hipeter924
Not a zombie yet
- Thread starter
- #101
I can't help your ignorance.Lol. You implied it, with all this BS about 'respect' and then a threat about running me off the forum - since you can't run me out of town on the internet.Hypocrisy doesn't mean what you think it means. Explain how it is hypocritical to start a thread, with something positive - when the media is mud slinging all Atheists, as if they are boogeymen or communist insurgents. I never said someone should go out and start a local chapter of the Dawkins club, so it isn't even advocacy.Because it is just as legal in America and most of the world for the religious to make fun of atheists. It is surely not hypocritical to believe in the first amendment or freedom of speech for all.
If you want to know why people/groups should have a right to offend, then it comes down to the question, 'what isn't offensive to someone?' The moment the state censor comes to tea, free speech dies, as everything is offensive to at least someone.
I don't make fun of atheist, I don't care what you do or don't believe. You throwing in the first amendment, has nothing to do with you being hypocritical, the amendment is a freedom. Hypocrisy is an action. No one asked to censor anyone, my post certainly didn't.
My stand is you expect Christians to accept or not lump atheist into one category, however it is okay to compare a Christian's God to spaghetti. Your lack of respect, begets lack of respect.
I believe in a God, that doesn't make you or I greater or less than the other. It is a difference in opinion. Atheists can go to a church or whatever floats their boat. I don't care, do it, enjoy it, embrace it. Just respect others and others beliefs.
You have a right to offend, but if you do, as many atheists on this board have done, then expect people to form opinions about you.
I make fun of other atheists, just as much as I make fun of religious folks and any kind of belief or lack thereof. I am equal opportunity when it comes to making fun of things or people. It is called being human, which means finding humor in all things.
What you don't seem to get, is when the media mud sling one group whoever that group is, more often than not I am going to find some absurdity or stupidity in it.
You ask for me to respect you on basis of an idea, a belief, or what you may or may not have done. I don't ask that people respect me without knowing me, and I treat others as I would myself. Nothing hypocritical in that.
Respect has to earned, but respect isn't always worth the price of admission, especially if it means denying who you are or belittling yourself.
I believe in the free market, and I can see the good things in a lot of things (including a belief in a religion or holding none). I like how you end your reply though, with a threat - as if you head a lynch mob.
I am not here to be popular, or to be a collectivist. So if you hate me on some concept of honor or 'respect', then it is rather silly. Especially since I have defended Muslims and Christians on this board as much as I have atheists (and I disagree with atheists just as often).
I think it is sad that you can't see humor in anything to do with religion, just like Iranian theocrats, and demand that everyone respects what you believe. Forming opinions goes both ways you know.
I don't see the media lumping anymore or any less atheists or Christians. Muslims seem to get lumped in much more. In my reply there is no threat, do you not form opinions about others by what they post? Good, bad or indifferent.
I never asked you to respect me, or my opinions, I don't need your respect. My life will not change by a faceless, unknown person on the internet.
I'm here just for entertainment. I don't take you or others seriously. I also never said the word hate in regards to you, you are the first person to bring up hate. What's up with that?
I don't form opinions of people based on what I view on the forum, as this is basically an anonymous community.
Truth be told, for you to draw major offense at a spaghetti monster reference makes no good sense. Why do you think Atheists make the reference, it isn't just for a laugh, though quite a few people do find it funny?
It is because religious groups claim that their god cannot be disproven on the basis of empirical evidence, and further because each religion claims it follows the one true god.
The flying spaghetti monster analogy, much like the invisible pink unicorn analogy implies that there is no way for religious people to disprove something as silly as either. Unless you make empirical claims or put forward arguments that disprove the plausibility of a god.
That you draw offense at a simplication of a major theological/philosophical argument, doesn't make sense to me, but nor have your other posts so far.
You are getting me confused with some one else, where did I ever say or imply that I would run you or anyone else off this board. Please quote it because I have never implied or posted either
As far as any major offense? I've taken none, your opinion of a God is not important to me.
Please post where I said or implied that I'd run you off this board, come on.
For you even to suggest the the spaghetti monster (and its alternative the invisible pink unicorn argument) indicates a 'lack of respect', you have to be totally ignorant of the philosophical/theological argument it entails:My stand is you expect Christians to accept or not lump atheist into one category, however it is okay to compare a Christian's God to spaghetti. Your lack of respect, begets lack of respect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Pink_UnicornThe Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a parody religion used to satirize theistic beliefs, taking the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink.[1] She is a rhetorical illustration used by atheists and other religious skeptics as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot, sometimes mentioned in conjunction with the Flying Spaghetti Monster.[2]
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia the free encyclopediaIn January 2005,[11] Bobby Henderson, then a 24-year-old[12] Oregon State University physics graduate, sent an open letter regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster to the Kansas State Board of Education.[8][13][14] The letter was sent prior to the Kansas evolution hearings as an argument against the teaching of intelligent design in biology classes.[8] Henderson, describing himself as a "concerned citizen" representing more than ten million others, argued that intelligent design and his belief "the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster" were equally valid.[8] In his letter, he noted,
I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
—Bobby Henderson[7]
http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2010/2010-8.pdf1] The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is an imaginary creature devised as a means of arguing
against literalist religious beliefs.1 It is similar to other philosophical constructs that dramatize the tautologies and argumentum ad verecundiam (i.e.,“appeal to questionable authority”) that sometimes inhere in religious thought, such as Carl Sagan’s Invisible Dragon and the Celestial Teapot of Bertrand Russell. A more direct inspiration may have been the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) created by Bobby Henderson as part of his political activism against the teaching of creationism.
And then the not so subtle hint, that if I speak my mind you and your ilk will make it difficult. I have already formed an opinion about you, thankfully you will never have the political power to overturn the constitution and destroy America with thought control.*You have a right to offend, but if you do, as many atheists on this board have done, then expect people to form opinions about you.
*Your vision of a perfect America: