Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » don't ask don't tell
Re: don't ask don't tell [message #442423 is a reply to message #442419] |
Mon, 10 January 2011 22:23 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637 Registered: June 2008
Karma:
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
CarrierII wrote on Sun, 09 January 2011 14:45 | I'd call attempting to codify beliefs as laws "obnoxious", thus my statement is intact.
|
Not so fast; you have yet to say what the atheists ("lack thereof") have done that is as comparable to the theists "attempting to codify beliefs as laws" and how it amounts to being "obnoxious."
Till you show that, your statement is atleast only partially correct, i.e, IF the "lack thereof" is stripped out. Go on...
CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 |
To forcibly tell others that your God, or lack thereof, is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
Please don't mention "your god, or lack thereof" in the same line because it doesn't make any sense. The atheist reason is the same. The theists are not; there are plenty of religions all claiming they got the bullseye. I understand you wrote "your God."
Besides, theists are the ones that "tell that they are right." Atheists "tell how they are right and give ample reason to back it up to irrefutable levels." This thread is a good example.
You shouldn't mention both in the same line considering theists have the lionshare of explaining to do. Besides, your statement seems to wrongly show atheism as another "belief system" that is competing with the actual belief systems. This is not the case.
Starbuzzz wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 16:42 | Discussing a issue in a heated exchange is the least of a problem when one side wants to codify their views as laws with everyone obligated to obey them. Now THAT, is a real problem (re: voter guide). Read what you are saying...so which side is being obnoxious? Your statement falls apart as we are always willing to make compromises IF it is fair and just to everyone; those of faith find this unfulfilling.
|
I did say, "which side is being obnoxious?" since it is only the dogmatic theists that go to such lengths to codify their beliefs as law (re: voter guide). They have done this and gotten away with this for centuries. So now finally, atheists having the power to openly challenge them DOES NOT equal atheists being obnoxious as well. But this is what your original statement stupidly implied.
Here's a breakdown of your original quote:
Quote: | Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
|
First off, when I read this a day ago, I seriously thought you have had a brainfade. Anyway:
There are 2 groups, 1 description and 1 "result" in your statement:
-faith - group 1
-lack thereof - group 2
-obnoxious - 1 description
-"real cause of problems" - 1 result
Here's an analogy (within the framework of your statement):
-invading army - group 1
-defending army - group 2
-barbarians - 1 description
-"fighting off the invasion" - 1 result
Here's an accurate matchup (obviously, your statement has to be entirely rewritten if this were to make sense) but the elements are the same for this mental exercise:
faith = invading army.
lack thereof = defending army
obnoxious = barbarians
"real cause of problems" = "fighting off the invasion"
And so your original statement, in light of this analogy, illogically says that:
-the mere act of defending from an invading army makes both sides barbarians.
-the mere act of "defending" is the real cause of problems as opposed to the invasion itself.
Even without the analogy to illustrate it; your statement still spouts the same fallacy:
-the act of attempting to curb intrusive theists makes both sides obnoxious(?)
-the mere act of atheists attempting to curb such illegal intrusion of the theists is the real cause of the problem.(seriously?)
What a fucked up hypothesis! It's screwed up because this is what theists are actually trying to do:
-attempt to worm their way into centres of power to gain influence
-attempting to make laws in their own favour so as to subjugate those who disgaree with their beliefs. (Good examples are laws regarding homosexuality and suicide clinics).
Since the actions of atheists are not vile and abhorrent as what the theists are trying to do, "lack thereof" can be stripped away from the statement. Why? Take a good look at this thread: theists say homosexuals should be kept locked up because their dogma states so. If this is not obnoxious, I don't know what it. However, the atheist responses in this thread cannot be compared to the theists because we are not telling them how to live; but refuting their extraordinary unjust bullshit. We can tell how wrong they are and have given them the irrefutable reasons; they have thrown up their hands in the air and claimed that they are still right. Both sides are not equal; one obvious side has merit and good intentions going for it.
Matching Conclusions:
-The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem; defending is not the real problem (your hypothesis states the opposite).
-i.e, the intrusion of church into the state is the REAL cause of the problem; the atheist attempt to eliminate this intrusion is not (and doesn't make them obnoxious in the least).
-Those of faith are the invading army as they are the ones doing everything they can to turn the law to favour themselves
-The atheist response to stop this trend makes them the defending army and rightly so.
-Those of faith are the obnoxious shits that have creeped into government over a period of many decades enjoying great powers of influence.
-"Lack thereof" are the non-obnoxious ones that are attempting to remove such unjust and illegal "occupation" of the state by the church.
The invasion is the REAL cause of the problem just as the voter guide (which represents church intrusion into government) is the real cause of problem. So the atheist reaction to that is NOT the "real cause of problems" and nor can it be described as obnoxious. The theist bitches were simply asking for it when they tried to shove their crap as law. It makes them obnoxious and our side the justified counter-attackers in defense of those who would otherwise suffer under the theists' dogmatically influenced laws.
So in conclusion, adding the "lack thereof" in your original statement makes your hypothesis partially wrong (due to "lack thereof" being present) while removing "lack thereof" makes it fully correct. It is those of faith that cause problems by attempting to subjugate others while those of no faith fight the injustice of the intrusive actions of the faithful. Both actions are not equal; one side is justified in their actions; the other side is SOL steaming out of excuses while at the same time, they overstep their boundaries and have greatly affected the peace-of-mind of individuals that want no part in their dogma.
And so, here is your corrected statement:
Quote: | Being obnoxious about your faith is the real cause of problems relating to faith.
|
Excellent. Makes perfect sense now, doesn't it? The faithful are not creating any problems by just existing and minding their own fucking business (example; Amish); but when they act obnoxious as the wing-nut fanatics (re: voter guide, "repent or burn in hell" billboards, homophobic laws), they create the problem (and fully deserve any shit that comes their way). And please, I think the atheist bus ads are lame as well but atleast you can either take or leave it as it is because nobody is threatened with hellfire if they reject it.
It's a win-win situation for atheists. Why?:
-We want a place where people of all differences can live side-by side.
-We will only fight theist influence where it does not belong; example, in government. (We will never try to codify laws that force anyone to share our mindset unlike the theists who without shame beg to have laws enacted banning people they despise from leading a good happy life.)
At the same time however, it is a lose-lose situation for theists: Why?
-They rarely favour a secular state; they want a theocracy with their beliefs codified as law and everyone obligated to obey them.
-They will do everything in their power (including the misuse of church resources as in the voter guide) to aid in their intrusion to control influence in government thru votes. Such is their insecurity.
So in conclusion, going back to your original statement:
Quote: | Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
|
Your statement will only be correct if we live in a world where atheists are as wicked as theists are now (across all religions)...trying to influence government to favour themselves (note that removing the 10 commandments from a courthouse doesn't count as "taking over" as government property is taxpayer funded and hence, secular). If atheists try to cripple churches, force christians underground, for example, then yes, they are being obnoxious and your misinformed, misguided hypothesis will be true.
Altzan wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 12:24 |
CarrierII wrote on Sat, 08 January 2011 10:21 | Hypothesis: Being obnoxious about your faith, or lack thereof, is the real cause of problems relating to faith, or lack thereof.
Discuss.
|
Agreed wholeheartedly.
|
Altzan wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 12:01 |
CarrierII wrote on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:37 | To forcibly tell others that your God is right (and by implication, that their's, if they have a God, is wrong) is obnoxious.
|
That, or lack thereof, as you stated before.
|
Notice how this particularly vile excuse of a human being is way too eager to jump onto CarrierII's idiotic hypothesis? Anyone know why? Cos it feebly attempts to show atheism as yet another "belief system" that could be either right or wrong. Of course, this is obviously bullshit; but we can trust such young indoctrinated fanatics to not know the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: snpr1101 on Thu, 16 December 2010 18:17
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Dover on Fri, 17 December 2010 00:19
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: bmr_71 on Thu, 16 December 2010 19:54
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Thu, 16 December 2010 15:35
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: bmr_71 on Thu, 16 December 2010 22:46
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Crimson on Fri, 17 December 2010 05:49
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: snpr1101 on Fri, 17 December 2010 07:08
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: bmr_71 on Fri, 17 December 2010 09:53
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Fri, 17 December 2010 11:09
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Tunaman on Sat, 18 December 2010 04:33
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: bmr_71 on Sat, 18 December 2010 09:16
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: bmr_71 on Sat, 18 December 2010 13:19
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: bmr_71 on Sat, 18 December 2010 13:23
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Tue, 21 December 2010 11:50
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: NukeIt15 on Tue, 21 December 2010 00:46
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: snpr1101 on Tue, 21 December 2010 06:15
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Wed, 22 December 2010 08:05
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: snpr1101 on Wed, 22 December 2010 04:20
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Rocko on Tue, 21 December 2010 22:22
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: appshot on Wed, 22 December 2010 02:25
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:30
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:32
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Wed, 22 December 2010 22:52
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Thu, 23 December 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Fri, 24 December 2010 08:29
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Dover on Fri, 24 December 2010 10:15
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Fri, 24 December 2010 12:11
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: SSADMVR on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:12
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Wed, 22 December 2010 10:47
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Wed, 22 December 2010 16:10
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Rocko on Wed, 22 December 2010 16:18
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: snpr1101 on Wed, 22 December 2010 17:30
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Hitman on Wed, 22 December 2010 23:43
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Thu, 23 December 2010 04:05
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Hitman on Thu, 23 December 2010 05:35
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Rocko on Thu, 23 December 2010 16:37
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Thu, 23 December 2010 21:12
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: snpr1101 on Fri, 24 December 2010 01:45
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Dover on Fri, 24 December 2010 07:01
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Fri, 24 December 2010 21:48
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Rocko on Fri, 24 December 2010 18:22
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Dover on Sat, 25 December 2010 10:51
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Sat, 25 December 2010 14:28
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Fri, 31 December 2010 16:05
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Fri, 31 December 2010 23:35
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: NukeIt15 on Fri, 24 December 2010 22:58
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Rocko on Sat, 25 December 2010 01:30
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: liquidv2 on Sat, 25 December 2010 07:20
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: liquidv2 on Fri, 31 December 2010 19:30
|
|
|
pulling in and out again...
|
|
|
Re: pulling in and out again...
|
|
|
Re: pulling in and out again...
By: Dover on Wed, 05 January 2011 11:43
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Wed, 05 January 2011 21:47
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Wed, 05 January 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Thu, 06 January 2011 08:41
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: appshot on Thu, 06 January 2011 15:30
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: bmr_71 on Thu, 06 January 2011 18:33
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Fri, 07 January 2011 20:07
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Fri, 07 January 2011 23:09
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Sat, 08 January 2011 11:24
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Sat, 08 January 2011 17:37
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: kadoosh on Sat, 08 January 2011 09:30
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Sat, 08 January 2011 15:53
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: HaTe on Sat, 08 January 2011 16:13
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Mon, 10 January 2011 11:01
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Mon, 10 January 2011 13:22
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Rocko on Mon, 10 January 2011 18:20
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Tue, 11 January 2011 01:43
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Tue, 11 January 2011 04:41
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Tue, 11 January 2011 06:02
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Tue, 11 January 2011 07:56
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Tue, 11 January 2011 08:17
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Tue, 11 January 2011 11:09
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Wed, 12 January 2011 06:12
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Wed, 12 January 2011 06:24
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Wed, 12 January 2011 07:59
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Wed, 12 January 2011 11:28
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Wed, 12 January 2011 14:06
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Tue, 11 January 2011 23:51
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Wed, 12 January 2011 04:59
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Altzan on Wed, 12 January 2011 06:54
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Wed, 12 January 2011 23:39
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Thu, 13 January 2011 01:18
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Thu, 13 January 2011 01:49
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: Spoony on Thu, 13 January 2011 03:30
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Thu, 13 January 2011 04:54
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
By: reborn on Thu, 13 January 2011 02:49
|
|
|
Re: don't ask don't tell
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Dec 23 09:12:11 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03008 seconds
|