Moses was a terrorist

Originally posted by Suzianne
One might suppose that was the reason behind the comment in the first place. This was also what my OP in the "Charlie Hebdo" thread was about.

Just because we have an opinion (like everyone else), should we throw that opinion out on a public billboard, just "because we can"? Statements like these are [b]known to be insulting to those of faith. S ...[text shortened]... *** crazy for believing in a god that is clearly a homicidal maniac? No, you probably wouldn't.[/b]

Would you argue with your own grandmother, insulting her religion and calling her b**-s*** crazy for believing in a god that is clearly a homicidal maniac? No, you probably wouldn't.

Wrong.

I of course didn't swear, and it wasn't my grandmother who was an atheist, but I have a
religious aunt and cousins. And I have indeed told them how evil the bible god is.

So you are in fact completely wrong, I not only would but have.


Not that I bring the subject up, I don't go looking for fights.

I just don't hide my views when others bring the subject up.


These forums however are FOR discussing these topics, and thus it's a given going in that
peoples beliefs will be questioned and debated.


Fundamentally the response to the rest of your post is simple.

Because your religion [and all others] ARE NOT TRUE AND WE CAN PROVE IT.

And because we care about the truth, and only truth is a good foundation for making
decisions that effect everyone else [including us] then it's reasonable to point out
to people that what they believe is known to be false. It's fiction, and bad fiction at that.


And given the history of Christians torturing killing and otherwise persecuting any of a
different faith as well as atheists, including in the present day, it's decidedly rich to
claim stupidly and erroneously that WE shove OUR beliefs in your face.

In the main all we are trying to do is stop you religious types from forcing us to bow
down to and follow YOUR religious beliefs. In a seemingly unending battle to stop
religion from infecting science curricular, from destroying women's healthcare,
from nutters in government who think that we don't need to act to stop global
warming because the apocalypse is about to happen so we don't have to bother... ect ect.

And you KNOW this.

So why do you ask stupid questions to which you already know the answer.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Now you're just "taking the piss", pretty much as I was.

I know you get what I'm saying, I'm not yet ready to believe you're that slow.

Your quote was: "Because people believe in it, and as people base decisions that effect others on those beliefs it is perfectly reasonable and valid to question those beliefs. Both to try to understand them [b]and possibly to change them.

It's the part in bold that I have a problem with, obviously.[/b]

yes because you never try to convince anyone that your beliefs are correct and that theirs are wrong...

You never do that...

You are not in fact trying to do that right now...

Are you...



Hypocrite.




And no, your previous post was just that big a mess.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Would you argue with your own grandmother, insulting her religion and calling her b**-s*** crazy for believing in a god that is clearly a homicidal maniac? No, you probably wouldn't.

Wrong.

I of course didn't swear, and it wasn't my grandmother who was an atheist, but I have a
religious aunt and cousins. And I have indeed told the ...[text shortened]...
And you KNOW this.

So why do you ask stupid questions to which you already know the answer.

Because your religion [and all others] ARE NOT TRUE AND WE CAN PROVE IT.

And because we care about the truth, and only truth is a good foundation for making decisions that effect everyone else [including us] then it's reasonable to point out to people that what they believe is known to be false. It's fiction, and bad fiction at that.

Time for me to /facepalm. And NO, you CAN'T "prove" it. If you could, it would have been done by now and it hasn't happened. What I believe is NOT "known" to be false. It is true, and nothing, and I mean NOTHING you can say, is going to change my belief. YES, you ARE being the unreasonable one here. I'm not hurting you by believing what I believe, so just show me the same respect you show your greengrocer, who might happen to cheer on a different football team than you. IT'S NO SKIN OFF YOUR NOSE WHAT I BELIEVE, but you can't even show me the slightest human dignity for believing in something and standing up for it.

And given the history of Christians torturing killing and otherwise persecuting any of a different faith as well as atheists, including in the present day, it's decidedly rich to claim stupidly and erroneously that WE shove OUR beliefs in your face.

No, you're atheist. What you're shoving in our faces is your unbelief. Claiming our God is fictional. And that, to us, is what is stupid. AND erroneous. AND not just a little bit sad, coincidentally. And I've told others here who try to tar all Christians with this brush, that religion is NOT TO BLAME FOR THE EVILS OF THIS WORLD. That is the fault of EVIL MEN, regardless of their supposed religion, or, more precisely, whatever religion they choose to desecrate by their actions.

In the main all we are trying to do is stop you religious types from forcing us to bow down to and follow YOUR religious beliefs. In a seemingly unending battle to stop religion from infecting science curricular, from destroying women's healthcare, from nutters in government who think that we don't need to act to stop global warming because the apocalypse is about to happen so we don't have to bother... ect ect.

Let me take this one at a time.

Firstly, we're not forcing ANYbody to "bow down and follow" our religious beliefs. Christians, in the main, believe in free will. You're perfectly free to do as you see fit, especially with something so personal as religious choice. (I can't really comment on what other religions believe.) Secondly, as to your other arguments about religion infecting other disciplines, like science curricula, women's healthcare, global warming, I totally agree. But if we are going to stop those who would do these things, we need to do so at the ballot box.

But for you to take it upon yourself to assume my agenda based on my religious belief is simply beyond the pale. Vote out the nutters making stupid laws all you want, and I'll be right there with you, as a matter of fact, but do NOT presume to tell me that my religious beliefs are so much fiction. OR stupid. OR "dangerous". Because I have NO choice then but to fight back. Oppression is unsatisfactory for BOTH sides, regardless of who is doing the oppressing.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
Exodus:
The Lord said to Moses, “Pharaoh’s heart is hard; 27 he refuses to release 28 the people. 7:15 Go to Pharaoh in the morning when 29 he goes out to the water. Position yourself 30 to meet him by the edge of the Nile, 31 and take 32 in your hand the staff 33 that was turned into a snake. 7:16 Tell him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has se ...[text shortened]... t still defined as causing terror to achieve a political goal? the dictionary seems to think so.

weasel word: people. what people?

Oh please sir, don't report me to the debate squad captain! One more demerit and I'll flunk out.

It's common usage. Try this: go down a street and ask people to picture a terrorist in their head for a few seconds. Then ask them what country the terrorist is from. If over half don't name some country in the middle east, I will eat my hat [I'll even start a thread in which I do so.]

so? thief is a noun as well, do you think one would call someone a thief because of his baking?

"Thief" is not a proper noun in the sense that is not generally used [go ahead, demerit it me again!] as jargon. "Terrorist" is. When Obama gets on TV and talks of stopping terrorists, you know damn well who he means. When you hear jargon/propagandist phrases like "Fighting the War on Terror", you know they are not fighting every single person who happens to greatly frighten others. 🙄

The dictionary won't help you suss out all the uses of words as jargon, especially if they are newly minted jargon.

Originally posted by Suzianne
One might suppose that was the reason behind the comment in the first place. This was also what my OP in the "Charlie Hebdo" thread was about.

Just because we have an opinion (like everyone else), should we throw that opinion out on a public billboard, just "because we can"? Statements like these are [b]known to be insulting to those of faith. S ...[text shortened]... *** crazy for believing in a god that is clearly a homicidal maniac? No, you probably wouldn't.[/b]

Just because we have an opinion (like everyone else), should we throw that opinion out on a public billboard, just "because we can"? Statements like these are known to be insulting to those of faith. So why put them out there, except to offend and prove disrespect?

I think we [in general] should exercise a degree of tact, and not go around blatantly offending people, simply because we can. That's juvenile.

However, 'tact' is a somewhat subjective matter, and not everyone will agree on whether delivering the message is more important than avoiding offense to some of the readers of that message. I'm leery of going too far the other way and making all sorts of subjective offenses illegal. I'd rather err on the side of allowing too much offense than not enough.

Christians already know atheists exist, why do they need their unbelief thrust in their face at every opportunity, especially in this fashion, by being told that our sacred, holy book is fiction?

Isn't it also true that you already know that many atheists believe your 'sacred, holy book' is fiction, before they say it? I'm surprised that you are surprised. I would think this sort of statement predictable from an atheist.

And then to be surprised that someone takes offense is patently ridiculous. "Dishing it out but not being able to take it" leaps to mind.

I've observed your behavior in a few threads, both in this forum and others. I have noticed that sometimes you don't sound all that offended until the end, when you've offended the other person. Then you tend to claim that you have been egregiously offended since post 1.

Would you argue with your own grandmother, insulting her religion and calling her b**-s*** crazy for believing in a god that is clearly a homicidal maniac?

If your beef with googlefudge is based on a feud from past threads, then I'll butt out now. But I couldn't help but notice that the offense seemed a bit forced, based solely on the content of this thread.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem

weasel word: people. what people?

Oh please sir, don't report me to the debate squad captain! One more demerit and I'll flunk out.

It's common usage. Try this: go down a street and ask people to picture a terrorist in their head for a few seconds. Then ask them what country the terrorist is from. If over half don't name some country i ...[text shortened]... t help you suss out all the uses of words as jargon, especially if they are newly minted jargon.

"Try this: go down a street and ask people to picture a terrorist in their head for a few seconds"

statistics from small numbers, argumentum ad populum.

if i want an opinion on who is a bigger douchebag, kanye west or perez hilton, i will go down the street and ask people.
if i want to know about climate change i will ask the scientific community, not someone's opinion.

the meaning of the word terrorist doesn't change because some people are ignorant and don't bother to educate themselves.
"terrorist" has a defined meaning and no amount of popular opinion will change that.


"every single person who happens to greatly frighten others."
to achieve a political goal. that's important. clowns aren't terrorists.


"When Obama gets on TV"
again, i don't care what the americans mean by war on terror, i don't care that really their war on terror also targets people who have some oil and/or have attacked american interests. i don't care that their war on terror doesn't do crap about boko haram even though they are the very definition of a terrorist organization. or that they choose to ignore the various african warlords who commit heinous acts.

america doesn't get to decide what terrorist means.


"The dictionary won't help you suss out all the uses of words as jargon, especially if they are newly minted jargon."
that's your problem. if you want to be understood by people outside your group, you use words with their intended meaning, not the one you made up.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Try this: go down a street and ask people to picture a terrorist in their head for a few seconds"

statistics from small numbers, argumentum ad populum.

if i want an opinion on who is a bigger douchebag, kanye west or perez hilton, i will go down the street and ask people.
if i want to know about climate change i will ask the scientific community, ...[text shortened]... y people outside your group, you use words with their intended meaning, not the one you made up.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorist

See definition 2.

Send in the clowns. 😀

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
If your beef with googlefudge is based on a feud from past threads, then I'll butt out now. But I couldn't help but notice that the offense seemed a bit forced, based solely on the content of this thread.

Manufactured outrage is often brandished instead of arguments and ideas.

Originally posted by Suzianne
A "facepalm" is when you put your face in your hand. Put your elbow on the table, open palm facing up, then place your face in your hand (or, alternatively, your hand over your face), as a sign of exasperation. Using both hands in this fashion would be a "double facepalm". On the TV show "Star Trek:TNG", Captain Picard, played by Patrick Stewart, would d ...[text shortened]... wn for it.

I thought it was a great reference and it made me actually LOL when I read it. 🙂

😳 = "facepalm"?

"I thought it was a great reference and it made me actually LOL when I read it. 🙂"

Ha,

Thanks.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I can't tell.

However I think my point was this.

We have answered this question many many times.

You KNOW we have answered this question many many times.

Thus, unless you genuinely don't understand our answers, and want clarification...
[i]In which case you should say so and outline what it is you don't understand/agree
with instead of ju ...[text shortened]... ne of those options is conducive to the civilised conversations you claim to
be interested in.

Human emotions are designed to appreciate;
they have zero capacity for rational thought,
without which discussion is impossible.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
Would you agree that answering a question with a question is rude?

At times; however, it depends on the context which may warrant follow on questions if the topic is out of focus.

Originally posted by FMF
Manufactured outrage is often brandished instead of arguments and ideas.

More bottom-feeding. Typical "bumper-stickerism".

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
It's common usage. Try this: go down a street and ask people to picture a terrorist in their head for a few seconds. Then ask them what country the terrorist is from. If over half don't name some country in the middle east, I will eat my hat [I'll even start a thread in which I do so.]

Am I allowed to walk down a street in Indonesia?

Originally posted by Suzianne
More bottom-feeding. Typical "bumper-stickerism".

You think so? I think people quite often display outrage instead of engaging an argument or stance. Sometimes they do both. Sometimes they set the outrage aside and debate. But I think it isn't even controversial ~ let alone "bottom feeding" ~ to point out that people will try to make their own protestations of being offended take the place of making a counter-argument against what it is that is said to have offended them. It happens all the time.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Would you argue with your own grandmother, insulting her religion and calling her b**-s*** crazy for believing in a god that is clearly a homicidal maniac? No, you probably wouldn't.

Would you tell your atheist grandmother that you believe the Bible to be true? Would you consider doing so to be an insult?

I would have no problem whatsoever telling my Christian grandmother that I believe the Moses story to be fictional. I would say it politely and not call her b**-s*** crazy.