Easter raped my cat. 
I have no problem with Easter. Pet all the fluffy bunnies you want, and go to all the torture-porn assemblies you can stomach. I just don’t like when theists present their ignorant and untested beliefs as fact on public property. Honestly, a Happy Easter sign would have been less objectionable than the sign that was there.
I wouldn’t give a shit about that, but unless the Muslims are packing some chocolate bunnies, I know what phony-bologna religion I’ll be backing 
Oh, please. You’re being an ass now. Either that or your simply an idiot, which I don’t think to be the case. But if you don’t see from the quotes I provided how that is insulting, then there’s really no point to any further conversation. Try (and I guess this is particularly difficult for you), reading it from the standponit of someone who IS religious. (That troublesome empathy thing, again.)
Oh, I guess I should have quoted every word you wrote in the thread and posted it within that very thread. :rolleyes:
I’ll just simply call bullshit on this, as your actions are counter to your claim. Fact: you were insulting. Fact: you didn’t have to be, as is evidenced by other atheists posting in the same thread who were not insulting.
First, no one asked you that. Second, you’ve made it so nice for you in your little make believe example, didn’t you. I mean, you just uttered the little word “yes”. You’d be so honest. and the question is already on the table. Yeah, you’re a prince. Third, you are stupendously unaware of your bias; you utter insulting stuff matter-of-factly without taking into account that not everyone shares your opinions of religion. (On one of Christianity’s most holy days,mind you.) Fourth, this isn’t a GD discussion about atheism vs theism. No one is trying to convert the other here, not even in our exchanges. The point is that you find it oh-so-impossible to explain something to your daughter just because it offends your sensibilities. Something that millions of people have managed to do. But to do so means putting actual information above personal bias, and you are unable to do that.
I don’t know you and have no idea what you’re like in real life. I see somethings that lead me to believe you might be a nice person. But you have a chip on your shoulder concerning religion. That is clear. Look at the other atheists who have posted in this thread. Look at the range. Now, I wouldn’t put you in the same camp as the idiot OP or a couple of other posters, but you’re much closer to him than you are say, Miller, or John Mace, and others. The fact that you asked for examples of you being insulted—as you were UNAWARE of them—and then once supllied to you you whine about them being taken out of context (:rolleyes:) is incontrovertible evidence that you are tone deaf to the feelings of the majority of the population. The inability to explain religion to your daughter is not a flaw of religion, but a flaw generated in you by your bias.
No. I don’t. That wouldn’t be much of a discussion. You may want to search for such discussions that have been had in these boards. But if someone does honestly want to discuss the topic, I expect them to not be insulting about it. Regardless of the topic. But the flaw is not with me. I can give a convincing argument for religion, or certainly explain it to a child in a way that satisfies them. (As others in this thread have done.) You are the one who as admitted to not being able to do that. You are the one who thinks there is only one side. Need I repost the insulting ways you’ve referred to religion or religionists in this very thread?
And here is the crux of it. Your bias revealed. Never mind you don’t even understand the very thing you hold in such opposition. But no matter, the church has done bad things therefore the church, en toto, is bad. How nice and simple. And because of these bad things you are the Righteous Crusader who will wield a mighty sword of disdain and hurl insults willy-nilly because, well, those religionits deserve it. Never mind that you ride a malformed steed of ignorance and the critical thinking you perceive to be your armor is cotton netting with moth holes. But you got your, ideas, by golly, and your little daughter will hear them and nothing else.
Ha. Because of your posts in this thread, obviously. Look what I just responded to. You are just as dangerous to a young mind as an evangelical Baptist. Not only are you sure you are right, your right is Righteous. Even when not making a specific point your language exudes disdain and ridicule. And by your own admission, you can’t even swallow it enough for the benefit of your daughter. To give her a simple, unbiased explanation. And when Miller pretty much wrote the speech for you, you bristled that it assumes the existence of God. No fucking shit, Sherlock. That’s the point! And that’s the funny thing about monks, they tend to be monks because…wait for it…they believe in God. But you can’t give any weight to that reality, even if it’s someone else’s. No. Religion bad. Religion stupid. God. Just like the Tooth Fairy. Religious people. Deluded. Abandoners of critical thought.
Actually, I was referring to your behavior in general (like, say, electing to flip your shit over an Easter banner), not specifically the fact I was needling you for making unfalsifiable pronouncements.
Now come on. I posted this
which bit did you quote? Let’s see, ah yes.
For that alone, you lost your credibility. You snipped very carefully to make it seem like that was what I tell her. From the full quote you can see that I do not subscribe to that school of thought. I was telling you precisely the sort of language I would not use.
Shame on you.
For the final time. I have not said that I am unable to, or unwilling to explain religion. Merely that for those who do not share a religious mindset it is difficult to do without resorting to meaningless generalities that are not very illuminating and not very satisfying. And for the last time. I avoid language that denigrates and insults the religious.
But John Mace called “Jesus is risen” a “stupid banner” by your standards that is far more insulting than anything I have written
(note - I have just quoted out of context to make a point)
which population? the one in which I exist? As I told you. The majority of the UK are not religious and are fairly apathetic towards adherents. If it doesn’t affect us we don’t care which may explain why the fairly innocuous, non-insulting language I have used seems shocking to your ears. You are perhaps unable to put yourself in my shoes.
Why don’t we just assume that you’ll find a way to make them appear so and then I waste too much of my life correcting you on your comprehension and contextual understanding. Apart from my factual points on the catholic church, throughout I have avoided specific criticisms of religious people or specific religions. That should give you a clearer understanding of my position and a better indication of how I conduct myself.
No, my bias is not revealed at all. I chose the example of the Catholic church because the negative aspects of it are well understood and not in contest. The Catholic church discriminates against homosexuals and women. I’m sorry if that is an uncomfortable fact for you. But fact it is. Note I said nothing about whether I would dwell on these facts but merely whether I should tell my daughter about them, shouldn’t I give her the facts even when they are, I’m sure you agree, objectionable? you do agree with that don’t you?
No, no, no. Sure shouldn’t come into it. I’m not sure that religions are wrong.
And I have never told my daughter nor anyone else that they are wrong or that there is definitely no god.
I never said that
I never said that
In terms of the emotional investment people put in it? no. In terms of the amount of evidence? yes.
yes, that is what I think. But I’m sure I’m deluded in my belief that Leeds United are the finest football team in the world. People out there think I’m deluded about that but does knowing that insult me? of course not.
And abandoners of critical thought? well of course. By the internal definitions of many religions this is clear. Faith is the opposite of critical thinking.
This is not controversial. Many religious people agree with this. They believe without evidence. Fine. If they are comfortable with that good for them but lets not pretend that they have arrived at their positions by a coherent critical exploration of the facts.
magellan01, look back to your first response to me. You assumed my hostility to religion right off. And yet I was trying to respectfully explain monks to my daughter in a way that didn’t paint them in a bad light…the very opposite of what you accuse me of.
I really don’t know what else to tell you.
In fairness, magellan01 is a massive fucking prick, and he doesn’t seem to give a shit who knows it. I wouldn’t take anything he says too personally.
Nevertheless, you adopted, and apparently accepted, the stereotype. You are responsible for the stereotypes you portray. If you didn’t accept the stereotype, why did you project it on people like me (I don’t believe you intended to shoot me with it, so I don’t take it personally)? The fact that you did means I am quite right to ream you for it. Don’t like it? Then stop projecting that stereotype on random people you don’t know. Get it right. Aim your vitriol on those who deserve it. If your shots result in collateral damage, don’t be surprised if us "collateral"s shoot back.
Given that, I accept your explanation, I probably overreacted to what you wrote. I might have been a bit extreme in my reaction. If so, sorry.
I thought it was all about the fact that they were broke the law and had nothing to do with the message.
That seems like a stupid thing to take away from this thread. Are you a stupid person in general, or is this a momentary lapse?
I don’t like religious messages on public property. I’m more upset (to the extent that I am upset) by silly assertions. Happy Easter isn’t an assertion.* Jesus rose from the dead and is coming to cast the homos into a lake of fire* is an assertion.
I would have disapproved of Happy Easter but I probably wouldn’t have bothered to make a pit thread. Herp-Derp?
You do realize that not all Christians believe that, right?
Of course. Christians make all sorts of rationalizations so they can stomach the overall repugnance and stupidity of the bible.
I know Catholics who have had abortions. The nice thing about a belief system that is based on no evidence is you can clip it to fit your biases.
You are fucking insane, you know that? It’s a wonder you can see your screen from all the spittle flying.
Note: Jesus didn’t say jackshit about homosexuality.
You’re the one with the spittle flying. Which is normal, since you obviously can’t stand the idea that someone would question the utter stupidity of your beliefs. If you lash out hysterically when someone points out that your beliefs are based on nothing but wishful thinking it doesn’t say much for the validity of those beliefs.
I know. This doesn’t stop a lot of Christians from thinking gays are icky. Because Christianity isn’t based on intelligence, it’s based on wishful thinking.
How would you feel about Merry CHRISTmas?
Every year, he roots for the Grinch.
I’d allow it. Since I celebrate the related holiday of Giftmas.
That said, I don’t think a public overpass is anyplace for a religious message.
Until the one year my heart grew two sizes too big!
Turns out it was just pericardial effusion.
For some reason, that brings to mind this comic.
Lobohan: How do you know the overpass is public property? You don’t even remember where it was, right?
Now, now let’s be accurate here, he’s a massive homophobic prick.
My daughter (6) asked me about Jesus the night before Easter and I said something along the lines of:
Some people think Jesus died and then came alive again a few days later. Some of us, me and Mummy included, think it’s just a story. You have to make up your own mind what you think but I would wait until you are a bit older and just enjoy your eggs tomorrow.
Next morning she tells me she thinks it’s a story because no one comes alive again after they are dead. I very much doubt this conversation is over.
WTF kind of apology is that? I did aim the shots at those who deserve it. I can’t help it if you can’t read what was pretty clear in my post.
A proper apology would be, “Oh shit, I lost track of the whole conversation. And, gee, you’re right, your post was in reply to a statement specifically about anti-gay conservatives in a thread about religion. Boy do I feel like a jerk for calling you a shitstain and a fuckwit. I guess I’m the fuckwit. Sorry!”
So, no, you’re not quite right to ream me for your mistake. Apology not accepted. Hmmph!