Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[fqllve]

To be fair, atheists can be just as vocal about it. There are just far fewer of us.

[Realmfighter]

Take it in stride, laugh at them and if they go past verbal harassment screw them as hard as you can.

To be fair, atheists can be just as vocal about it. There are just far fewer of us.

We don't vocally deride the Theists, but the smug superiority is just as bad if not worse.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

There are firestarters in every group. Trust me, I've seen my fair share of theists who've taken the smug superiority route as well.

[Realmfighter]

Didn't say they didn't feel superior, hell, everyone does, just saying the Atheists feel that more.

[Leafsnail]

"You're all going to hell" is just as smugly a superior position as "You're all wasting your time".

[Realmfighter]

Just talking from my experiences.

You may all see it differently.

[ECrownofFire]

"You're all going to hell" is just as smugly a superior position as "You're all wasting your time".

What about my opinion of "You're going to be reincarnated whether you like or not"?

[Tsarwash]

What I initially meant is that I don't like other people's religious beliefs limiting my or any body else's harmless freedoms. It wouldn't happen at all in my ideal world.

The problem is the definition of harmless freedoms. A lot of people don't see, say, the ability to get piss-drunk, as a harmless freedom. And in some ways it really isn't one. The most common argument is social decay. We have a serious alcoholism problem in the US because drinking is not only condoned but in some places encouraged. Alcohol contributes to dangerous and sometimes illegal behavior, destroys families, and in extreme cases prevents people from actually living their lives. "Alcohol is bad" is a reasonable position to take. Since most people see religion as a form of moral guidance, and see laws as a vehicle of moral control, it makes sense that they'd try to use laws to promote their religious morality.

Not that I disagree with you. I think laws are a method of social control and have no business being conflated with morality. But even then, alcoholism is socially undesirable (but so is turning large swathes of your population into criminals). And removing religion from the equation doesn't necessarily stop people from trying to impose their systems of morality on one another.

I don't think that abusing alcohol is a harmless freedom. Actually around here it's one of the things that is not restriced. Not that I ever do it, but I think that dancing around on 'E' is basically harmless to others, and a few other things are. You can say of course that it is harmful to the user, but that's a slightly different argument. I also agree, people do tend to start telling others what to think and do without religion having a part.

[Duke 2.0]

Yes, a saddiningly large number of people do not understand that others can have a ligitimate outlook that is not theirs.

I think there is a valid difference between people who can't handle the possibility of others believing something different and people who don't want others to suffer the worst fate of their belief system. One is a good person with good intentions and the other is just a prick. I have sympathy for those whose reason for doing what they do is for the sake of others and not their own mental comfort.
 Like the difference between an atheist who wants to split religion from government in order to make sure religion doesn't get corrupt from the power it could harness and an atheist that wants religions to fail because they are stupid. One wants the world to be a better place, for atheists and theists. The other one just dislikes these religious nutjobs.
 What does this mean? Granted trying to convert people is still an issue, but understand that there is a good reason to these people for trying.

[Realmfighter]

There are good people everywhere and there are bad people everywhere.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Yes, a saddiningly large number of people do not understand that others can have a ligitimate outlook that is not theirs.

I think there is a valid difference between people who can't handle the possibility of others believing something different and people who don't want others to suffer the worst fate of their belief system. One is a good person with good intentions and the other is just a prick. I have sympathy for those whose reason for doing what they do is for the sake of others and not their own mental comfort.
 Like the difference between an atheist who wants to split religion from government in order to make sure religion doesn't get corrupt from the power it could harness and an atheist that wants religions to fail because they are stupid. One wants the world to be a better place, for atheists and theists. The other one just dislikes these religious nutjobs.
 What does this mean? Granted trying to convert people is still an issue, but understand that there is a good reason to these people for trying.

I don't care what their intent is. Every once in a while, I'm sleeping peacfuly on a saturday morning, one of the two days of the week where I can do so. And all of a sudden-*KNOCK* *KNOCK* *KNOCK* Once again, one of the local churches is trying to recruit me. I don't care if they want to help me or they can't stand someone not being in their church, because they're waking me up on a saturday morning and it's annoying as hell. I can't get that lost sleep back. Their intent means nothing, the outcome is still the same. That's just one example, but you get the idea. Just the same, if someone wants to reinforce the Seperation of Church and State, I couldn't care less if they do so because they know the inherent problems in theocratic governments or they want to see religions flounder and die without state support (which is by no means the outcome, religions are kept alive by countless factors), they are still helping the country.

I left Christianity four years ago, and I'm simply tired of christians trying to get me to go back. I'm through with wasting my time reasoning with people trying to convert me. It's draining. I don't bother with the distinction between the benevolent-intentioned and the malevolent-intentioned anymore, because it ultimately dosen't matter.

[Argembarger]

Got a "No Solicitation" sign on the door or something? I find it can help to keep Jehovah's Witnesses away, which are what frequent my town.

EDIT: Or, if you're getting as fed up with it as you sound, just open the door, go "no", and slam it, courtesy be damned.

[Neonivek]

There are good people everywhere and there are bad people everywhere.

I like to think that there are good people everywhere, and a lot of good people doing bad things for the right reasons.

A lot that makes a good person the virtuous person they are can just as easily be used for bad.

I don't really think of people as "bad" themselves, as it requires some sort of cartoonish villainy.

[Realmfighter]

So Hitler was a misguided yet virtuous man?

I agree my saying Good" and "Bad in relation to people was far to broad, but the point still stands.

In anything with more than one person there will be people have antisocial opinions of others, and people who have the opposite.

[Neonivek]

So Hitler was a misguided yet virtuous man?

The point is that Virtuous isn't all it is cracked up to be.

An bad person devoid of all virtue isn't really going to do much harm unless they have power thrust upon them.