Annoying Things

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Concordia & Excelsis: Eh, how exactly does it hurt to go to a different restaurant, anyway? I could understand complaining if a vegetarian required everybody to go to a vegetarian-only restaurant, but this seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise - go to a restaurant where both meat and vegetarian dishes are offered. Everybody's happy - that's what's called a compromise.
And ranting about vegetarians being wrong and that they should just learn to eat meat is pretty pointless. For one thing, there are many types of vegetarians, and for many of them, their diet has nothing to do with their morals. Besides, such rants make your complaints about people trying to force their views on you pretty hypocritical.

Actually, they said freedom of religion. They didn't say freedom of atheism actually. It was later added that you did not have to believe in God.

Freedom of religion and freedom of atheism means the same thing, really. And what is clear is that, regardless of what the first presidents believed in, they wanted to ensure that nobody would be able to force their beliefs on others. Hence the afore-mentioned separation of the church and the state.

You will note, that not having "In God we trust" printed on money does not in any way affect religious people. It does not offend them. The atheists are not demanding "In God we don't trust because he doesn't exist". What exactly is so horrible about making sure that everybody's satisfied, rather than just the majority? Heck, if the majority is not willing to make such small and painless concessions to the minority, then clearly it's not a very tolerant majority.

 

[Excelsis]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Quarto
Concordia & Excelsis: Eh, how exactly does it hurt to go to a different restaurant, anyway? I could understand complaining if a vegetarian required everybody to go to a vegetarian-only restaurant, but this seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise - go to a restaurant where both meat and vegetarian dishes are offered. Everybody's happy - that's what's called a compromise.
And ranting about vegetarians being wrong and that they should just learn to eat meat is pretty pointless. For one thing, there are many types of vegetarians, and for many of them, their diet has nothing to do with their morals. Besides, such rants make your complaints about people trying to force their views on you pretty hypocritical.

My original point is that EVERYONE was forced to change restraunts for one individual. We have a group of 60 or more for these meetings at times. It's a trifle difficult to change restraunts on a WHIM! She should have gone somewhere else, or brought her own or something. Let her be as whacked out as she wants to be, but she cost the rest of us 2 HOURS of time while we tried to get a new reservation. Eventually we all ended up splitting up into these little groups of 5 or so and the large lunch that we had planned for networking was ruined. That's the minority affecting the majority in an adverse way in my opinion. Of course if we had suggested SHE go somewhere else, she probably would have sued us, in our "oh so tolerant" society. So the group is made to suffer for one individual's stupid quirk. Thankfully, she no longer works for our company and I for one don't miss her at all.

 

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Well, that says a lot more about poor organisation in your company than about anything else, Excelsis. If your boss didn't think of asking people about special dietary requirements beforehand, it's not the vegetarian that cost you time, it's your boss. When organising such events, it's common courtesy to check if the venue is acceptable to everyone. If you had five or six people with different dietary requirements, that lunch would have probably turned into a much bigger disaster. So, don't complain about her, complain about your boss.

Look at it this way, too - if she was disabled, used a wheelchair, and your lunch was at a second-floor restaurant without an elevator, you'd probably be more inclined to be sympathetic towards her, and you'd think that whoever organised the lunch was an idiot. The vegetarian situation is no different.

 

[Excelsis]

That's true too. I am now part of management, and when I plan meetings I make sure that my secrtary asks about Alergies, strict Veggies, Kosher Jews, or any other strange or whacked out dietary needs. I also get feedback on food type preference and usually have menu's prepared in advance. I will NOT go through that huge hassle again.

A 2nd floor restraunt without an elevator is illegal under the Person's with Disabilities Act.

 

[Concordia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Skyfire
Alright, see, I leave for a month or so, and everyone gets all into ruckus!

Not a ruckus, I'm simply complaining about things. I'm not saying it loud. In fact if I was to be saying it I would be saying it in a normal talking voice.

BTW-When you all read this, remember, as I've went round and round with people here about, I'm a Liberatarian-not a Republican. (Nor am I really a Bush supporter, I just happen to be more keen on listening/knowing things that the government is doing that could take away from what my party is after.)

It's a good idea to keep tabs on what the government is doing.

How can you treat that as an "atheist on the warpath" (not your words, just summarizing.) That is EXACTLY what anyone else in any different situation would do. It's called being ambitious. Which is exactly what the US is about. Should he fail, I doubt he'll stop, he'll just chose another path. Don't act as if he's a loner in this.

Exactly, so how do you *stop* his ambition? His ambitions are contradictory to the good of the rest of the country with the exception of 7%!

But...that's basically the same thing. The majority should win because they are the majority. While that principle is sound in things like elections, some things aren't going to work with that. Prohibition was decided upon by Congress (which is supposed to, although fails usually-but for the sake of argument, express the people's will.) As was the internment of Japanese Americans during the second World War. So was the suspension of the writ of Habius Corpus during the Civil War. That doesn't mean that it was right. (While you might be able to argue that it was "necessary" in some instances, where things like this come up, I guarantee that I can argue the opposite.)

I said, majority rules unless it's harmful.

Now don't get me wrong, I agree the majority should hold a good sway-they are the majority, I'm just saying you need to watch how liberal you are with saying that they should just get their way unless things are "unreasonable"-that word is subjective.

Unreasonable: Unconstitutional, Immoral, Irrational

Oh yeah, as for the Patriot Act-don't blame Bush on that one (Even if he advocated for it) Congress passed it. (Not that you did, but in case you decide to comment on it.)

Bush is partially responsible. If he never pushed it, it never would have arose. The fact that Congress passed it also makes them accountable. In other words, I blame both.

-Concordia

 

[Concordia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Quarto
Concordia & Excelsis: Eh, how exactly does it hurt to go to a different restaurant, anyway? I could understand complaining if a vegetarian required everybody to go to a vegetarian-only restaurant, but this seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise - go to a restaurant where both meat and vegetarian dishes are offered. Everybody's happy - that's what's called a compromise.

No, in the end only the minority is happy, and everyone else is irritated they had to go somewhere else, even though they wanted to because one person made a huge fuss.

And ranting about vegetarians being wrong and that they should just learn to eat meat is pretty pointless. For one thing, there are many types of vegetarians, and for many of them, their diet has nothing to do with their morals. Besides, such rants make your complaints about people trying to force their views on you pretty hypocritical.

Unless they are physically incapable of metabolizing meat, they should be fine. Humans are omnivores.

Freedom of religion and freedom of atheism means the same thing, really. And what is clear is that, regardless of what the first presidents believed in, they wanted to ensure that nobody would be able to force their beliefs on others. Hence the afore-mentioned separation of the church and the state.

Yes, but atheists are abusing it to force religion out of the public sphere in an attempt to make atheism the only acceptable option.

You will note, that not having "In God we trust" printed on money does not in any way affect religious people. It does not offend them. The atheists are not demanding "In God we don't trust because he doesn't exist". What exactly is so horrible about making sure that everybody's satisfied, rather than just the majority? Heck, if the majority is not willing to make such small and painless concessions to the minority, then clearly it's not a very tolerant majority.

No, it does. Because we've had "In God We Trust" on money probably since the US first formed. The fact that we'd have to remove it is like saying that 93 percent of the population has to cater to 7 percent of the population because they're not happy. There is no compromise here, it's either my way or yours. I think in such a situation, majority should win. If they don't like it, they are free to leave. This is particularly because some of the atheists I encounter (the ones on the net) are mostly arrogant. There are some who aren't, but why should we give in to such obnoxious jerks, who don't even bother to restrain their utter contempt for the beliefs of others.

-Concordia

 

[TopGun]

To any people form the UK, Channel 4 Annoy me (their treatment of Sci-Fi shows, like Enterprise, SG-1 and Angel). Is it the same for you?

 

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Concordia
No, in the end only the minority is happy, and everyone else is irritated they had to go somewhere else, even though they wanted to because one person made a huge fuss.

If you were that person, you'd look at it differently.

Unless they are physically incapable of metabolizing meat, they should be fine. Humans are omnivores.

Well, unless you are physically incapable of living, you should be fine without believing in the afterlife. So what's the big deal with religion?
No, I'm not serious - I'm just continuing your line of logic so you can imagine how you'd feel if such intolerance affected you.

Yes, but atheists are abusing it to force religion out of the public sphere in an attempt to make atheism the only acceptable option.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that bit about them wanting to ban churches. Wait, there was no such bit - you're making a big deal of something that's not actually happening. Again, I highlight the fact that they're not demanding "In God we don't trust because he doesn't exist".

No, it does. Because we've had "In God We Trust" on money probably since the US first formed.

I don't know American history that well, but I do believe that originally, what was written is that this bill can be exchanged for gold. No God mention - but like I said, I might be wrong.

The fact that we'd have to remove it is like saying that 93 percent of the population has to cater to 7 percent of the population because they're not happy. There is no compromise here, it's either my way or yours. I think in such a situation, majority should win. If they don't like it, they are free to leave. This is particularly because some of the atheists I encounter (the ones on the net) are mostly arrogant. There are some who aren't, but why should we give in to such obnoxious jerks, who don't even bother to restrain their utter contempt for the beliefs of others.

Wait, you're talking about people being arrogant and obnoxious? What about your view that people's opinion doesn't matter unless it's a majority view? What about your utter contempt for their beliefs? Since when does being a part of the majority give you the right to look down on the minority as being inferior and/or irrelevant? Doesn't that qualify as obnoxious and arrogant?

And incidentally, it's not 7%, it's 10%. That's one in ten people - which is a hell of a lot. Roughly 27,800,000 people.

I said, majority rules unless it's harmful.

Harmful to whom? Your definition seems to include only things that are harmful to the majority. Why is it acceptable to harm the minority? America tends to be fairly vocal about the abuse of minority rights in other countries...

 

[Concordia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Quarto
If you were that person, you'd look at it differently.

If the Queen had balls, she'd be King.

Well, unless you are physically incapable of living, you should be fine without believing in the afterlife. So what's the big deal with religion?
No, I'm not serious - I'm just continuing your line of logic so you can imagine how you'd feel if such intolerance affected you.

What does a belief in an afterlife have ANYTHING to do with this? There are actually some atheists who believe in the paranormal, not a large number, but there are some Deists even who don't believe in an Afterlife. Einstein actually believed in a God, but did not believe in an afterlife. (He believed that god was impersonal = he didn't take an active role in the lives of people, and he didn't believe in life after death).

You're line of logic is flawed. You're saying that since I'm physically capable of living, I should be able to believe there's no God. Right there-- you're wrong; atheists are a minority, so that's like saying I could cater to the minority. My argument was saying that minorities should bend in weigh of the majority. You got it backwards

As for intolerance, I have nothing against people who don't believe in God, I have an objection to people who don't believe in God who are aggressively ramming their beliefs on others, and or forcing others to keep their beliefs hidden, yet of course, they never hide theirs (hypocritical huh - I'm allowed to voice my beliefs, but you are supposed to keep yours out of the public sphere.)

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice that bit about them wanting to ban churches. Wait, there was no such bit - you're making a big deal of something that's not actually happening. Again, I highlight the fact that they're not demanding "In God we don't trust because he doesn't exist".

They never said they wanted to ban churches. It was more of a figure of speach. My point was if people give into them, they are going to keep pushing until they end up totally eradicating religion, deism, and more importantly, force atheism on others (moreover, make it the only "safe" option).

I don't know American history that well, but I do believe that originally, what was written is that this bill can be exchanged for gold. No God mention - but like I said, I might be wrong.

In God We Trust has been on dollar bills for a LONG time. It doesn't harm anybody by having it put there. It only offends atheists, but they're only 10 percent of the population. The democratic way is that democracy rules.

Wait, you're talking about people being arrogant and obnoxious? What about your view that people's opinion doesn't matter unless it's a majority view? What about your utter contempt for their beliefs? Since when does being a part of the majority give you the right to look down on the minority as being inferior and/or irrelevant? Doesn't that qualify as obnoxious and arrogant?

Have you ever encountered atheists in chatrooms? They are aggressive, obnoxious, and abusive. I know this because I used to shuttle across the two atheist-chatrooms in addition to the few otheres. They banned people who disagreed with them (that's persecution), attacked their character, morality, and even sanity because they believed in God, or a religion of some sort, these same atheists, also ran into the Christian rooms and often yelled out "THERE IS NO F*CKING GOD!!!" Then proceeded to launch into a harrangue about how they're stupid, silly, ignorant, weak-minded, dumb, delusional (weak-minded and delusional are key words amongst atheists). Of course the moderator of that forum usually ejects them, then they retreat back to the Atheist forum claiming they're being persecuted!

This is what a large number of atheists are like. Granted some are reasonable and such, but the ones in the chatrooms show me something. Even if a small number of atheists in real life are aggressive, a large number in chat-rooms are. This suggests that

1.) Only the aggressive ones go online-- unlikely: Atheists worship science and computers. They are usually more educated then average people, not less. They're probably online in large numbers.

2.) They only don't act aggressive in public because they'd be squished like a bug: This one I believe to be the case. Online 80 percent of the atheists I encounter are aggressive, and 20 are not. In real life, I encounter far less that are aggressive. It's more like 80 non-aggressive and 20 that are. So that would yield 20 that are both aggressive in real life and online, and out of the 80 percent of the non-aggressive ones, 60 of those 80 are aggressive online.

The point of stating this is that

a.) people are braver online than in real life because they're not going to get physically confronted, yelled at, or get in trouble.

Using this I believe that

- If atheists got into power about 80 percent of them would be aggressive, not a small number because they no longer have to fear being criticized, confronted, or getting in trouble.

And incidentally, it's not 7%, it's 10%. That's one in ten people - which is a hell of a lot. Roughly 27,800,000 people.

That's a relatively small minority... 27,800,000 atheists out of 278,000,000 people leaves like 250,200,000 people who believe in God in one form or another.

That's like saying that 250,200,000 people have to bend and change their beliefs to accomodate the displeasure of 27,800,000 people. I'm not saying atheists should be forced to believe in God-- I think atheists should be tolerated. They should be left alone (meaning not being spoken out against) as long as...

1.) they don't make a huge ruckus (I think fundamentalists should also not make a ruckus)

2.) they don't impose their beliefs on others

Harmful to whom? Your definition seems to include only things that are harmful to the majority. Why is it acceptable to harm the minority? America tends to be fairly vocal about the abuse of minority rights in other countries...

For the most part, this is how democracy is supposed to work.

10 people say I want it, 2 say I don't, the 10 people get their way. As long as those 10 people don't vote or plan to do harm to the other 2...

And we get involved in other countries because they are persecuting or killing minorities. I believe it morally wrong to kill or persecute minorities, unless they are known to cause harm or kill others (for example, if this minority is a terrorist group-- then I believe they should be eliminated).

-Concordia

 

[TC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Concordia
If the Queen had balls, she'd be King.

If the Queen had balls she'd be a hermaphrodite.

In God We Trust has been on dollar bills for a LONG time. It doesn't harm anybody by having it put there. It only offends atheists, but they're only 10 percent of the population. The democratic way is that democracy rules.

In God We Trust has been on paper money in the US since 1956... that's 46 years of your history. The rest of the time, E Pluribus Unum was there all alone... E Pluribus Unum, a more appropriate motto for a country that claims to seperate church and state, was replaced by "In God We Trust" as the national motto that same year. Once again in 1956, the words 'under God' were added to your pledge. It was all anti-communist propoganda, not some great thing that your founding fathers thought was integral... Eisenhower wanted to seperate the US from the 'godless' Soviets to help gain the moral high-ground.

Have you ever encountered atheists in chatrooms? They are aggressive, obnoxious, and abusive. I know this because I used to shuttle across the two atheist-chatrooms in addition to the few otheres. They banned people who disagreed with them (that's persecution), attacked their character, morality, and even sanity because they believed in God, or a religion of some sort, these same atheists, also ran into the Christian rooms and often yelled out "THERE IS NO F*CKING GOD!!!" Then proceeded to launch into a harrangue about how they're stupid, silly, ignorant, weak-minded, dumb, delusional (weak-minded and delusional are key words amongst atheists). Of course the moderator of that forum usually ejects them, then they retreat back to the Atheist forum claiming they're being persecuted!

I'm currently in an IRC channel with at least on athiest... I've never heard him mention God. There are fanatical athiests, just like there are fanatical Christians, or Islamic people, or people from any religion you want to come up with...

This is what a large number of atheists are like. Granted some are reasonable and such, but the ones in the chatrooms show me something. Even if a small number of atheists in real life are aggressive, a large number in chat-rooms are. This suggests that

1.) Only the aggressive ones go online-- unlikely: Atheists worship science and computers. They are usually more educated then average people, not less. They're probably online in large numbers.

2.) They only don't act aggressive in public because they'd be squished like a bug: This one I believe to be the case. Online 80 percent of the atheists I encounter are aggressive, and 20 are not. In real life, I encounter far less that are aggressive. It's more like 80 non-aggressive and 20 that are. So that would yield 20 that are both aggressive in real life and online, and out of the 80 percent of the non-aggressive ones, 60 of those 80 are aggressive online.

No, the point is that the aggressive people are noticed because they yell a lot... you never notice the other ones...

The point of stating this is that

a.) people are braver online than in real life because they're not going to get physically confronted, yelled at, or get in trouble.

Using this I believe that

- If atheists got into power about 80 percent of them would be aggressive, not a small number because they no longer have to fear being criticized, confronted, or getting in trouble.



That's a relatively small minority... 27,800,000 atheists out of 278,000,000 people leaves like 250,200,000 people who believe in God in one form or another.

That's like saying that 250,200,000 people have to bend and change their beliefs to accomodate the displeasure of 27,800,000 people. I'm not saying atheists should be forced to believe in God-- I think atheists should be tolerated. They should be left alone (meaning not being spoken out against) as long as...

1.) they don't make a huge ruckus (I think fundamentalists should also not make a ruckus)

2.) they don't impose their beliefs on others

Wow, wait... who are you to say that... they can make as much noise as they want... How exactly can they impose their beliefs on others against the law of your country if they're in the minority? They shouldn't have the political sway to do that...

For the most part, this is how democracy is supposed to work.

10 people say I want it, 2 say I don't, the 10 people get their way. As long as those 10 people don't vote or plan to do harm to the other 2...

No, democracies are supposed to do whatever the voters want... that includes killing random people. Hence why you have a constitution, it protects the minority from the majority...

 

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Concordia
(hypocritical huh - I'm allowed to voice my beliefs, but you are supposed to keep yours out of the public sphere.)

Yes, you are very hypocritical - what you're basically saying is that as long as they don't make their beliefs known, you don't mind them. That is anything but tolerance.

My point was if people give into them, they are going to keep pushing until they end up totally eradicating religion, deism, and more importantly, force atheism on others (moreover, make it the only "safe" option).

But that's just your imagination going wild - from what I've seen, regardless of what a few stupid internet people make it look like, most atheists simply wish that you would stop forcing religion down their throats. You don't like people forcing atheism down your throat, so surely you can understand that. And, since they're not requiring you in turn to become atheist or even hide your religion, that is a perfectly fair compromise.

Have you ever encountered atheists in chatrooms? They are aggressive, obnoxious, and abusive.

No, but I seem to be talking to a religious person who could be described with those same adjectives.

- If atheists got into power about 80 percent of them would be aggressive, not a small number because they no longer have to fear being criticized, confronted, or getting in trouble.

Hmm, doesn't that sound just a trifle paranoid to you? Your arguments are getting sillier by the minute. Next you'll be telling us that atheists should all be locked up because they are a menace to society.
(and, incidentally, there's nothing in the constitution about not having an atheist president... hell, you'd better get it changed before it's too late!!)

That's a relatively small minority... 27,800,000 atheists out of 278,000,000 people leaves like 250,200,000 people who believe in God in one form or another.

You just don't get it, do you? 28 million is a lot. There are countries out there that have less people than that. If you have this many people in your country dissatisfied with something that can be easily and painlessly changed with the result that everybody will be satisfied, the obvious conclusion is that you should change it.

2.) they don't impose their beliefs on others

But it's all right for you to impose your beliefs on them?

For the most part, this is how democracy is supposed to work.

Heh, no, that's how a mob works. Democracies work differently, because they tend to have constitions, bills of rights, et cetera, which grant rights to individuals. By putting religious messages on money, you violate the rights of atheists - it's as simple as that.

 

[Skyfire]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Concordia
Not a ruckus, I'm simply complaining about things. I'm not saying it loud. In fact if I was to be saying it I would be saying it in a normal talking voice.

No, I meant nothing by that-I just like to use the word ruckus. (Which I noticed you used later on. )

Originally posted by Concordia

It's a good idea to keep tabs on what the government is doing.

I'd tend to agree with that.

Originally posted by Concordia


Exactly, so how do you *stop* his ambition? His ambitions are contradictory to the good of the rest of the country with the exception of 7%!

How do you get to judge is good for the rest of the country? He's not trying to steal their rights, or destroy their faith, or hurt them. What is the harm he's doing?

Originally posted by Concordia

I said, majority rules unless it's harmful.

Which, by your logic, is happening to the athiests. If they're not doing the "good of the country" then this country, under that reasoning, is not doing them "good."

Originally posted by Concordia

Unreasonable: Unconstitutional, Immoral, Irrational

Thank you.


Oh yeah...Concordia, may I ask why taking religion out of the public sphere is so negative? I've always kinda wondered why it was so bad, if it's not going to hurt you/your religious affiliation/your church. I've just never heard a reasoning behind it.

 

[Concordia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Quarto
Yes, you are very hypocritical - what you're basically saying is that as long as they don't make their beliefs known, you don't mind them. That is anything but tolerance.

I predominantly want them to stop rocking the boat. I'd even discuss atheism with an atheist if they decided to do it rationally. And I have discussed things like this with said atheists.

Unfortunately, a large number just yell and b*tch and scream. They're fine if you're an atheist, but you believe in something, you're instantly accused of being mentally deficient or hanging onto a delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence.

I'm just sick and tired of these obnoxious, arrogant, bratty, geeks who think they're brilliant mental-elitists telling people that they're stupid, delusional or crazy. I dislike them the same way I dislike fundamentalists telling us all we're gonna burn in hell for every stupid thing we've done. People have no problem telling fundies to stow it, how come atheists are special?

But that's just your imagination going wild - from what I've seen, regardless of what a few stupid internet people make it look like, most atheists simply wish that you would stop forcing religion down their throats. You don't like people forcing atheism down your throat, so surely you can understand that. And, since they're not requiring you in turn to become atheist or even hide your religion, that is a perfectly fair compromise.

But by forcing religion out of the public sphere, it is tantamount to making people hide their religion. They want to make religious people hide their beliefs, but they don't hide theirs. If you want people who are religious or believe in God in one way or another to hide their beliefs, then atheists should hide theirs. It works both ways.

No, but I seem to be talking to a religious person who could be described with those same adjectives.

I'm actually not religious at all. I just don't like people who rock the boat like this. I have no problem if you think differently from me, but I just expect that you tolerate different beliefs, rather than just rant and rave about how they're stupid and how you're surrounded by idiots or something. And if you really don't like a person's beliefs you can explain it in a non-aggressive manner.

Atheists though are more like "Who the f-ck cares how I say it, I'm tellin' you the truth!" (or what they perceive to be the truth)basically saying "It's not how I say it, it's what I say". That would be nice in a world of scientists, but we live in a world of people who are not all scientists-- and it's what you say and HOW you say it. They are just abrasive, and obnoxious. And as long as they keep acting obnoxious, people are going to dislike them.

Hmm, doesn't that sound just a trifle paranoid to you? Your arguments are getting sillier by the minute. Next you'll be telling us that atheists should all be locked up because they are a menace to society.
(and, incidentally, there's nothing in the constitution about not having an atheist president... hell, you'd better get it changed before it's too late!!)

They shouldn't be locked up. But their rocking the boat I feel is damaging to the way America could be run. Forcing religion out of the public sphere is sort of like forcing everyone to stow their beliefs. Atheists in this situation would not have to. This would definetly show an intolerance towards religion. Since America offers freedom of religion, I feel that would be conflicting.

You just don't get it, do you? 28 million is a lot. There are countries out there that have less people than that. If you have this many people in your country dissatisfied with something that can be easily and painlessly changed with the result that everybody will be satisfied, the obvious conclusion is that you should change it.

Yes, but compared to 280 million, they're not that much. I believe that the needs of the majority need to be met first. They take priority.

But it's all right for you to impose your beliefs on them?

I'm not imposing my beliefs on them, I'm telling them to stop imposing theirs on others. In other words, you shut up, others will shut up. I think most people object to atheists because they rock the boat. And I don't just mean saying what they believe in, I mean delivering personal attacks, and making insulting and abusive remarks to people who don't fit their views.

I'm going to give you a link to a site and a URL that I know some would find offensive... so be cautioned

http://www.atheists.net
- http://www.atheists.net/images/fufather.jpg

Now tell me... would this guy be just discussing his beliefs in a non-imposing, non-aggressive manner?

Heh, no, that's how a mob works. Democracies work differently, because they tend to have constitions, bills of rights, et cetera, which grant rights to individuals. By putting religious messages on money, you violate the rights of atheists - it's as simple as that.

No, it doesn't violate their rights. That's like saying that a person with a star-of-david offends Christians. And the Pledge being declared unconstitutional violates the rights of people who want to say "Under God" in the pledge. Additionally, you don't even have to say the pledge, so I don't see how it "violates" their rights. It's not like they're forced to say it. In reality, removing "Under God" from the pledge does nothing but forces 90 percent of the population to have to change the pledge, just to appease 10 percent of the population because they're not happy-- it's not good enough for them that they didn't even have to say it but have to make sure it *can't* even be said.

-Concordia

 

[Quarto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

I'm lazy, and this discussion is going nowhere anyway, so this is going to be a bare-minimum reply.

Originally posted by Concordia
People have no problem telling fundies to stow it, how come atheists are special?

People also have no problem distinguishing between ordinary religious people and fundamentalists - how come you think the atheists are special in that aspect? What evidence do you have to support your ludicrous claim that all atheists are extremists? Is there 10 million American atheist websites out there?

But by forcing religion out of the public sphere, it is tantamount to making people hide their religion.

I'd be very surprised if you didn't realise that that's utter bullshit when you wrote it. But if you indeed didn't realise it, then you need to learn to distinguish between 'public sphere' and 'government'. Removing God references from money does not mean removing it from the public sphere.

And if you really don't like a person's beliefs you can explain it in a non-aggressive manner.

Which you have demonstrated very well in your constant rants about atheists all being arrogant and obnoxious.

I'm going to give you a link to a site and a URL that I know some would find offensive... so be cautioned

Why do you bother? For every atheist extremist site out there, there's a religious extremist site.

No, it doesn't violate their rights. That's like saying that a person with a star-of-david offends Christians.

How about being forced to wear a star-of-David? Atheists don't have to say "under God", but they're not given much choice about "In God we trust".

 

[TC]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

I'm too lazy to respond to all the other stuff, especially since my last post was pretty much ignored... but here's this.

Originally posted by Concordia

No, it doesn't violate their rights. That's like saying that a person with a star-of-david offends Christians. And the Pledge being declared unconstitutional violates the rights of people who want to say "Under God" in the pledge. Additionally, you don't even have to say the pledge, so I don't see how it "violates" their rights. It's not like they're forced to say it. In reality, removing "Under God" from the pledge does nothing but forces 90 percent of the population to have to change the pledge, just to appease 10 percent of the population because they're not happy-- it's not good enough for them that they didn't even have to say it but have to make sure it *can't* even be said.

Really, it doesn't matter if saying the pledge one way or another violates someones rights when one looks at it... It violates your constitution. It's not seperating church and state when God is right there in an official state pledge. It's not suddenly illegal to say the words 'under God' if you really want to, it just isn't part of the official pledge. Adding those words in the '50s was illegal, this is just a correction of that.

 

[Skyfire]

I'd agree with that reasoning TC, especially because it doesn't force Christians not to say it, it just makes it to where it's not endorsed by the state.

 

[Bandit LOAF]

How about being forced to wear a star-of-David? Atheists don't have to say "under God", but they're not given much choice about "In God we trust".

I invoke Godwin's law.

 

[TC]

Dash it Quarto, you made us lose

 

[Concordia]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Quarto
How about being forced to wear a star-of-David? Atheists don't have to say "under God", but they're not given much choice about "In God we trust".

Actually, I don't really care. I'll wear a star of David, I'll wear a christian cross, I'll even wear a muslim-crescent if it floats your boat. I'm not particularly fond of the third one because muslims are associated with bad-guys. I'm not anti-muslim, but I do not want to be associated with them.

I also would have to, in these circumstances Invoke Godwin's Law.

-Concordia

 

[Ghost]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Annoying Things

Originally posted by Concordia

I also would have to, in these circumstances Invoke Godwin's Law.

-Concordia

You can´t