Atheism's big LIE

[ding]

^ The above post is an example of his intolerance of Christianity and his persecution of Christians.

Blues Man

.

^ The above post is an example of his intolerance of Christianity and his persecution of Christians.

Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?

.
the persecutors were those that became christians, persecuting those who truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century.

you have yet to address the uninterrupted history of christian terrorism against the innocent - to this day ... or you are one of those in particular and enjoy the notoriety.
.
View attachment 498346
.
tell all, what her crime was, christian.

So let me see if I have this straight. You persecute Christians today because 1900 years ago Christians persecuted those that truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century?

Does that sound about right to you, Blues Man ?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Let the last word, then, go to Mr. Jefferson, who wrote a friend: ``I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.''

 

[Blues Man]

Unlike you I believe it's not my place to tell other people what to think.

That's a convenient excuse. No one is telling you to tell others what to think. I am telling you that your silence of intolerance is your endorsement of intolerance.

Be that as it may, I'll continue linking you to intolerant posts so you can't say you never saw any as you have repeatedly claimed.

In my experience religious people can also be pretty intolerant.

And really if one wants to establish a mindset of tolerance doesn't one also have to tolerate the intolerance of others?

Sure. Some religious people can be intolerant.

I disagree that if one wants to establish a mindset of tolerance that one has to tolerate the intolerance of others.

You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time.

Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?

I'm guessing that's a no. So apparently one can.

A crime against a person is not the same as an opinion regarding a religion or the thoughts another may have on a given subject.

Another person's opinion does you no physical harm whatsoever.

So you might want to try an apples to apples comparison rather than an apples to orangutans comparison.

When it comes to defining tolerance it most certainly is an apples to apples comparison. You don't like the comparison because it reveals that not everything should be tolerated. So getting back to the point of the conversation should religious intolerance be tolerated. I say no.

There is a vast and irreconcilable difference between a person's opinion and actual bodily harm committed during a crime.

Another person voicing his opinion about your chosen religion is not a crime and does you no bodily harm and in no way in any situation real or imagined equates to rape.

 

[Blues Man]

You have a choice in how neat you want your yard
You have a choice of attending services.

People attending a public event are not given a choice if they want to hear a Biblical passage.

I saw no need for it and I considered a waste of my time and money. And since most town meetings were held in the evenings I didn't want to spend one second longer in attendance than I absolutely had to.

Your biggest complaint is prayer at a public meeting?

And, there may not have a choice on whether someone must drive by my yard. My point is, it would be a petty complaint. Complaining about a short prayer that is meaningful to many is also petty.

All those "short " prayers add up to a lot of wasted time and money over 30 years. And a town meeting has absolutely no relationship to what you do in your yard.

And i don't think prayers are all that meaningful.

Is meditation meaningless? No. Neither is prayer. If done properly it alters the fabric of ones existence just as meditation does. I find you to be intolerant of anything that you don't endorse.

I don't make pleas to some god and I would not subject people attending a public forum to my meditations and expect them to think that my daily meditations are relevant or meaningful to them.

The only thing I am objecting to is public officials leading people in prayers during public meetings. What they do before or after the actual meeting is their own business.

 

[Blues Man]

The Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings. Being intolerant of things one should not be intolerant of is not virtuous. It is the exact opposite of virtue. The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved. To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature.

Stoicism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your virtues may be vices to someone else. And if what a person says is really not important then what do you care so much if a person has a negative opinion of your religion that you cannot tolerate it?

The Stoics also say that the only thing a person can control is his reactions to the events in the world. So maybe you want to try to do that.

 

[Blues Man]

And i don't think prayers are all that meaningful.

One person finds something (other than prayer) meaningful. The second person does not. Should the position of not finding something meaningful trump the position of finding that thing meaningful?

Most prayers last less than a minute. You can't give your fellow man that much time? Your own business is that important that a minute causes actual damage to you/your business?

Which again is why public officials shouldn't be leading people in prayer during a public meeting. And like i said all those minutes over many years actually add up to a lot of time so why should I have to pay them to waste all that time?

If they want to pray before a public meeting or after no one cares.

 

[Blues Man]

You are Free to pray anywhere you wish

Such as before a meeting, government or otherwise.

But not during the meeting.

I don't care if the town officials huddle up and pray before they enter the meeting hall but once they do enter it should be all business.

 

[Meriweather]

I don't care if the town officials huddle up and pray before they enter the meeting hall but once they do enter it should be all business.

So stand up and tell the people you don't think people should be free to pray before a government meeting--that you believe there should be limits on freedom.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Did anyone actually watch the 41 min video in the OP

Nope. Certainly lilnips didn't watch it. He just pinched off his turd and bailed.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Tell me why a short prayer is so painful and irritating to you.

He didn't say or imply that. Stop being a little weasel.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You persecute Christians today

No he doesn't. Another shameless little weasel.

 

[ding]

The Stoics are especially known for teaching that "virtue is the only good" for human beings. Being intolerant of things one should not be intolerant of is not virtuous. It is the exact opposite of virtue. The Stoics also held that certain destructive emotions resulted from errors of judgment, and they believed people should aim to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is "in accordance with nature". Because of this, the Stoics thought the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how a person behaved. To live a good life, one had to understand the rules of the natural order since they thought everything was rooted in nature.

Stoicism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Your virtues may be vices to someone else. And if what a person says is really not important then what do you care so much if a person has a negative opinion of your religion that you cannot tolerate it?

The Stoics also say that the only thing a person can control is his reactions to the events in the world. So maybe you want to try to do that.

Did you get the belief that someone else's virtues may be someone else's vice from stoicism

The Stoics elaborated a detailed taxonomy of virtue, dividing virtue into four main types: wisdom, justice, courage, and moderation. Wisdom is subdivided into good sense, good calculation, quick-wittedness, discretion, and resourcefulness. Justice is subdivided into piety, honesty, equity, and fair dealing.​

​

Stoic Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[ding]

You persecute Christians today

No he doesn't. Another shameless little weasel.

I say he does. But I think it's a fabulous policy to dismiss persecution.

What could possibly go wrong with that?

 

[Meriweather]

Which again is why public officials shouldn't be leading people in prayer during a public meeting.

We are a free nation, free to speak out, free to openly practice religious beliefs. Let's start with speaking out. Think of speaking out and asking how many would prefer to forego the prayer.

If the majority wished to continue with prayer, would you prefer to go with majority rule over any issue of freedom?

The follow-up question is what level of minority would you think fair to remove a freedom? Simple majority should be able to remove a freedom, or perhaps a 2/3s majority? What value are we placing on freedom?

What about trading a freedom. Which personal freedom of yours would you be willing to trade if people would give up religious freedom?

 

[ding]

Unlike you I believe it's not my place to tell other people what to think.

That's a convenient excuse. No one is telling you to tell others what to think. I am telling you that your silence of intolerance is your endorsement of intolerance.

Be that as it may, I'll continue linking you to intolerant posts so you can't say you never saw any as you have repeatedly claimed.

In my experience religious people can also be pretty intolerant.

And really if one wants to establish a mindset of tolerance doesn't one also have to tolerate the intolerance of others?

Sure. Some religious people can be intolerant.

I disagree that if one wants to establish a mindset of tolerance that one has to tolerate the intolerance of others.

You cannot be tolerant and intolerant at the same time.

Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?

I'm guessing that's a no. So apparently one can.

A crime against a person is not the same as an opinion regarding a religion or the thoughts another may have on a given subject.

Another person's opinion does you no physical harm whatsoever.

So you might want to try an apples to apples comparison rather than an apples to orangutans comparison.

When it comes to defining tolerance it most certainly is an apples to apples comparison. You don't like the comparison because it reveals that not everything should be tolerated. So getting back to the point of the conversation should religious intolerance be tolerated. I say no.

There is a vast and irreconcilable difference between a person's opinion and actual bodily harm committed during a crime.

Another person voicing his opinion about your chosen religion is not a crime and does you no bodily harm and in no way in any situation real or imagined equates to rape.

You are rationalizing your incongruity.

 

[ding]

You have a choice in how neat you want your yard
You have a choice of attending services.

People attending a public event are not given a choice if they want to hear a Biblical passage.

I saw no need for it and I considered a waste of my time and money. And since most town meetings were held in the evenings I didn't want to spend one second longer in attendance than I absolutely had to.

Your biggest complaint is prayer at a public meeting?

And, there may not have a choice on whether someone must drive by my yard. My point is, it would be a petty complaint. Complaining about a short prayer that is meaningful to many is also petty.

All those "short " prayers add up to a lot of wasted time and money over 30 years. And a town meeting has absolutely no relationship to what you do in your yard.

And i don't think prayers are all that meaningful.

Is meditation meaningless? No. Neither is prayer. If done properly it alters the fabric of ones existence just as meditation does. I find you to be intolerant of anything that you don't endorse.

I don't make pleas to some god and I would not subject people attending a public forum to my meditations and expect them to think that my daily meditations are relevant or meaningful to them.

The only thing I am objecting to is public officials leading people in prayers during public meetings. What they do before or after the actual meeting is their own business.

So you want to impose your will upon them.

 

[Hollie]

Which again is why public officials shouldn't be leading people in prayer during a public meeting.

We are a free nation, free to speak out, free to openly practice religious beliefs. Let's start with speaking out. Think of speaking out and asking how many would prefer to forego the prayer.

If the majority wished to continue with prayer, would you prefer to go with majority rule over any issue of freedom?

The follow-up question is what level of minority would you think fair to remove a freedom? Simple majority should be able to remove a freedom, or perhaps a 2/3s majority? What value are we placing on freedom?

What about trading a freedom. Which personal freedom of yours would you be willing to trade if people would give up religious freedom?

We are a free nation and thus I have freedom from religion, It's not a majority rules issue as it is in many Islamic theocracies. My suspicion is that prayers before public meetings such as described in this thread would end pretty quickly if prayers to Allah followed by chants of 'Allahu akbar' were requested at public meetings.

 

[Meriweather]

We are a free nation and thus I have freedom from religion, It's not a majority rules issue as it is in many Islamic theocracies. My suspicion is that prayers before public meetings such as described in this thread would end pretty quickly if prayers to Allah followed by chants of 'Allahu akbar' were requested at public meetings.

Bill of Rights says Freedom of Religion. That includes Islam.

 

[Hollie]

We are a free nation and thus I have freedom from religion, It's not a majority rules issue as it is in many Islamic theocracies. My suspicion is that prayers before public meetings such as described in this thread would end pretty quickly if prayers to Allah followed by chants of 'Allahu akbar' were requested at public meetings.

Bill of Rights says Freedom of Religion. That includes Islam.

The Bill of Rights says nothing about the freedom to impose your religion on others. Freedom OF religion is the same as saying Freedom FROM religion. Meaning, it is not incumbent upon me to recognize or be ruled by religion. Don't take it personally as most religious folk do. Most often, people of religion are okay with me accepting their faith, but NOT okay with me not believing in their particular faith/Gods.

 

[BreezeWood]

^ The above post is an example of his intolerance of Christianity and his persecution of Christians.

Blues Man

.

^ The above post is an example of his intolerance of Christianity and his persecution of Christians.

Would a tolerant person tolerate the rape of a woman?

.
the persecutors were those that became christians, persecuting those who truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century.

you have yet to address the uninterrupted history of christian terrorism against the innocent - to this day ... or you are one of those in particular and enjoy the notoriety.
.
View attachment 498346
.
tell all, what her crime was, christian.

So let me see if I have this straight. You persecute Christians today because 1900 years ago Christians persecuted those that truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century?

Does that sound about right to you, Blues Man ?

.

So let me see if I have this straight. You persecute Christians today because 1900 years ago Christians persecuted those that truly understood the liberation theology of the 1st century?

tell all, what her crime was, christian.

.
do you ever respond to what is written in a post ... and yes, that is how your bible came about. to persecute the innocent.
.
.
the Christian church gave a very pushy introduction of itself to the indigenous peoples of Latin America.





“Who can doubt that gunpowder shot off against the heathen is incense for the Lord?”-Gonzalo Fernandez de Oviedo y Valdes.
.
.
there has not been an interruption in history the desert religions, christianity have not been at the forefront of prosecution and victimization of the innocent.

where is your evidence otherwise, why do you pretend the demise of christianity is not warranted by their failure to show remorse and to rewrite the forgeries and fallacies in the christian bible that makes theirs a terrorist organization as the same for the writings for the other desert religions.