Go on, brush your shoulders off... Joel Brauer
Only you can decide to be happy! The rest of life is in the details... On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM, Lance McCulley <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
