A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Saturnine Pariah]

Damn, no wonder we create heroes that save us from ourselves.

Sad but true, it's far easier to delegate the problems and responsibilities of mankind's problems upon a single remarkable individual of a supernatural persuasion than for humanity or a particular society as a whole to solve it's own problems.In that sense as you pointed out..we somehow know and express in our obsession with heroes or messiahs, that humanity itself is incapable of or unwilling to change itself. So what do we do? We fantasize, deify or put faith into or unto an individual who possibly can do what we can only hope to do...it's a fleeting hope..and for me it's tragic to see it being so pervasive in the world, for in that compulsion and obsession,it shows how little faith or confidence those individuals have for humanity or for themselves as potential innovators or revolutionaries.

 

[Bells]

Oh. So because there's starvation in the world, we shouldn't debate ideologies you consider irrelevant.

Not at all.

This thread is a whine-fest because *gasp* someone dared to criticise the atheist "movement" for heading down the road of militant atheism *end gasp*.

This is what this whole thread has been. Atheist angry that another atheist dared to criticise them. And it's ridiculous defensive bullshit. So much so that one had some sort of mental spaz attack and started to advocate murdering pastors and bombing places of worship.

Like - I don't know - women's rights? Gay rights? The minority voting franchise?

First world problems.

Do you think a woman, homosexual or any other minority group is going to care about the atheist movement if they are unable to access food or shelter or are in a war zone?

But let us look at "our little corner of the world"..

You're all so hung up on these 3 points that you are incapable of realising that they are civil rights issues, meaning that these are areas you do no want to alienate theists, because they affect believer's and non-believer's alike. What? You think all theists are against women's rights, gay rights or minority voting franchises?

You think all atheists are for them? Do you live in a bubble? Have you failed to even notice just how few prominent atheist women there even are, for example?

Or is it that we shouldn't debate anything occurring in our little corner of the world? That's a curious choice of trump.

The realities of the new atheist movement "in our little corner of the world"..

Several years ago, there was discussion of a “woman problem” within the Atheist movement. New high priests of non-faith announced themselves—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Peter Singer, A.C. Grayling, Daniel Dennett, etc.—and they were men. And they were angry. Their best-selling works were important and essential. These authors helped reinvigorate the secular cause; they cast off the fog of political correctness to unapologetically lay siege to piety. But before long, these New Atheists were depicted as an old boys’ club—a clique of (white) men, bound by a particularly unyielding brand of disbelief.​

So you were saying.. women's rights, gay rights and the minority voting franchises? Where are they within the atheist movement, GeoffP?

 

[leopold]

While such platitudes sound pretty, I don't know what that's supposed to mean in any practical sense. You're saying that no one single government employee should be constrained by the Establishment clause?

i guess you mean the issue at hand.
no, one "government employee" does not speak for the congress in regards to making law.

??

you suggested that people keep their opinions to themselves.
did i misunderstand?

 

[Balerion]

Not at all.

This thread is a whine-fest because *gasp* someone dared to criticise the atheist "movement" for heading down the road of militant atheism *end gasp*.

This is what this whole thread has been. Atheist angry that another atheist dared to criticise them. And it's ridiculous defensive bullshit. So much so that one had some sort of mental spaz attack and started to advocate murdering pastors and bombing places of worship.


First world problems.

Do you think a woman, homosexual or any other minority group is going to care about the atheist movement if they are unable to access food or shelter or are in a war zone?

But let us look at "our little corner of the world"..

You're all so hung up on these 3 points that you are incapable of realising that they are civil rights issues, meaning that these are areas you do no want to alienate theists, because they affect believer's and non-believer's alike. What? You think all theists are against women's rights, gay rights or minority voting franchises?

You think all atheists are for them? Do you live in a bubble? Have you failed to even notice just how few prominent atheist women there even are, for example?



The realities of the new atheist movement "in our little corner of the world"..

Several years ago, there was discussion of a “woman problem” within the Atheist movement. New high priests of non-faith announced themselves—Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Peter Singer, A.C. Grayling, Daniel Dennett, etc.—and they were men. And they were angry. Their best-selling works were important and essential. These authors helped reinvigorate the secular cause; they cast off the fog of political correctness to unapologetically lay siege to piety. But before long, these New Atheists were depicted as an old boys’ club—a clique of (white) men, bound by a particularly unyielding brand of disbelief.​

So you were saying.. women's rights, gay rights and the minority voting franchises? Where are they within the atheist movement, GeoffP?

Enough with your absurd misrepresentations and childish provocations.

Enough.

 

[Aqueous Id]

i guess you mean the issue at hand.
no, one "government employee" does not speak for the congress in regards to making law.

You're missing the point. Under the 14th Amendment no state employee can deprive any other person of their federally protected rights (without due process of law). That's the kicker. That's why prayer is illegal in public schools.

 

[Kittamaru]

Why wouldn't they be considered as such?

And how is that the problem? If you're in that position, keep your religious BS to yourself. If that's too hard, then leave your position,

And perhaps the same should be said of non-theists then? If you are in such a position, keep your anti-religion bs to yourself. if that's too hard, there's the door?

Dunno... seems like a quick way to leave a lot of people out of a job if they can't exercise their religious freedoms...

It's the language of the Civil Rights Act:

"Every person who under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress . . ."


The coach was acting "under color of State law", depriving the rights and privileges of the players who did not believe in Anabaptism.

Then what needs to be proven, before anything else, is that the coach was, in fact, impinging on the rights and privileges of those who are not Anabaptist; namely, we have to show that they have been denied the right to their own assembly/guidance and/or that they are being persecuted or penalized for not participating. Otherwise... well, what are they being deprived of?

 

[Bells]

Enough with your absurd misrepresentations and childish provocations.

Enough.

And enough with your blind sheep like following of the "movement". You can't even define the atheist movement and you are so blinkered that you don't think there is anything wrong with it.

So where are the women within the atheist movement, Balerion? Where are the prominent gay activists or authors within the atheist movement? Where are the racial minorities within this movement?

If you can't even face a single critique of the "movement", then you are nothing but a spoiled privileged Western brat having a tantrum. Take your head out of the sand. Atheism is full of imperfections and contradictions just like the individuals that are atheists. You're not perfect. No one is.

You are all so blind that you are blaming all of these ill's on theism and religion.

Do you want to win 'the battle'?

To do so you need to win over the most populace and currently, nations being bombarded with religious literature and fundamentalist ideology from the West. You want to make a difference in gay rights and the women's movement and for the minorities whose rights are being infringed upon? Feed the starving in Africa. Because right now, fundamentalist groups from the West have shifted their focus to Africa and parts of Asia and that is how they are winning people over. That is how they are inserting themselves and making things worse for gays and women and minorities. So instead of abusing them for their Christian, Muslim or tribal religious beliefs, feed them. Provide funds for their education.

You'd be surprised at the difference it makes. Just ask the Christian fundamentalists who have been doing it for years. It's how they managed to convert so many..

Stop being a whining sheep and actually make a difference. You know, do something instead of just whining on the internet that an atheist is daring to criticise the rise of the angry and militant atheists..

You will never win or convert by abusing them for their beliefs.

 

[GeoffP]

Not at all.

Actually, that was what you just argued: that it was irrelevant because African children are starving. Maybe it is, in a way, but it's a minor but salient logical fallacy, and it deflects the issue we're arguing, which is whether the atheists of SF are a bunch of intolerant dicks. Essentially.

This thread is a whine-fest because *gasp* someone dared to criticise the atheist "movement" for heading down the road of militant atheism *end gasp*.

Actually, Tiassa criticised atheists, themselves in the OP: specifically, those on SF. He may have since realised his error and attempted a Chicago slide to the stance you're taking up for him (long windings fast forgot), and one might even be able to convince oneself that that was so, but what I've found on SF is that even criticizing a movement, or a faction or branch within a movement, can get one threatened with banning. So while Tiassa might have been making the argument you're claiming now, it doesn't appear that way at all and, frankly, SF staff have threatened me with bannings and points and covered me in bile for things far more innocuous and even-handed. My suspicion is that a fair and even punishment to the standard I've had to endure is not coming down the line for Tiassa, despite the issue being ripe for the even application of standards which we say we have here but do not.

This is what this whole thread has been. Atheist angry that another atheist dared to criticise them. And it's ridiculous defensive bullshit. So much so that one had some sort of mental spaz attack and started to advocate murdering pastors and bombing places of worship.

The first part isn't so, to my knowledge: didn't Tiassa recently come out as being a sort-of deist? I'm sure I remember someone mentioning that. Even Sorceror's flip-out doesn't seem like a real threat, but a flip-out that has been seized on in the usual way one does on SF to grind the debate to a halt from one quarter at least, like making an invisible hash-mark in the scoresheet in the column against the nasty people who don't like Allah/Jesus/Moses/Rama/etc. One fucker down, several to go, so to speak. As to this criticism, here's a thought: instead of just attacking SF atheists in general, how about naming specific examples and their outrages and demanding fair justice? I know, I know: no such action has any standing in the eyes of he who moderates Ethics... but still.

First world problems.

Well... not really, except in extremis. Homosexuals are being murdered in Africa right now. It's a trivial first world kind of problem - unless it's happening to you or the people you love. Then it has a very personal flavour and a strident urgency, and so it should. And why exactly should we be silent under the demand to be silent because it is the few who are murdered and not the many starved? Are the former unworthy of justice? If you wish to do your duty by the victims of starvation, then by all means post more about them. Take the first step.

You're all so hung up on these 3 points that you are incapable of realising that they are civil rights issues, meaning that these are areas you do no want to alienate theists, because they affect believer's and non-believer's alike. What? You think all theists are against women's rights, gay rights or minority voting franchises?

I'm not sure why you think we "all" are so hung up on these three points: I mention them only as examples. I could point to the Spanish Inquisition, the colonisation of North America, the Armenian Genocide, the Hindu Kush, the starvation in Africa in conjunction with prosetylisation against birth control. I think atheists have a great deal to say on these issues and so long as they neither threaten to extirpate believers, their belief systems or their places of worship, I have few objections. I could say come on, tone it down a little, yeah? but that's implicit.

As for their attitudes, I think that atheists are less likely to be anti-gay, anti-suffrage and anti-equality, yes. It's a broad correlation, but organised/reactionary Islam, and to a somewhat lesser but heterogenous degree, Christianity and Judaism often stand in the way of the granting of such rights, as well you know. In some cases they back up their rhetorical foundation with a 5.45mm bullet to the head. That's rarer over here, but many religious organisations still stand upon obstructionist platforms - the Evangelicals spring to mind here, along with Sunnis and Wahhabis and the Orthodox, so far as they're actually in the public debate. Atheists are right to criticise such platforms: I certainly do, and I require no warrant to do so from any party, no matter how deluded.

This is not to say that religion has provided no benefits to our society, and I'm sure even the 'militant' brand of atheist on SF would say the same. We owe: but there is still substantial societal damage that organised religion is responsible for. There's a level that's too far, but I couldn't say whether SF atheists have exceeded this point of common courtesy.

You think all atheists are for them? Do you live in a bubble? Have you failed to even notice just how few prominent atheist women there even are, for example?

There are few prominent women in any field. Which opportunities have they had, and which have they not? Are the recievers and supporters of the atheist message raised in our own, still-misogynistic society, or are they not? Bekiempis' and Jacoby's arguments seem compelling to me: no bubble, this. But they're far more likely to be fair on such issues.

So you were saying.. women's rights, gay rights and the minority voting franchises? Where are they within the atheist movement, GeoffP?

But seek, and ye shall find. Where are these movements within the theist community, Bells?

Let us be frank: as common movements there are few, but one must appreciate the average demographics of opinion in the unbeliever. The main issues in this thread is Tiassa labeling SF atheists generally, which is excessive both from first principles and by the standards of SF itself; from that argumentative Stalingrad-disant we have the usual slow, bitter retreat made all the more useless for its inevitability.

 

[Bells]

Actually, that was what you just argued: that it was irrelevant because African children are starving. Maybe it is, in a way, but it's a minor but salient logical fallacy, and it deflects the issue we're arguing, which is whether the atheists of SF are a bunch of intolerant dicks. Essentially.

The issue we are arguing ties in directly to people who are dying in Africa and Asia and elsewhere.

Christian Fundamentalists in the West have made insanely large inroads in 3rd world countries by feeding and educating them with their brand of education, thus, converting millions of people to their way of thought. This is the reality and has been for years now. If atheists want to make a difference, then yeah, you need to feed the starving, because it is the starving who are being converted to fundamentalist Christian etho's that result in gays being killed and abused in countries like Uganda. Don't believe me? Then just have a quick look at the history and the interference of American Christian fundamentalists in Uganda and their push there to make the situation for gays even worse. Where in the past no one really cared, today, after the interference of Christian fundamentalists from the US, gays are being named in papers as though they are criminals and people are calling for their deaths. The way they were able to convert the millions is literally through altruism.. They provided food, shelter and their firebrand version of education.

So you'll excuse me if I look at the whine of privileged people on this site because someone dared to criticise atheists on Sciforums. Boo hoo. Get over yourselves.

Actually, Tiassa criticised atheists, themselves in the OP: specifically, those on SF. He may have since realised his error and attempted a Chicago slide to the stance you're taking up for him (long windings fast forgot), and one might even be able to convince oneself that that was so, but what I've found on SF is that even criticizing a movement, or a faction or branch within a movement, can get one threatened with banning. So while Tiassa might have been making the argument you're claiming now, it doesn't appear that way at all and, frankly, SF staff have threatened me with bannings and points and covered me in bile for things far more innocuous and even-handed. My suspicion is that a fair and even punishment to the standard I've had to endure is not coming down the line for Tiassa, despite the issue being ripe for the even application of standards which we say we have here but do not.

Atheists on sciforums were criticised.. Oh no.. The world will end. Someone said something bad about my ideology on sciforums. THE.. WORLD.. WILL.. END!!

So I'll just blame it all on theism and religions. Yeah, that's the way. So much easier than to find a solution, because I'm stupid enough to believe that by simply getting rid of religious discourse and religion, then all of the world's problems will disappear and women and gays and minorities will have a wonderful happy time in la la land where reason reigns supreme. This has been the crux of the argument of atheists in this thread.

Meanwhile the woman being beaten for not putting dinner on the table on time.. do you thinks he cares? What about the gay guy who is refused employment because his employer thinks homosexuality is 'icky'? Do you think he cares? What about the minorities whose rights are being infringed upon? Do you think they will care when racist people deny them the right to vote or places to live or to employ them? Do you think he will care who you blame it on? Do you think these things only happen to them because of religion? Are you that naive?

The issue with atheists on this site is that you think it's a god damn movement and most of you blame it on religion. And it is lazy. These issues are civil rights issues. Which affect everyone, whether you are a theist or an atheist and continuing to alienate theists by abusing them will only make it that much harder. And that is what none of you have even been able to realise yet.

The first part isn't so, to my knowledge: didn't Tiassa recently come out as being a sort-of deist? I'm sure I remember someone mentioning that. Even Sorceror's flip-out doesn't seem like a real threat, but a flip-out that has been seized on in the usual way one does on SF to grind the debate to a halt from one quarter at least, like making an invisible hash-mark in the scoresheet in the column against the nasty people who don't like Allah/Jesus/Moses/Rama/etc. One fucker down, several to go, so to speak. As to this criticism, here's a thought: instead of just attacking SF atheists in general, how about naming specific examples and their outrages and demanding fair justice? I know, I know: no such action has any standing in the eyes of he who moderates Ethics... but still.

Once again, you aren't the center of the universe and last I checked, you were a Catholic, or has that changed of late?

To my knowledge, Tiassa is an atheist. So am I. What? We can't criticise our fellow atheists on sciforums? We can't criticise your actions as individuals and as a group on this forum? No one can?

And the complaint against moderation.. Because if all else fails, when you have nothing really substantial to whine about, it all falls down to that.

As I have said repeatedly now, you will never ever win on the scoresheet and you will never convert anyone to your way of thinking if you keep abusing them. What you are doing is simply making them hate you more.

Well... not really, except in extremis. Homosexuals are being murdered in Africa right now. It's a trivial first world kind of problem - unless it's happening to you or the people you love. Then it has a very personal flavour and a strident urgency, and so it should. And why exactly should we be silent under the demand to be silent because it is the few who are murdered and not the many starved? Are the former unworthy of justice? If you wish to do your duty by the victims of starvation, then by all means post more about them. Take the first step.

And why are gays in Africa being killed right now, GeoffP? Why?

To illustrate how Christian fundamentalists' altruism works in Africa, it's as easy as pointing to the popular Pirates of the Caribbean movies. One of the characters in the film, Davy Jones, finds sinking sea-men who are in despair. He offers them the opportunity to live, but under his brutal, perpetual servitude. Responding to a humanitarian crisis, e.g. famine, by "converting" the victims as you help them, would be no different


[Source]

Uganda is set to pass new anti-gay legislation with provisions calling for the execution of gay people under some circumstances. The rumor of the death penalty clause being removed seems grossly exaggerated. Dr. Warren Throckmorton, who has followed the legislation closely, indicates that some Western media are erroneously reporting that the death penalty clause has been removed. He writes that "the bill is the same bill it has always been. It cannot be amended until the committee report is presented to the floor of the Parliament." Even with the amendment the legislation remains a gross travesty of justice.

The "intellectual" fuel for this grotesque law came from Christian fundamentalists in the United States. According to The New York Times:

Much of Africa's anti-homosexuality movement is supported by American evangelicals, the Rev. Kapya Kaoma of Zambia wrote in 2009, who are keen to export the American "culture war" to new ground. Indeed, American evangelical Christians played a role in stirring the anti-homosexual sentiment that culminated in the initial legislation in Uganda.​

American fundamentalists operate in Africa both openly and covertly. They conduct public "crusades" to covert African Christians to their extremist views but also run a plethora of "charitable" projects operated "under the umbrella of nongovernment organizations (NGOs), which provides them with access to grant monies from various overseas agencies," according to "Globalizing the Culture Wars," a report by Political Research Associates (PRA). Because none of this is reported, PRA acknowledges that "it is difficult to quantify the exact amounts going to Africa," but all of it contributes to their influence.

Churches in Africa have been lobbied by American fundamentalists to drop ties with mainstream Christian groups and promised funding if they do. PRA says that African leaders, especially "presidents Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, and Sam Nujoma of Namibia have all used homosexuality to distract people from the issues facing their countries and churches by claiming that homosexuals are responsible for moral decay in Africa. They have linked homosexuality with child molestation, ritual child murder, corruption, opposition parties (in Uganda), pornography, and other social ills. Yet these same leaders are silent about human rights abuses and undemocratic tendencies in their countries." (Also see Zimbabwe: The Death of a Dream.)


[Source]

You want to save gays in Africa? Then feed and educate the poor in Africa instead of sitting by while Christian fundamentalists step in to do it for you and then convert them to their way of thought.

I'm not sure why you think we "all" are so hung up on these three points: I mention them only as examples. I could point to the Spanish Inquisition, the colonisation of North America, the Armenian Genocide, the Hindu Kush, the starvation in Africa in conjunction with prosetylisation against birth control. I think atheists have a great deal to say on these issues and so long as they neither threaten to extirpate believers, their belief systems or their places of worship, I have few objections. I could say come on, tone it down a little, yeah? but that's implicit.

Ah yes, Africa..

But those 3 points have been prevalent throughout this thread. They are like the catch cry and you are all failing.

As for their attitudes, I think that atheists are less likely to be anti-gay, anti-suffrage and anti-equality, yes. It's a broad correlation, but organised/reactionary Islam, and to a somewhat lesser but heterogenous degree, Christianity and Judaism often stand in the way of the granting of such rights, as well you know. In some cases they back up their rhetorical foundation with a 5.45mm bullet to the head. That's rarer over here, but many religious organisations still stand upon obstructionist platforms - the Evangelicals spring to mind here, along with Sunnis and Wahhabis and the Orthodox, so far as they're actually in the public debate. Atheists are right to criticise such platforms: I certainly do, and I require no warrant to do so from any party, no matter how deluded.

This is not to say that religion has provided no benefits to our society, and I'm sure even the 'militant' brand of atheist on SF would say the same. We owe: but there is still substantial societal damage that organised religion is responsible for. There's a level that's too far, but I couldn't say whether SF atheists have exceeded this point of common courtesy.

Ask a starving person who they will listen to. An atheist dolt speaking at him from the comfort of his very comfortable home with all the trappings of 'western wealth'? Or the Christian fundamentalist missionary coming to him with food and a bible?

There are few prominent women in any field. Which opportunities have they had, and which have they not? Are the recievers and supporters of the atheist message raised in our own, still-misogynistic society, or are they not? Bekiempis' and Jacoby's arguments seem compelling to me: no bubble, this. But they're far more likely to be fair on such issues.

Had you read the articles I linked earlier from atheists women, the reason that there are so few women in the forefront of atheist ideological writing is simply because atheism is patriarchal and very protective of it.

But seek, and ye shall find. Where are these movements within the theist community, Bells?

I asked you where the atheist women and atheist gays and minorities are within the context of atheist dialogue. And you provide me with a blog about atheism feminism? Where are their books? Why are they just overlooked for the likes of prats like Harris?

But I don't know GeoffP, where are these movements within the theist community?

Let us be frank: as common movements there are few, but one must appreciate the average demographics of opinion in the unbeliever. The main issues in this thread is Tiassa labeling SF atheists generally, which is excessive both from first principles and by the standards of SF itself; from that argumentative Stalingrad-disant we have the usual slow, bitter retreat made all the more useless for its inevitability.

Or perhaps overtly sensitive atheists on sciforums should start looking at the bigger picture..?

 

[Balerion]

And enough with your blind sheep like following of the "movement". You can't even define the atheist movement and you are so blinkered that you don't think there is anything wrong with it.

More gross misrepresentations. Never said or implied anything of the sort.

So where are the women within the atheist movement, Balerion? Where are the prominent gay activists or authors within the atheist movement? Where are the racial minorities within this movement?.

To no one's surprise, you are entirely ignorant of the thing you have the audacity to criticize. I mean, "where are the women?" Are you fucking kidding me?

Everyone is being represented and having their voices heard.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. More importantly, you're pissing on the good work, and the struggles, of all the people you claim don't even fucking exist. Your ignorance of this borders on the obscene.

If you can't even face a single critique of the "movement", then you are nothing but a spoiled privileged Western brat having a tantrum. Take your head out of the sand. Atheism is full of imperfections and contradictions just like the individuals that are atheists. You're not perfect. No one is.

Yes, yes, I know you'd like to have my white head on a pike, next to all the other white devils you hate so much. Sorry I can't oblige that. I'm also sorry that your zeal to smack down whitey you stepped outside your sphere of knowledge, because this forum is the poorer for the filth you've subjected us to in these last few unfortunate posts.

To be short about it: There was no legitimate critique. You, like Tiassa, like Yazata, like Kittamaru, are speaking out of ignorance of atheism. You know nothing of it. You don't understand it, you don't even bloody know who it consists of. You have no credibility here. None of you do. You and the rest are no different than the cranks who come into the science subfora and claim to know physics but can't do a simple equation.

You are all so blind that you are blaming all of these ill's on theism and religion.

Case in point.

Do you want to win 'the battle'?

To do so you need to win over the most populace and currently, nations being bombarded with religious literature and fundamentalist ideology from the West. You want to make a difference in gay rights and the women's movement and for the minorities whose rights are being infringed upon? Feed the starving in Africa. Because right now, fundamentalist groups from the West have shifted their focus to Africa and parts of Asia and that is how they are winning people over. That is how they are inserting themselves and making things worse for gays and women and minorities. So instead of abusing them for their Christian, Muslim or tribal religious beliefs, feed them. Provide funds for their education.

You'd be surprised at the difference it makes. Just ask the Christian fundamentalists who have been doing it for years. It's how they managed to convert so many..

Stop being a whining sheep and actually make a difference. You know, do something instead of just whining on the internet that an atheist is daring to criticise the rise of the angry and militant atheists..

You will never win or convert by abusing them for their beliefs.

Oh stuff it. Seriously, this grandstanding BS doesn't pass the smell test, so take your manure elsewhere. I doubt you could name one atheist charity, so spare me this talk of the "movement" sitting on its laurels.

And you'd do well to remember that it was a theist who began this thread as an attack on atheists, not the other way around.

 

[quinnsong]

Excuse me, but I'll be taking cover right about now.

 

[leopold]

You're missing the point. Under the 14th Amendment no state employee can deprive any other person of their federally protected rights (without due process of law). That's the kicker. That's why prayer is illegal in public schools.

and?
the guy wanted baptized, the "federal employee" baptized him.
what point am i missing?

 

[Kittamaru]

Alright folks, lets all take it down a notch. If this starts to dissolve into hurling insults, screaming names, and pointing fingers, I'll just lock the thread and be done with it... and that goes for both sides of the fence here. Keep it rational and respectful, or don't discuss it at all.

 

[Balerion]

Right, because when moderators are insulting members, it's "justified." When they start to get it back, though, here come the threats of thread-closure.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

 

[Bells]

More gross misrepresentations. Never said or implied anything of the sort.



To no one's surprise, you are entirely ignorant of the thing you have the audacity to criticize. I mean, "where are the women?" Are you fucking kidding me?

Everyone is being represented and having their voices heard.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. More importantly, you're pissing on the good work, and the struggles, of all the people you claim don't even fucking exist. Your ignorance of this borders on the obscene.



Yes, yes, I know you'd like to have my white head on a pike, next to all the other white devils you hate so much. Sorry I can't oblige that. I'm also sorry that your zeal to smack down whitey you stepped outside your sphere of knowledge, because this forum is the poorer for the filth you've subjected us to in these last few unfortunate posts.

To be short about it: There was no legitimate critique. You, like Tiassa, like Yazata, like Kittamaru, are speaking out of ignorance of atheism. You know nothing of it. You don't understand it, you don't even bloody know who it consists of. You have no credibility here. None of you do. You and the rest are no different than the cranks who come into the science subfora and claim to know physics but can't do a simple equation.



Case in point.



Oh stuff it. Seriously, this grandstanding BS doesn't pass the smell test, so take your manure elsewhere. I doubt you could name one atheist charity, so spare me this talk of the "movement" sitting on its laurels.

And you'd do well to remember that it was a theist who began this thread as an attack on atheists, not the other way around.

So in other words, you are so selfish and self absorbed that it's all about you.. If I criticise your privileged standpoint and your selfish attitudes, then of course, I want your head on a pike, because you? Well you are the 'great white hope', who can do no wrong and can never even be criticised or contradicted because if you are, you throw a hissy fit, whining that someone dared to disagree with you. Do you even understand how ridiculous you sound? You're like the perfect example of the dolts who started calling French fries Freedom fries. You are so American centric that even criticising the Western atheist ideology that has so fully missed the mark because they are so self absorbed, resulting in a rise of millions of fundamentalist Christians across Africa and Asia, then yes, that's just racist. Get over yourself Balerion. You don't even know where the issues actually are in regards to this. Let alone what they are.

I think you know where you can place your personal pile of manure you carry around like a chip on your shoulder.

How much have you donated to trying to break the religious fundamentalist hold in Africa, Balerion? Oh wait, that's right, you don't even know that's where the issues are currently.. That's where gays are being killed and women being abused and denied rights and minorities, religious and otherwise, are being abused and killed. No no, you think the issue is anyone who dares to disagree with you. And critiquing your Western centric selfish views means that people are racist for pointing out the idiocy of your form of ideology. It's hysterical. Meanwhile, black gays are being beaten, abused and killed in Africa. So put your money where your mouth is. Instead of undoing the good work of people in countries like Uganda who are scrambling trying to reverse the damage done by Western Christian fundamentalists from America by calling them stupid and dumb for being theists, and calling the millions upon millions of theists there who are the ones who can make the difference between life and death stupid for being theists, you could.. oooh, I don't know, get your head out of whatever black hole you have jammed it in and actually see the proverbial light and do something worthwhile for a change instead of whining that it's all about you?

 

[Kittamaru]

Pay attention. I was addressing both sides of the fence, as I said. No offense intended Bale... but you are a bit of an alarmist...

Bells, I know you are passionate about this... however I think its clear that some opinions here will never be swayed. Perhaps it'd be best to just cool down and let it go?

 

[quinnsong]

I know I ask a lot of questions and some go unanswered and that is okay, but here goes anyway. In these debates does anyone ever offer a positive proposal , a possible solution, or is it nothing more than mental stimulation/mental masturbation?

 

[leopold]

... but you are a bit of an alarmist...

you have to forgive bells.
she's got a 4 alarm fire going on.

 

[quinnsong]

you have to forgive bells.
she's got a 4 alarm fire going on.

Kitt was not talking about Bells, leopold.

 

[Bells]

Bells, I know you are passionate about this... however I think its clear that some opinions here will never be swayed. Perhaps it'd be best to just cool down and let it go?

I am not angry. -_-