It's one thing to be an atheist; it's another to constantly flaunt your atheism at any given opportunity. Over and over again, I hear the same arguments on both sides, but it seems like the atheists seem to be the ones that want to tear down the foundation of Christianity (not religion as a whole; just Christianity, the most harmless mainstream religion in today's world) for... what gain exactly? I sincerely doubt it's based on good intentions, but rather the idea that an atheist is a well educated, independent individual. Most of the terror inflicted by Christianity dates hundreds of years back, and are still the basis for just about every argument on why "religion is bad." If everyone suddenly stopped believing in God, it would not change what happened all those years back. Yes, people still do terrible things in the name of good, but atheists are quick to ignore the good it does (reinforces good behavior, makes one's life feel it has meaning, creates a community). Such tragedies as the lady drowning her children because "God told her to" has more to do with the fact that she's insane rather than Christianity. Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress. This crusade for equal rights seems to be more of an attempt to feel relevant rather than actually helping homosexuals attain equal rights. Atheists seem to think that all Christians are against gay marriage, when, in fact, this is not the case. Some peoples' religion doesn't influence harmful actions in any way, only good, but they atheists still feel the need to attack the whole of the religion. And even then, the ones that are against it don't necessarily go on about it or even disapprove someone mentions they're gay They don't care as much as atheists seem to think. Yes, we all know religion has made many people do terrible things (although atheists still never seem to stop talking about it), but what about particular individuals have only done good due because their religion? What about the people that aren't against gay marriage or stem cell research? What about the people that take great comfort in reading God's word? Or the people who feel inspired to help those in need when the priest in church reminds them that that was God's purpose (cooperation)? So what is it? Is it really because you want to eliminate some "evil" from the world, or are just looking to exert your superiority/supposed sense of intelligence/need to argue? I don't mean to be inflammatory, but GENERALLY, atheists are perceived as very pretentious, much like how Omegle users are GENERALLY perceived as pathetic perverts.
Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. Makalano
In the united states, at least 40 states deny the right for homosexuals to marry.
[QUOTE="Makalano"] Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. DroidPhysX
In the united states, at least 40 states deny the right for homosexuals to marry.
Youre reasoning and logic is severely flawed.
And in Malawi, farting in public is a crime. America's laws=/=The rest of the world's laws.
[QUOTE="Makalano"] Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. Makalano
In the united states, at least 40 states deny the right for homosexuals to marry.
Youre reasoning and logic is severely flawed.
And in Malawi, farting in public is a crime. America's laws=/=The rest of the world's laws. Deflecting the original point with an irrelevant post.
Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. - - I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world), but I'm rational.-
It's one thing to be an atheist; it's another to constantly flaunt your atheism at any given opportunity. Over and over again, I hear the same arguments on both sides, but it seems like the atheists seem to be the ones that want to tear down the foundation of Christianity (not religion as a whole; just Christianity, the most harmless mainstream religion in today's world) for... what gain exactly? I sincerely doubt it's based on good intentions, but rather the idea that an atheist is a well educated, independent individual. Most of the terror inflicted by Christianity dates hundreds of years back, and are still the basis for just about every argument on why "religion is bad." If everyone suddenly stopped believing in God, it would not change what happened all those years back. Yes, people still do terrible things in the name of good, but atheists are quick to ignore the good it does (reinforces good behavior, makes one's life feel it has meaning, creates a community). Such tragedies as the lady drowning her children because "God told her to" has more to do with the fact that she's insane rather than Christianity. Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress. This crusade for equal rights seems to be more of an attempt to feel relevant rather than actually helping homosexuals attain equal rights. Atheists seem to think that all Christians are against gay marriage, when, in fact, this is not the case. Some peoples' religion doesn't influence harmful actions in any way, only good, but they atheists still feel the need to attack the whole of the religion. And even then, the ones that are against it don't necessarily go on about it or even disapprove someone mentions they're gay They don't care as much as atheists seem to think. Yes, we all know religion has made many people do terrible things (although atheists still never seem to stop talking about it), but what about particular individuals have only done good due because their religion? What about the people that aren't against gay marriage or stem cell research? What about the people that take great comfort in reading God's word? Or the people who feel inspired to help those in need when the priest in church reminds them that that was God's purpose (cooperation)? So what is it? Is it really because you want to eliminate some "evil" from the world, or are just looking to exert your superiority/supposed sense of intelligence/need to argue? I don't mean to be inflammatory, but GENERALLY, atheists are perceived as very pretentious, much like how Omegle users are GENERALLY perceived as pathetic perverts.Makalano
Totally true, its almost as annoying as the Christians that are overly obnoxious all over the internet. If there wasn't a "GOD EXISTES HERES WHY" thread on here every damn day the athiests would probably be quieter.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Makalano"] No, there are ridiculous laws all over the world. You pointed out one of them in one country.Makalano
And you deflected the point. Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world), but I'm rational. Now we have a thread. All we need now are Snipes_2 and xxHopelessxx.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Makalano"] No, there are ridiculous laws all over the world. You pointed out one of them in one country.Makalano
And you deflected the point. Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world), but I'm rational. >Assuming I think America is entire world >Thinks I'm an atheist 0 for 2 so far.
Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress.TC
This is a silly, intellectually dishonest point.
For somebody's right to marriage to be meaningful, they need to be able to marry who they wantas long as the other person is a consenting adult.
[QUOTE="Makalano"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] And you deflected the point.DroidPhysX
Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world), but I'm rational. >Assuming I think America is entire world >Thinks I'm an atheist 0 for 2 so far. There is no point in arguing with a pseudo-intellectual who intentionally makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist it around to his or her liking when it suits him or her.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Makalano"] No, there are ridiculous laws all over the world. You pointed out one of them in one country.Makalano
And you deflected the point. Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world), but I'm rational. I think the point was that it's because of religion that gay marriage isn't allowed in America. It has nothing to do with that fact that it's America (it could be anywhere), it's that religion is the cause for it. I think that was rather obvious, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong DroidPhysX.
[quote="TC"]Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress.GreySeal9
This is a silly, intellectually dishonest point.
For somebody's right to marriage to be meaningful, they need to be able to marry who they wantas long as the other person is a consenting adult.
Let's not be ridiculous.
"Who says they have to be adults? If everyone has the right to marry, who says that children can't?"
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][quote="TC"]Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress.realguitarhero5
This is a silly, intellectually dishonest point.
For somebody's right to marriage to be meaningful, they need to be able to marry who they wantas long as the other person is a consenting adult.
Let's not be ridiculous.
"Who says they have to be adults? If everyone has the right to marry, who says that children can't?"
When will it stop?
Children can't consent, so your slippery slope argument is nonsense.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][quote="TC"]Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress.realguitarhero5
This is a silly, intellectually dishonest point.
For somebody's right to marriage to be meaningful, they need to be able to marry who they wantas long as the other person is a consenting adult.
Let's not be ridiculous.
"Who says they have to be adults? If everyone has the right to marry, who says that children can't?"
When will it stop?
The reasoning for that is because they are still developing and their views and actions will vastly change until they get to around 18. That's not to say that after 18 they don't change their views and attitudes, but at the ages before that, things change drastically.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][quote="TC"]Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress.GreySeal9
This is a silly, intellectually dishonest point.
For somebody's right to marriage to be meaningful, they need to be able to marry who they wantas long as the other person is a consenting adult.
Let's not be ridiculous.
"Who says they have to be adults? If everyone has the right to marry, who says that children can't?"
When will it stop?
Children can't consent, so your slippery slope argument is nonsense.
"Who says children can't consent?"
I have a feeling this is where logic will go when there is no standard to adhere to.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Makalano"] Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world), but I'm rational.Makalano
>Assuming I think America is entire world >Thinks I'm an atheist 0 for 2 so far. There is no point in arguing with a pseudo-intellectual who intentionally makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist it around to his or her liking when it suits him or her. >Thinks im a pseudo-intellectual who makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist around his or her liking when it suits him or her Thus hits a trifecta: 0 for 3.
[QUOTE="Makalano"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] No, there are ridiculous laws all over the world. You pointed out one of them in one country.xLFTMx
And you deflected the point. Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world)
Feel free to elaborate. I'm sure you knowledge of Islam is completely unbiased and comes from great sources other than fox news and your preacher.
Actually, it comes from Richard Dawkins and an Atheist Media Blog on YouTube. Why do people always bring up Fox News? Yeah, we get it... they're stupid and biased. Not every conservative and/or religious person likes them.
[QUOTE="Makalano"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"] >Assuming I think America is entire world >Thinks I'm an atheist 0 for 2 so far.DroidPhysX
There is no point in arguing with a pseudo-intellectual who intentionally makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist it around to his or her liking when it suits him or her. >Thinks im a pseudo-intellectual who makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist around his or her liking when it suits him or her Thus hits a trifecta: 0 for 3.
IF you actually want to get your point accros I recommend not acting like a d-bag, not that I agree or disagree :p
[QUOTE="Makalano"] And you deflected the point.Makalano
Then it's your fault for not making your "point" clear. I'm sorry I don't view America as the entire world like you apparently do (and like the rest of atheists who seem to ignore the destructive nature of the Islamic world)
Feel free to elaborate. I'm sure you knowledge of Islam is completely unbiased and comes from great sources other than fox news and your preacher.
Actually, it comes from Richard Dawkins and an Atheist Media Blog on YouTube. Why do people always bring up Fox News? Yeah, we get it... they're stupid and biased. Not every conservative and/or religious person likes them.
Islam is not a violent religion, anymore than Christianity is. The middle east and prominent Islamic countries have completely unstructured governments and law systems. To draw the conclussion that Islam is destructive is ridiculous.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Makalano"] There is no point in arguing with a pseudo-intellectual who intentionally makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist it around to his or her liking when it suits him or her.Kaisos
>Thinks im a pseudo-intellectual who makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist around his or her liking when it suits him or her Thus hits a trifecta: 0 for 3.
IF you actually want to get your point accros I recommend not acting like a d-bag, not that I agree or disagree :p
You should see me when people actually take up the argument.
[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"][QUOTE="Makalano"] There is no point in arguing with a pseudo-intellectual who intentionally makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist it around to his or her liking when it suits him or her.Kaisos
>Thinks im a pseudo-intellectual who makes his or her posts vague so he or she can twist around his or her liking when it suits him or her Thus hits a trifecta: 0 for 3.
IF you actually want to get your point accros I recommend not acting like a d-bag, not that I agree or disagree :p
I don't think his point will get across based on the responses from the TC. Also, he's not being a d-bag, he's saying that TC is making baseless claims.
When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?
I'm no atheist, but I have some ideas. If I had to guess, it would be a number of things, all of which involve tearing down something they view as an inadequate establishment in order to build something new in its place. Although, it's hard to call it an "honest" thirst for knowledge, as some might put it, when you use slander as a means to an end.
When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?
realguitarhero5
And why should the standard be based on a religion or religions that not everyone they affect follow? The standard is morality and decency.
IF you actually want to get your point accros I recommend not acting like a d-bag, not that I agree or disagree :p
Kaisos
I don't think his point will get across based on the responses from the TC. Also, he's not being a d-bag, he's saying that TC is making baseless claims.
An Atheist believes by default that religion teaches lies, Superstition and Mythology as truth. Regardless of whether Religion is a force for good in the world it doesn't change the fact that Atheists view it as false. How can anyone expect an Atheist to be supportive of the indoctrination of others with such things?
Also, I think people exaggerate how Atheists act on the Internet. I rarely encounter anyone claiming to be an Atheist outside of relevant forums or websites. I've personally never brought it up unless it was of some relevance.
When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?
realguitarhero5
There is a standard to adhere to: whether marriages will be harmful.
There are plenty of reasons to believe that allowing children to marry would be harmful. There are no credible reason to believe the same of gay marriages.
When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?
xLFTMx
And why should the standard be based on a religion or religions that not everyone they affect follow? The standard is morality and decency.
Why should it be based off nothing in the name of "progress"?
When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?
And why should the standard be based on a religion or religions that not everyone they affect follow? The standard is morality and decency.
When there is no standard to adhere to, who can say that my argument (that was in quotes) was wrong? How can anyone dispute that when there is no evidence to back any point of view?
realguitarhero5
And why should the standard be based on a religion or religions that not everyone they affect follow? The standard is morality and decency.
Why should it be based off nothing in the name of "progress"?
No one made that claim. Clearly anything besides religion doesnt exist. It could be based in law and ethics. In protecting the minority of people who love someone of the same sex from ignorant people who see them as less. Which they clealy do, because they don't want them to have the same rights as they do.
[QUOTE="GreySeal9"][quote="TC"]Another argument constantly brought up is the "equal rights for homosexuals." Let's keep in mind that homosexuals are not denied any basic rights. In fact, they have just as many rights as straight people. They can marry people of the opposite sex; they just don't want to. Likewise, straight people can't marry people of their own sex; they just don't want to. But I disgress.realguitarhero5
This is a silly, intellectually dishonest point.
For somebody's right to marriage to be meaningful, they need to be able to marry who they wantas long as the other person is a consenting adult.
Let's not be ridiculous.
"Who says they have to be adults? If everyone has the right to marry, who says that children can't?"
When will it stop?
Slippery slope fallacy. And judging by the sig, gay marriage is an ideolgical no no. That is actually where the root of your arguement lies.
[QUOTE="gamertylers"] I don't think his point will get across based on the responses from the TC. Also, he's not being a d-bag, he's saying that TC is making baseless claims.gamertylers
Log in to comment