The Newly Departed thread: announcements (departures)

[Brian37]

So, are we to make a rule that says it's okay to be uncivil if someone else starts it? These are important points to make, and questions for all of you to ask yourselves.

For the record, I'm pretty sure saying someone is doing something petty is calling them petty. You know I have no objection to this kind of banter or discourse, but you do. I want to know how people really want this to go, because there are going to be times when the rules seem pretty good against a foe, but not so good when applied to you.

I am not a perfect person. When I'm being attacked, it is difficult at times not to say something back after a while. I do try very hard to be civil and keep my cool around here through whatever gets thrown my way, but fall short at times. I hope that if each side makes a better effort, it'll be easier for both to behave.

All 7 billion of us fart rainbows that smell like Neapolitan ice cream. But surprise, what you consider a mundane position, we consider an attack on us. 

IE, you can claim all you want your interpretation of your version of what you believe to be true is good, and not bigoted. What theists miss is that even if I support YOU the individual, and I do, it still remains others of the same religion, but a different sub sect, DONT view your interpretation the way you do. Which means, all your good intent still does not change that others read the same words you do, and justify harm to others, even at a political level. And that is why facts matter. 

That is why I think it is far more important to value facts, and to not worry so much about being offended. And to value considering you got it wrong, rather than thinking "that was then, this is now" is some sort of slur. But if you want to say you are being attacked? How? We didn't have you arrested. You are not a Koptic Christian living in Egypt or a Kurdish Christian living in Iraq. Considering what blacks and women and gays have gone through in America, I'd say you've been treated very well by the staff here as well as most of the atheists here. 

I wont myself for example, back off the claim that the Abraham Gods of the big three reflect the tribal dictatorships of the ruling families they were started in in Mesopotamia. I won't back off of my claim that while most people ARE GOOD, at the same time, most humans merely adapt the religion of their parents prior to formulating adult critical thinking skills. 

I do not see any redeeming qualities about immovable power who does not need your consent to rule over you. I do not see any redeeming qualities about an immovable figure that was not elected to it's position with your consent. I do not see any redeeming qualities about an "all powerful" power that claims it can protect everyone but is selective in doing such. I see all that as merely a reflection of human's refusal to accept they are finite, and a projection of their own qualities and desires.

Problem is, even without cussing, or bombastic words, even that last paragraph is offensive to theists and seen as bigotry, and not a mere statement of position. 

CL, I am not perfect either. But that has nothing to do with facts. And like it or not, nobody has ever proven any super natural cognition, much less the need for one. And no, even if I bought into the idea of a super cognition, I most certainly would not buy an authoritarian version, which is what the Abraham God/s are. Much less a god that would be more concerned about getting picked on, than preventing things like famine, crime and war. 

I like you. I like Atlass. I like MK, other theists here, not so much. But even with the theists I do like, I still don't like it when they claim false persecution. There are oppressed Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and atheists in the world. CL, you have been here on this website as long as I have. If you were really oppressed, in real life, we would all defend you. So it is still up to you to defend your positions and stop worrying so much about blasphemy.