(March 31, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: you still don't get it, It's not an issue that I care about as a christian. As an "atheist", Christmas nativity scene would be the least of my worries..I'd be too busy trying to find the nearest orgy.

Okay, we get it: you're a selfish person barely held in check by your god. You don't need to keep repeating it.

Some of us actually care about things and want to shape the future toward something we find beneficial, though. Don't presume we're all as base as you are.

What? you mean in the same way you presume?

(March 31, 2014 at 2:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 2:33 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Protesting against stupidity and something that one objects to is a cornerstone of liberal democracies, no?

A secular state entails the neutrality of the he public sphere towards religion. If one faith can do it, then it should either be fair game to all non/faith groups or it should be outlawed. Using the public sphere as a domain to gain influence for your specific faith is something that has proven time and time again to cause division and inequality. The only safe way to ensure religious freedom is through a neutral public sphere.

Now, employing what you've just learned, are you able to reassess and combat your supposed 'confusion'?

you still don't get it, It's not an issue that I care about as a christian. As an "atheist", Christmas nativity scene would be the least of my worries..I'd be too busy trying to find the nearest orgy.

Wut?

Ok so you have no clue what you're on about, I get that. But what's the orgy comment got to do with it? Is that a sleight of hand ridiculing you are attempting there? Are you only held back from murdering people because of an invisible bloke in the sky?

Do you have any thoughts on my little description of secularism and why opposing the encroachment of religions into the public sphere is actually a virtue for maintaining a neutral and free society? No worries if not. I know you don't care, that's what makes the difference between someone who has some intellectual integrity (me) and someone who doesn't (probably you).

Seeing as you seem to care very little about society, life, and and your fellow man as a Christian, I struggle to see why I'd care about what you'd think/do if you were an atheist.

(March 31, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 2:53 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Okay, we get it: you're a selfish person barely held in check by your god. You don't need to keep repeating it.

Some of us actually care about things and want to shape the future toward something we find beneficial, though. Don't presume we're all as base as you are.

What? you mean in the same way you presume?

Damn, Esquilax! Huggy just dropped the fucking bomb on you: I know you are but what am I? Wave the white flag, friend. You'll never overcome this much logical and rhetorical firepower -- not even if you accept Jesus into your heart and get your mind right with the Lord. Never.

Trolls. Gonna. Troll.

(March 31, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: What? you mean in the same way you presume?

Hey, when you outright state that you'd care more about fucking than leaving behind a world worth living in without your god, I feel kinda justified in saying that's what you think.

But I don't need to converse with a dead person, either.

(March 31, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 3:00 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: What? you mean in the same way you presume?

Hey, when you outright state that you'd care more about fucking than leaving behind a world worth living in without your god, I feel kinda justified in saying that's what you think.

But I don't need to converse with a dead person, either.

I figured you would get that the orgy part was a joke.

(March 31, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(March 31, 2014 at 3:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Hey, when you outright state that you'd care more about fucking than leaving behind a world worth living in without your god, I feel kinda justified in saying that's what you think.

But I don't need to converse with a dead person, either.

I figured you would get that the orgy part was a joke.

It would have been funny if it hadn't been the only comprehensible point in your reply.

Indeed, every point we've made to you has been met with a de facto silence on your part over said points aside from where you reveal you do not comprehend either secularism or parody.

If I may ask a serious question. Are you here to learn anything about who atheists really are and what we (don't) believe, or just to confirm your prejudices based on imagined positions you think we hold?

(March 31, 2014 at 3:40 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: I figured you would get that the orgy part was a joke.

Given that it was the only thing in your contention against atheists, why would I not take it seriously? If it was a joke, doesn't that mean that you can, in fact, imagine the kinds of moral and pragmatic reasons we do what we do, rendering your entire argument moot, and pointless even from the outset?

(March 31, 2014 at 3:47 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: It would have been funny if it hadn't been the only comprehensible point in your reply.

Indeed, every point we've made to you has been met with a de facto silence on your part over said points aside from where you reveal you do not comprehend either secularism or parody.

If I may ask a serious question. Are you here to learn anything about who atheists really are and what we (don't) believe, or just to confirm your prejudices based on imagined positions you think we hold?

(March 31, 2014 at 4:04 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Given that it was the only thing in your contention against atheists, why would I not take it seriously? If it was a joke, doesn't that mean that you can, in fact, imagine the kinds of moral and pragmatic reasons we do what we do, rendering your entire argument moot, and pointless even from the outset?

Get off your high horses already, I thought "atheist" meant having no belief in God? So why would my example of what I would do if i didn't believe in a God, reflect upon atheists as a whole? Wouldn't I just be some guy who just happens not to believe in God?

also you seem to use the word "we" quite liberally, are you sure you're not a religious organization?

re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

Quote:The bill passed the House with overwhelming support but encountered some difficulties when Senator Mike Fair(R-Turd) objected to the bill for “religious reasons.”

Fair, who has compared the President to Osama Bin Laden, helped to block funding for a rape crisis center, called climate change a hoax, and blocked evolution from the state’s science standards, saying “I don’t have a problem with teaching theories. I don’t think it should be taught as fact,” stood up for Biblical representation in the state fossil–after all, what’s science without Jesus?

Bryant proposed an amendment to the bill to include a passage from Genesis explaining the Biblical creation of life–because why not?

“I think it’s a good idea to designate the mammoth as the state fossil, I don’t have a problem with that. I just felt like it’d be a good thing to acknowledge the creator of the fossils,” Bryant told the Daily Beast.

Lt. Gov. Glenn McConnell blocked the proposed amendment because it introduced a new subject. He has since amended the amendment to describe the Columbian Mammoth as “created on the Sixth Day with the beasts of the field.”

In response to the Lt. Governor’s ruling Senator Mike Fair placed an objection to the bill, which has been put on hold until they can take what was a simple thing that would benefit children across South Carolina and make one little girl very happy–and figure out how to please the Creationists.

How the fuck did he became a senator in the first place? Shame on america.