You gotta keep your pimp hand strong! -Lance
On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Joel Brauer <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
