Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Athiests and Offensiveness

EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
edited December 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
So there is controversy this Christmas (Happy Holidays) season regarding atheists sharing their views however the manner they do so has a few people irked, and understandably so.

Next to the nativity scene at the Legislative Building in Olympia, Washington is a sign that in my view is very offensive. To me, it's the equivalent of a sign saying 'All non-Christians will burn in Hell!!' Nothing wrong with that as it's free speech but I don't think either is appropriate in this setting.

I'm agnostic and I don't like anyone telling me my beliefs are wrong and won't push my religious view onto others either. I don't care what religion you are as long you're not hurting anyone really.


Atheists take aim at Christmas

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

art.atheist.sign.olympia.jpg


So, let's discuss. Is this atheist group a new form of dick headed religious fanaticism?

Emanon on
Treats Animals Right!
«13456722

Posts

  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    How is that taking aim at Christians specifically?

    How could you label that as religious fanaticism? Does the sign make any false statements? No? How about encouraging violence or mistreatment of people? It doesn't do that either? Then don't be such a dick headed religious fanatic.

    TLDR2014_zps40439c2c.jpg
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    To be fair, putting it next to a nativity scene is asking for trouble. It's confrontational and fairly mean-spirited to attack religion as a whole while situated next to a religious display.

    Then again, what the hell is a nativity scene doing at a legislative building in the capital?

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    its not 'are atheists are assholes by nature' but 'are assholes atheists by nature'

    do assholes have a higher propensity to believe that there is no one out there who cares what they do?

    sure, i could see that.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Yeah it shouldn't necessarily be there, but that is seemingly there just to cause a problem.

    Now if this was at a church that would be a whole different ballgame. But a nativity scene shouldn't be at a legislative building.

  • kdrudykdrudy Registered User
    edited December 2008
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    its not 'are atheists are assholes by nature' but 'are assholes atheists by nature'

    do assholes have a higher propensity to believe that there is no one out there who cares what they do?

    sure, i could see that.

    There are plenty of assholes who are religious.

    tvsfrank.jpg
  • JustinSane07JustinSane07 __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Taramoor's pretty much right. That's beign an asshole but why the hell is it at a legislative building?

    Outside of that, it's an asshole too because the spirit of Christmas is togetherness and peace. Religious back drop or not. Some people need to take a step back and enjoy the good times.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    its not 'are atheists are assholes by nature' but 'are assholes atheists by nature'

    do assholes have a higher propensity to believe that there is no one out there who cares what they do?

    sure, i could see that.

    i don't think that's true.

    I think that the entirety of all religious fanatics could, in fact, be classified as assholes.

    I think it's more accurate to say "assholes by their very nature are more likely to be total shitheads about whatever it is they believe is true"

    whether they are atheists or christians or muslims or whatever.

    I don't think it's the religion, or lack thereof, that makes them more or less of a douchebag.

    That's just the kind of person they are.

    Also, that sign is a fucking dickhead thing to do and whoever put it up is a jerk.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You can argue whether it is right or wrong to have a nativity scene on government property till you are blue in the face.

    That's a complicated Constitutional argument and quite honestly as a non-American, not really something I care a great deal about.

    Regardless, even if you believe that having the nativity scene on government property is wrong, it doesn't mean it's preaching hatred or being a douchebag to people who believe differently than you do.

    That sign however, is doing exactly that, so the person who put that sign up is the far bigger asshole regardless of anything else.

  • EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    How is that taking aim at Christians specifically?

    How could you label that as religious fanaticism? Does the sign make any false statements? No? How about encouraging violence or mistreatment of people? It doesn't do that either? Then don't be such a dick headed religious fanatic.

    Hmmm, where did I say the sign was taking aim at Christians? Maybe you should read my post before going on a tirade.

    Treats Animals Right!
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    kdrudy wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    its not 'are atheists are assholes by nature' but 'are assholes atheists by nature'

    do assholes have a higher propensity to believe that there is no one out there who cares what they do?

    sure, i could see that.

    There are plenty of assholes who are religious.

    oh yeah i know. im just saying specifically that the mean number of assholes when adjusted for population of the group tends to be more attracted to atheism.

    i can only justify it by saying that if i were someone that did terrible things to people and disregarded others feelings i wouldn't likely believe that there is a god out there who is going to judge me on those obviously evil actions. i would be more likely to simply convince myself that there is no one judging me for my actions that i subconsciously would know are evil.

    its tenuous but cmon there isnt really an assholometer to base this off of.

  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think that sign is fine and I'm glad it's there.

    "Despite all the bitching, if Diablo 3 sucks, I will eat my own cock. Counter-claim: If Diablo 3 does not suck, I will have a list of whiners who need to eat cocks." - Zen Vulgarity
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    How is the sign 'preaching hatred' as opposed to 'protesting the intermarriage of state and religion' or 'discouraging contradictory belief systems'

    TLDR2014_zps40439c2c.jpg
  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    The problem with atheism as a concept is that it is, by its very nature, reaction against theism; it can only criticize. It can only accuse. It can only be negative.

    People don't really like that, and it makes atheists seem like they're constantly on the attack.

    What atheists need to do, and what some have been trying to do, is generate a positive movement rather than simply a negative one - something to unite secular thinkers and give them something to stand for.

    Put up a sign with the principles of this movement, not one that attacks another group - regardless of whether that attack is deserved or not, it will not accomplish much. It may get PR, as the guy claims, but it also results in backlash. Backlash is not helpful for the "cause" of secularity.

    I agree with the message on the sign, but I have the feeling that it will only please the people who already agree.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Pony wrote: »
    You can argue whether it is right or wrong to have a nativity scene on government property till you are blue in the face.

    That's a complicated Constitutional argument and quite honestly as a non-American, not really something I care a great deal about.

    Regardless, even if you believe that having the nativity scene on government property is wrong, it doesn't mean it's preaching hatred or being a douchebag to people who believe differently than you do.

    That sign however, is doing exactly that, so the person who put that sign up is the far bigger asshole regardless of anything else.

    I agree with you.

    It's something I feel but it's not necessarily bad. Until they start using the nativity scene as a basis to escalate and throwing up crosses in courtrooms and schools.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    You know what makes this Atheist group a bunch of pompous dickheads?

    Statements like this:
    "When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

    That's right, this fucking cumsock considers a nativity scene to be hate speech.

    He's so insecure about his beliefs that to even see anything related to religion makes him feel like he's under attack and that has to attack back.

    It's exactly how fanatics see the world.

    These "Freedom from Religion Foundation" people are a bunch of insecure, whiny douchebags who need to choke on their beloved Christopher Hitchins books.

  • theclamtheclam Registered User
    edited December 2008
    I think that the sign is no less dickish than the nativity display, we're just more used to religious displays. It's a problem that atheist organizations haven't found a way to influence society without being extremely controversial.

    Speaking as an atheist myself, I strongly disapprove of this sort of religious display on public property.

    rez_guy.png
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Emanon wrote: »
    How is that taking aim at Christians specifically?

    How could you label that as religious fanaticism? Does the sign make any false statements? No? How about encouraging violence or mistreatment of people? It doesn't do that either? Then don't be such a dick headed religious fanatic.

    Hmmm, where did I say the sign was taking aim at Christians? Maybe you should read my post before going on a tirade.

    Well aside from the name of the article being 'Atheists take aim at Christmas', you said:
    To me, it's the equivalent of a sign saying 'All non-Christians will burn in Hell!!' Nothing wrong with that as it's free speech but I don't think either is appropriate in this setting.

    I'm agnostic and I don't like anyone telling me my beliefs are wrong and won't push my religious view onto others either. I don't care what religion you are as long you're not hurting anyone really.

    Why wouldn't you be open to someone telling you your beliefs are wrong? People believe wrong things all the time, and you can't grow if you aren't willing to learn. Unless you're segregating a specific belief in an omnipotent being as separate from rational belief which requires factual basis.

    TLDR2014_zps40439c2c.jpg
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    How is the sign 'preaching hatred' as opposed to 'protesting the intermarriage of state and religion' or 'discouraging contradictory belief systems'

    Saying that all religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds" is pretty fucking hateful, dude, and if you can't see that you're willfully blinding yourself.

    Just like religious fanatics do!

  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.

    Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.

    It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?

    Spoiler:
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    theclam wrote: »
    I think that the sign is no less dickish than the nativity display, we're just more used to religious displays. It's a problem that atheist organizations haven't found a way to influence society without being extremely controversial.

    Speaking as an atheist myself, I strongly disapprove of this sort of religious display on public property.

    You know what? There's a valid line of argument to what is bolded there. Should a religious display be on government property? I'm not an American or an expert on the American Constitution, but I would think the answer to that question is no, it should not.

    However, the appropriate reaction would be to post a sign giving people pause to question why this religious display is on government property, and call upon them to reject the establishment of a state religion and to keep religion out of state politics.

    Not to post a sign directly attacking religion.

    There's a severe disconnect between what is wrong with the situation and how to appropriately react to it, and that's the point these Freedom from Religion Foundation people seem to be missing.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It probably could've worded itself a metric fuckton better.

  • BubbaTBubbaT Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Taramoor wrote: »
    To be fair, putting it next to a nativity scene is asking for trouble. It's confrontational and fairly mean-spirited to attack religion as a whole while situated next to a religious display.

    Then again, what the hell is a nativity scene doing at a legislative building in the capital?

    The nativity is there because in 2006 the state let a Jewish group put up a menorah. A Christian guy sued to get a nativity allowed as well. I'm sure it won't be long before Xenu and FSM start popping up there too, since apparently Washington considers the Capitol building an equally appropriate place for proselytizing as a random street corner.


    The leader of the atheist group is a former evangelical preacher, so I wouldn't be surprised if he was an asshole before he was an atheist.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    If you're going to allow a nativity, you should allow an atheist message as well out of fairness. The atheist message in the OP isn't very positive, however, and shouldn't be displayed in my opinion. They should replace the display with one that is positive about atheism rather than negative against religion.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • SarksusSarksus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.

    Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.

    It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?

    A nativity scene is not necessarily saying "God absolutely exists", it's just a show of faith. The nativity scene also does not feature anything that implies that atheists should suck down a fat one and burn in Hell, unlike the atheist plaque which charges that religion hardens hearts (not true in all cases) and ensalves minds (this returns us to my argument that people are capable of compartmentalizing, believing irrationally about a God while still maintaining an ability to reason clearly outside of that religious belief) . The atheist plaque is intentionally inflammatory, the group that put it up says so themselves because they are so pissed off at the baby Jesus and his sweet Christmas presents.

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    lazegamer wrote: »
    If you're going to allow a nativity, you should allow an atheist message as well out of fairness. The atheist message in the OP isn't very positive, however, and shouldn't be displayed in my opinion. They should replace the display with one that is positive about atheism rather than negative against religion.

    And that, I believe, is the heart of the issue.

    Ultimately the easy solution is to not have religious displays on government property in the first place, but since they are allowing it, they should allow other religions and beliefs to have their representation as well.

    However, the Atheist representation could've been a lot more positive and life-affirming instead of phrasing itself directly as an attack on all religion, and not just Christianity either.

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    theclam wrote: »
    I think that the sign is no less dickish than the nativity display, we're just more used to religious displays. It's a problem that atheist organizations haven't found a way to influence society without being extremely controversial.

    Speaking as an atheist myself, I strongly disapprove of this sort of religious display on public property.

    i strongly disapprove of people who CARE whats on display on public property.

    its a nativity scene not sections of the bible cut out and pasted on the wall. if you did not know what it was before hand it would not educate you in the religion or tell you anything other than 'heres a bunch of people surrounding a baby'

    religious symbolism when used to try to associate a public building with any one religion or anything used to teach about a religion = bad.

    but you absolutely can not separate seasonal religious artifacts from holidays.

    are you also against having a star on the top of a christmas tree because it symbolizes the star that led the magi to bethlahem?

  • Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    There's no reason a nativity scene should be allowed at a legislative building. None whatsoever. It implicitly suggests that Christianity is more important, or somehow the default belief.

    Frankly when it comes to positive atheist messages I think we should all just follow the Cult of Carl Sagan.

    Inquisitor wrote: »
    I fucking hate you Canadians.
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?

    Jesus loves all the little children, Wonder Hippie.

    And there are a few secular displays you could find in front of a government building that you could find offensive. Say the middle school made a scene of Washington crossing the Delaware - that would offend pacifists since that implies Washington was fighting for all of us and war is a preferred solution for dealing with the hated British.

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • SarksusSarksus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Seriously, it is pretty damn easy to whip up a positive message that promotes rational thinking and the like. If you can't do that you're a crappy atheist who is more interested in wiggling a stick up their ass than exploring what it means to be an atheist and how those principles can be a positive and bettering force in your life.

    Edit: Also one of my posts got bottomfed so I would like people to read it.

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hey freedom and equality don't necessarily mean you're allowed to be a dickwad. You don't have freedom of the consequence of your free speech.

    Crazy that the sign can be pulled down as an unrecognized form of protest(maybe) since it may not have been approved. Or you could just say "hey this wasn't approved so it has to come down, try being nice next time."

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2008
    Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.

    Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.

    Shit, really? And I just thought it was sort of pretty. I didn't know I was making a political statement.

    What sort of exclusivist, hegemonic message am I conveying when I plant daisies in my front yard?

    Seriously, though, equating a Christmas decoration with a sign that effectively says, "Dude, fuck you and your Christmas and your phony-baloney God" is sort of... retarded beyond belief.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.

    Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.

    It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?

    A nativity scene is not necessarily saying "God absolutely exists", it's just a show of faith. The nativity scene also does not feature anything that implies that atheists should suck down a fat one and burn in Hell, unlike the atheist plaque which charges that religion hardens hearts (not true in all cases) and ensalves minds (this returns us to my argument that people are capable of compartmentalizing, believing irrationally about a God while still maintaining an ability to reason clearly outside of that religious belief) . The atheist plaque is intentionally inflammatory, the group that put it up says so themselves because they are so pissed off at the baby Jesus and his sweet Christmas presents.

    How is putting up a nativity not saying that Jesus absolutely existed, was divine and the son of the Judeo-Christian god? I could cop out and say that the plaque is just a show of faith to, of "faith" that god doesn't exist, but I'm not, because that's not what it is. If you have faith that Jesus was divine and all that stuff, how is that not also true for me? How can my or any other understanding of the universe coexist with that? You can't hold out one hand and say, "What you believe is fine by me," but close another by believing in an exclusivistic religion.

    Spoiler:
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Sort of... like a hippie isn't it?

  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.

    Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.

    It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?

    Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, while representing the largest chunk of religions in the world, are not the only ones and within those religions are denominations and sects which are not exclusive or "harden hearts and enslave minds".

    So that sign is a blatant and over-reactionary attack on everyone religious ever rather than a protest sign against the nativity being on public property or a celebration of the natural world, both of which would've been appropriate Atheist responses to this.

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    There's no reason a nativity scene should be allowed at a legislative building. None whatsoever. It implicitly suggests that Christianity is more important, or somehow the default belief.

    Frankly when it comes to positive atheist messages I think we should all just follow the Cult of Carl Sagan.

    under that arguement christmas should not be a federal holiday.

    ill concede that on that day, you cant have religious symbolism pertaining to the holiday on said government property.

  • NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    So, let's discuss. Is this atheist group a new form of dick headed religious fanaticism?
    Of course not. Calling atheism a religion is like calling health a disease.

    Spoiler:
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2008
    Can I point out that I know a lot of pretty secular people who stick up nativity scenes because they're pretty? I don't think you can tell a lot about a person by what fucking bauble he hangs on his Christmas trees.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • TL DRTL DR Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Pony wrote: »
    How is the sign 'preaching hatred' as opposed to 'protesting the intermarriage of state and religion' or 'discouraging contradictory belief systems'

    Saying that all religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds" is pretty fucking hateful, dude, and if you can't see that you're willfully blinding yourself.

    Just like religious fanatics do!

    Well maybe in your country religion is a personal choice that doesn't cause harm outside the practitioner. In America, religious organizations are a driving force for intolerance and political dickery.

    TLDR2014_zps40439c2c.jpg
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS
    edited December 2008
    Pony wrote: »
    Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.

    Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.

    It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?

    Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism, while representing the largest chunk of religions in the world, are not the only ones and within those religions are denominations and sects which are not exclusive or "harden hearts and enslave minds".

    So that sign is a blatant and over-reactionary attack on everyone religious ever rather than a protest sign against the nativity being on public property or a celebration of the natural world, both of which would've been appropriate Atheist responses to this.

    And a nativity scene is a blatant attack on every other religion. "Our mythology is correct." It's not correct for them, it's just correct. It is not compatible with other world views.

    Spoiler:
  • PonyPony Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Hah! This is exactly what I've been talking about all this time.

    Alright, here's how it works. If you put up a nativity scene and all that crap, you're necessarily saying that what you believe (Jesus, Judeo-Christian god, bible, all that crap) you are necessarily saying that your god exists for me, you, and everybody. Now, that's not the explicit message, but it's an absolutely unavoidable message. When an atheist says it explicitly, it suddenly becomes offensive.

    It's a simple fact that Judaism and Christianity and Hinduism and Islam are exclusivistic, but while it's not offensive when there's a nativity, it's offensive when atheists make the exact same statement openly?

    A nativity scene is not necessarily saying "God absolutely exists", it's just a show of faith. The nativity scene also does not feature anything that implies that atheists should suck down a fat one and burn in Hell, unlike the atheist plaque which charges that religion hardens hearts (not true in all cases) and ensalves minds (this returns us to my argument that people are capable of compartmentalizing, believing irrationally about a God while still maintaining an ability to reason clearly outside of that religious belief) . The atheist plaque is intentionally inflammatory, the group that put it up says so themselves because they are so pissed off at the baby Jesus and his sweet Christmas presents.

    How is putting up a nativity not saying that Jesus absolutely existed, was divine and the son of the Judeo-Christian god? I could cop out and say that the plaque is just a show of faith to, of "faith" that god doesn't exist, but I'm not, because that's not what it is. If you have faith that Jesus was divine and all that stuff, how is that not also true for me? How can my or any other understanding of the universe coexist with that? You can't hold out one hand and say, "What you believe is fine by me," but close another by believing in an exclusivistic religion.

    By not being a prick.

    I believe lots of things some of my friends don't. I have differing religious views than most of them. I have differing political views. I have different tastes in music, film, and art.

    I have differing views on controversial subjects like abortion, pornography, execution by the state, military rules of engagement, etc.

    On many of these views I believe I am absolutely correct in my viewpoint.

    And yet, somehow, I manage to maintain friendships with people who I ultimately believe are wrong about these things.

    How do I do that? By not being a prick about it!

    It's not even hard. You just have to stop being a whiny, shouting jerk-off everytime someone says or does something you disagree with. And even when you do take the moment to make clear your disagreement, you don't snarl and hiss and over-react, you simply say "Well, that's not what I believe".

    But maybe that's just me, dude!

«13456722
This discussion has been closed.