I missed the part where the non-religious demand that the religious shouldn't be religious. I haven't heard that argued from atheists, agnostics, or non-religious. What I have heard been argued is keeping religious opinion out of public life and policy, because then you are "[forcing] a belief on someone else in the present."
I have to take issue with your reasoning, though. You say each has different implications, while implying that the theist saying that "something is going to happen to someone...[not] implemented by the religious person" is somehow less offensive than the atheist saying your belief is illogical. It seems as though you're attempting to justify the theists' belief by removing them by one degree. By stating that they are not implementing the torturous hell on the individual they have condemned to hell with their beliefs, you are attempting to take away all responsibility of the belief. It's like a pimp hiring someone else to beat his whores, just so he feels better about being a pimp. The point is, a violent end is being wished upon someone, no matter the enforcer. -Lance On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Joel Brauer <[email protected]> wrote: > I think both sides statements are worthless. Having said that, Saying an > atheist is going to burn in Hell, is saying you believe something is going > to happen to someone you disagree with but won't be implemented by the > religious person. However, saying believing in God makes no sense AND that > it shouldn't be allowed, is trying to force a belief on someone in the > present. I have problems with both sides saying either thing, but there are > different implications of each statement. > > Joel Brauer > > Only you can decide to be happy! The rest of life is in the details... > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Lance McCulley > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I've always been amused at the idea that a religious person can say that >>> an atheist will burn in hell as a result of their beliefs, and that is not >>> considered offensive; but if an atheist says that believing in God makes no >>> sense, that is considered deeply offensive. One person is charging the other >>> with faulty logic; the other is charging them with a base immorality that >>> warrants eternal torture. How is the former even vaguely more insulting than >>> the latter? >>> >> -- >> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/the-silent-minority_b_173354.html >> >> -Lance >> >> >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Politically Opinionated Outspoken People Expounding Religion" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/pooper?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
