How many people have you seen wearing those? The fact that somebody sells it on the internet doesn’t mean fuck-all. Seriously. You can find ANYTHING on the internet, probably even a shirt that says “CHICKENS ARE FOR FUCKING,” and it doesn’t signify.
Perhaps he meant athiest in the “classic” sense, instead of the popular and relatively recent “hand stabber” sense. In the classic sense, a secular hospital is indeed atheist, because it is founded on principles that do not include a belief in God. That atheism is now regarded as a religion unto itself is a distortion of classical atheism, which is simply the absence of belief in God. By the classical standard, secular institutions are indeed atheist.
Certainly, I am the last one to begrudge a man his romantic flirtations with his classical ideal. All I can say is, good luck with it.
That’s an interesting link and it went straight into my favourites, but I can’t see the relevance to atheist hospitals, or atheism generally.
In other words, what are you going on about?
Well, fine, secular doesn’t necessarily mean atheist. Big whoop. Maybe of all the secular hospitals there is only a tiny percentage actually run by atheists, so the overall number of atheist-run hospitals is actually smaller than religion-based hospitals. Big whoop, I say again. Is there some overall point about atheists being joyless people and bad citizens? I can’t find it. O’Hair was a Grade A bitch, but she’s more than countered by religious thugs throughout American history.
The original letter writer who said “laughter … zest for life … acceptance … tolerance” were “so absent from the liberal atheist” probably didn’t know any liberal atheists, or he’s concentrating on one or two he’s met who might have been feeling depressed. His statement is so obviously bullshit that it deserves ridicule and dismissal, not debate. The hospital angle is a red herring because while good deeds may sometimes be motivated by religion, they’re just as likely to be motivated by something other than religion.
Got anything of substance to throw back at me, Lib?
And there, in a nutshell, is what Lib refuses to acknowledge – thank you for putting it so succintly. ‘Atheism’ to him, is akin to a waving a red cape in front of a Miura bull.
In his mind, no doubt. In the real wold, just shitloads of nitpicks and semantic wrangling.
Susan, no, I meant what I wrote. ‘Rebel rousing’ is redneck slang for hellraisin’ and cavorting. Probably a mispronunciation of the original ‘rabble-rousing’ but it still holds a difference in meaning AFAICT. Not sure how demagogues party, or even if they party at all.
You’d have to ask Lib about that. He’s the one that’s all about lies and deceptions 
I have to agree. You aren’t going to get any satisfaction from arguing with Lib. He’s all about arguing for the sake of argument. His style is to bob and weave, deliberately baiting you by being uneccessarily terse and/or cryptic and obscuring his real point, and then move in for the kill (or what he imagines to be the kill) after you respond, by harping on some semantic point that isn’t even germane to the discussion, all the while talking down to you in that “I’m superior” style of his.
If the only thing keeping you from destroying things for fun is a belief in god maybe you’re just a bad person.
'Twere a joke, son. Surely you’re aware of the conversations that surrounded Lib’s name change.
Lib is being puckish.
Oh. I guess relevence to the issue at hand was too much to hope for. Silly me.
So, Liberal took his name out of deference to the original use of the word? Bully for him. I don’t see where a lot of intolerant religious stuff fits in, though.
Hey, I’m fun!
Lib’s little joke immediately followed this:
It doesn’t ALL have to be about this impassioned argument over whether atheism is equivalent to scumbaggery. Cut him some slack when he tries to lighten the moment with a wry observation.
I mean, he hasn’t even called atheists (as a group) “handstabbers” for at least a couple of weeks; at least, not that I’ve noticed.
What I want to know is why the real question has not been adressed. Why is there no Christian Science Hospital?
It’s odd in that one could infer that the writer is none of the things he states.
What a hypocrite!!
One can infer from his words that he delights in his wife’s good deeds because he himself does not do so also since he ascribe such only to his wife. If he confesses to be as equally zealous as his wife, then he is a braggart of the first order. Neither is particularly Christian.
So, if the majority of the workers or patients in a hospital are Christian, it’s a Christian hospital.
:eek:
I disagree.
That said, I don’t know why he’s chosen to piss on this particular parade. Surely he doesn’t think that “Where are all the Atheist hospitals, huh?” is a useful observation.
He’s overcompensating for a truckload of sexual inadequacies. 
Yeah, I know Lib’s got a couple fans here, but I honestly don’t see why.
Um, how about relevance to the post from Fear Itself just above mine. Look out your window. See those bipedal organisms? Those are called “other people”. Quite often, they merit as much attention as you.
Please see post #6. What I was pissing on was the notion that “secular” and “atheist” are synonyms. I offered a dictionary definition to prove my point. Eventually, someone offered another dictionary definition of “worldy rather than spiritual”, to which I responded that atheists are not necessarily non-spiritual — they can, for example, believe in ghosts. Fear Itself then offered that a more classical definition of “atheist” indeed implies at least a kinship to “secular”. I told him that I could identify with his point of view, inasmuch as I use “liberal” in the classical definition. And here we are. The usual gaggle has tried to make it seem that I’m saying something I’m not, and it has had its usual level of success.