Seriously! I want to beat 'em myself! Joel Brauer
Only you can decide to be happy! The rest of life is in the details... On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Lance McCulley <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
