.
Or Kilmoll watches too much Glenn Beck.miir wrote:Guys, I think Glenn Beck has hacked Kilmoll's VV account.
And yet you frequent World Net Daily?Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:I cannot listen to ultra right wing idiots any more than I can listen to imbeciles like Olbermann.
Now you're pissing on the picture they're trying to paint of you. Don't be such a poor sportKilmoll the Sexy wrote:nope...but I can type a subject into google and see it linked there. I know....it is all magic like Jesus healing the lepers.
They only see what they want any way. You can pour tar all over the picture they are trying to paint of you and they will still only see said picture.Funkmasterr wrote:Now you're pissing on the picture they're trying to paint of you. Don't be such a poor sportKilmoll the Sexy wrote:nope...but I can type a subject into google and see it linked there. I know....it is all magic like Jesus healing the lepers.
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:They are see what they want any way.
Fixed. TYSpang wrote:Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:They are see what they want any way.
Thanks!Kil wrote:Sueven and Aardor are realistically the furthest lefties that I can count among people I am friendly with and can openly exchange views without wanting to choke the life out of them.
Well, that's why I specifically said "a white guy who's either a Christian or of generally Christian descent" instead of "Christians." I know I write long posts sometimes, but usually the words I use have a purpose. The point here is that even if YOU YOURSELF do not practice Christianity, the fact that you are from a primarily white and European family that was Christian until someone lost faith in recent generations gives you certain cultural privileges. You may not have QUITE AS MANY of those privileges as an actual Christian, depending on where you live and so on, but you certainly belong to a group with a hell of a lot more cultural power than most Muslims in America.Winnow wrote:if anything, this board has more atheists and agnostics than anything.
How can you be half Jewish? I can see your parents being two different denominations but wouldn't it be a conflict of interest to have two faiths? Is that possible?Sueven wrote: Incidentally, despite my being half-Jewish, I also share in the vast majority of those cultural privileges. I'm not trying to make a claim for my own oppression or anything.
You again are full of shit. Lets go down the list you just threw outXatrei wrote:Sorry, I disagree with your point about Kilmoll's status as a moderate. Being able to muster enough pragmatism to support an electable candidate in national elections does not a moderate make. I don't deny that he perceives himself as a moderate; I just disagree that he is.
I stand by my contention that his own posting history reveals that he is no moderate with right-leaning tendencies. I'm not going to take the time to dig into his history right now to compile a list of his greatest hits, but off the top of my head I can think of a shortlist of "moderate" disqualifiers. Things like being a "10th Amendmenter," a birther, climate change denier, opposed to any reasonable restrictions on gun ownership, pro-torture, pro-war, thinking that the death penalty should be expanded, has draconian views on criminal justice, favors aggressive/interventionalist foreign policy.
I agree with your second point, though
If your mother is Jewish, you are automatically Jewish...otherwise you have to convert.Winnow wrote:How can you be half Jewish? I can see your parents being two different denominations but wouldn't it be a conflict of interest to have two faiths? Is that possible?Sueven wrote: Incidentally, despite my being half-Jewish, I also share in the vast majority of those cultural privileges. I'm not trying to make a claim for my own oppression or anything.
Do you support equality? That's in the Constitution, too.Kilmoll the Sexy wrote:10) the part you forgot : I also believe in the legalizing of marijuana and prostitution
Nick wrote:Jesus christ.
With the different factions here, (sylvus etc trying to be moderate people but ultimately being reciprocal asslickers) and the loony right kilmolls, this place is a fucking playground for the insane.
Great viewing though!
I'm someone between loony right and reciprocal asslicker.Nick wrote:Thanks for the input, whoever leonaerd is.
That's not saying much.Fairweather Pure wrote:He's the guy that everyone likes more than Nick.
Um, no. Maybe you're a racist. Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution: "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of president."Jice Virago wrote:The whole birther thing is just a great way to be a closet racist, anyhow. "He's Kenyan!" is tribalist nervous whitey for "He's a negro!"
Again, it has nothing to do with race.the founding fathers of the United States wrote the prohibitive language fearing that a foreign monarchy might try to return the new country to the crown