Page 37 of 83 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 370 of 824

Thread: Atheists take aim at Christmas

  1. #361
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    If a belief is the rationale behind prohibiting a kind of research that could save billions and prevent alot of suffering, and the belief is itself without any scientific validity, you had better believe it is more than moral to point out the logical fallacies of that belief.
    You are generalizing, most christian faiths do not hinder practices or uses of modern medicine, also, Atheism doesn't exactly have solid scientific law going for it either, it is theoretical speculation like any other belief.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  2. #362
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    No, because I understand that I live in a free country, I want people to express their disagreements.
    Then you don't understand the first amendment and it's limitations. The story isn't about disagreement, otherwise we'd be in agreement here, it is about a direct attack on a christian symbol during a christian holiday, (Time/Place/Manner) again, fighting words and incitement to riot are not protected, if a fight or riot breaks out then we are talking about potentially illegal expression.


    Why isn't it? If you believe some that is wrong about history, for example Holocaust deniers, why is it wrong to criticize that belief?
    It is not okay to do it in the fashion that was exhibited this week, not legally, ethically, morally, or even from a manners perspective. There is NO defense for directly attacking people.

    What about one's political beliefs? We do that ALL THE TIME.
    Political speech is protected on a much grander scale than what this story is about.





    The part with the premises, logic and conclusions. I don't see any of it.... just a naive assertion.
    Then you don't understand the premise, logic, or conclusions. Did you even do the homework I assigned to TheNextRa about these issues or are you just bloviating about the first amendment and what you think it protects?
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  3. #363
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    You keep acting as if the "attack" (keep using the word, it makes the sign sound so much worse than it is) was unwarranted...
    Okay, here is what you are uneducated about. Time:holidays, Place: directly in front of a religious symbol, Manner: condescending, arrogant, superiorist, smug. That amounts to an attack on someone else's belief, TPM is a legal guage that the Supreme Court has been using for more than half a century. This was an attack by all stretches of the imagination and could be defined as such using various cases, such as Chaplinski v New Hampshire. The Time, Place, and Manner were directly coorelated to the religion that the Atheists disagreed with and there were NO prior attacks to them, if you don't get it that means you can't see past your own agenda.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  4. #364
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    You are generalizing, most christian faiths do not hinder practices or uses of modern medicine, also, Atheism doesn't exactly have solid scientific law going for it either, it is theoretical speculation like any other belief.
    Generalizing? I was speaking about stem cell research specifically, to which the opposition is almost ENTIRELY Christian.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Then you don't understand the first amendment and it's limitations. The story isn't about disagreement, otherwise we'd be in agreement here, it is about a direct attack on a christian symbol during a christian holiday, (Time/Place/Manner) again, fighting words and incitement to riot are not protected, if a fight or riot breaks out then we are talking about potentially illegal expression.
    How don't I? How am I wrong? "Congress shall make NO LAW" is quite clear and absolute, there is no limitation on that. NO LAW

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It is not okay to do it in the fashion that was exhibited this week, not legally, ethically, morally, or even from a manners perspective. There is NO defense for directly attacking people.
    How is a sentence on a piece of paper a direct attack at ANYONE? You cant seem to understand the difference between calling a person's idea stupid, and calling the person themselves stupid.

    The board attacked Christianity, not Christians.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Political speech is protected on a much grander scale than what this story is about.
    Political speech is protected? What the heck are you talking about?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Then you don't understand the premise, logic, or conclusions.
    How foolish it is to mistake not seeing something available in order to understand it with not understanding it.

    If I said "I can't find my copy of Moby Dick" would you then say "Because you don't understand it?

    If you expect me to know your logic without giving it, then I cannot oblige.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Did you even do the homework I assigned to TheNextRa about these issues or are you just bloviating about the first amendment and what you think it protects?
    Homework? sorry slim, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertions, not for me to do your work for you. I'll not do your homework because you're either too lazy or too stupid to post your argument (its logic and premises.)

    If you think congress shall make laws respecting establishments of religion, you're simply illiterate and do not understand the word "NO."

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Okay, here is what you are uneducated about. Time:holidays, Place: directly in front of a religious symbol, Manner: condescending, arrogant, superiorist, smug. That amounts to an attack on someone else's belief
    And just where did I say anything that contradicts this? I know it was an attack, that was never the issue, my position is that the attacks were not unwarranted, nor is it wrong to criticize illogical beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    TPM is a legal guage that the Supreme Court has been using for more than half a century. This was an attack by all stretches of the imagination and could be defined as such using various cases, such as Chaplinski v New Hampshire. The Time, Place, and Manner were directly coorelated to the religion that the Atheists disagreed with and there were NO prior attacks to them, if you don't get it that means you can't see past your own agenda.
    What agenda? Defending the 1st Amendment? Secularism? Nevermind, you're not interested in a debate you just want to insult people.

    Either post your logic that explains why it is wrong to criticize illogical beliefs, no matter the TP or M, cite the post # where you already have, or stop wasting my time.

    All you do is say that I don't understand things, but never explain how it is that I am wrong. What part of "congress shall make NO law" have I misunderstood? What exceptions to this are allowed? According to whom?
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 12-14-08 at 10:19 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  5. #365
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post
    Generalizing? I was speaking about stem cell research specifically, to which the opposition is almost ENTIRELY Christian.
    The opposition is to abortion, there is no mainstream Christian opposition to adult stem cell research. So yes, you are generalizing.



    How don't I? How am I wrong? "Congress shall make NO LAW" is quite clear and absolute, there is no limitation on that. NO LAW
    This was in regards to the Anglican church of England, it simply means that the government shall not be the church.



    How is a sentence on a piece of paper a direct attack at ANYONE? You cant seem to understand the difference between calling a person's idea stupid, and calling the person themselves stupid.
    Time, Place, Manner, it's your job to understand the concept, not mine to keep explaining it to you.

    The board attacked Christianity, not Christians.
    How do you figure an attack on one's beliefs is not an attack on the person?



    Political speech is protected? What the heck are you talking about?
    Do your own homework, I already had to do all the first amendment study I care for. Hint, look at SCOTUS cases between 1910-1970 and maybe you'll get a better grasp.



    How foolish it is to mistake not seeing something available in order to understand it with not understanding it.
    you are blind to some very simple concepts of the rights and limitations to the first amendment and are trying to see rights for a side that has none and defend behavior that cannot be.

    If I said "I can't find my copy of Moby Dick" would you then say "Because you don't understand it?
    No, I'd say sorry you can't find your copy of Moby Dick,

    If you expect me to know your logic without giving it, then I cannot oblige.
    I'm using the straightforward logic of the evolution of the first amendment, you aren't following it because you either don't know it or you are trying to make an argument conform to your line of thinking.



    Homework? sorry slim, the burden of proof is on you to support your assertions, not for me to do your work for you. I'll not do your homework because you're either too lazy or too stupid to post your argument (its logic and premises.)
    No, it isn't, the information is out there for you, I have stated factual cases for you to find, again, I don't have to understand this stuff to explain it, I already do.

    If you think congress shall make laws respecting establishments of religion, you're simply illiterate and do not understand the word "NO."
    Anglican church principle, as stated above, sorry that someone taught you the wrong interpretation of the right, BTW, read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings before you make the above claim.


    And just where did I say anything that contradicts this? I know it was an attack, that was never the issue, my position is that the attacks were not unwarranted, nor is it wrong to criticize illogical beliefs.
    What have the Chrisitians of that community done specifically to warrant the attack? How are the beliefs any more illogical than the athiest theories? What scientific laws do you people on the "enlightened" side have that disprove any other religious theories? Until you bring something real and complete to the table, this particular Atheist behavior just looks immature, selfish, and rude.



    What agenda? Defending the 1st Amendment? Secularism? Nevermind, you're not interested in a debate you just want to insult people.
    You obviously don't understand the amendment, because most of your statements are exactly the opposite of what it entails, therefore you either have an agenda or have a lot of work to do.

    Either post your logic that explains why it is wrong to criticize illogical beliefs, no matter the TP or M, cite the post # where you already have, or stop wasting my time.
    Don't have to, it already exists and is in fact law.

    All you do is say that I don't understand things, but never explain how it is that I am wrong. What part of "congress shall make NO law" have I misunderstood? What exceptions to this are allowed? According to whom?
    Founding fathers writings, Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, Supreme Court rulings from the late 1800's to the mid-1900's, take your pick.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  6. #366
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    The opposition is to abortion, there is no mainstream Christian opposition to adult stem cell research. So yes, you are generalizing.
    Really? So the vatican didn't just publish a statement against, IVF and stem cell research?

    It is no generalization to state that the majority of the resistance to stem cell research is made up of Christians. A generalization would be if I said that most Christians were opposed to stem cell research. But I doubt you could understand the distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean
    How don't I? How am I wrong? "Congress shall make NO LAW" is quite clear and absolute, there is no limitation on that. NO LAW
    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    This was in regards to the Anglican church of England, it simply means that the government shall not be the church.
    AHAHAHHAHAAH, Please, PLEASE call the 1st Amendment foundation, or a Constitutional law Attourney and tell them that. Please record it for me!

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Time, Place, Manner, it's your job to understand the concept, not mine to keep explaining it to you.
    I understand the concept, what you don't understand is how irrelevant it is to this discussion, but I guess since you know so little you feel you have to repeat what little you do.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    How do you figure an attack on one's beliefs is not an attack on the person?
    Because attacking A belief is not attacking anyone in particular. If I were to say that Zeus was a myth, I would not be attacking anyone (and don't be so foolish as to think no one still believes in Zeus)

    A belief is fixed, people are rational (mostly.) Which means that they are capable of changing their minds when faced with new evidence.

    My point is that, if this sign were up in the bronze ages, and stated that flat-earth theory is a silly superstition that is holding back scientific progress regarding the heliocentrism, it would be no different.

    If some people are under a misconception or believe a falsehood, there is NOTHING wrong with pointing that out.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Do your own homework, I already had to do all the first amendment study I care for. Hint, look at SCOTUS cases between 1910-1970 and maybe you'll get a better grasp.

    you are blind to some very simple concepts of the rights and limitations to the first amendment and are trying to see rights for a side that has none and defend behavior that cannot be.

    No, I'd say sorry you can't find your copy of Moby Dick,

    No, it isn't, the information is out there for you, I have stated factual cases for you to find, again, I don't have to understand this stuff to explain it, I already do.
    I'll only say this one more time, claiming "the information is out there" is not citing your source. I don't have to do your work for you, your argument is demonstrably false, and the burden of proof is on you for your claims.

    Why is it so hard for you to understand the nature of the burden of proof? Why is it hard to quote something and state where you got the quote? Oh I forget, you're making **** up!

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    I'm using the straightforward logic of the evolution of the first amendment, you aren't following it because you either don't know it or you are trying to make an argument conform to your line of thinking.
    No you aren't you're ignoring the very language of the 1st amendment. You have not address how "congress shall make no law" = "congress shall make laws"

    I don't need to make that fit anything, it says what it says. My line if thinking is simple "you cant do that" means "you cant do that." Why is this so hard for you?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Anglican church principle, as stated above, sorry that someone taught you the wrong interpretation of the right, BTW, read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings before you make the above claim.

    You obviously don't understand the amendment, because most of your statements are exactly the opposite of what it entails, therefore you either have an agenda or have a lot of work to do.

    Don't have to, it already exists and is in fact law.

    Founding fathers writings, Federalist papers, Anti-Federalist papers, Supreme Court rulings from the late 1800's to the mid-1900's, take your pick.
    I've read the Federalist Papers, the Letters to the Delegates, and the letters to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the wall of seperation.

    Naming these things does not prove that they agree with you; Please cite your source, which letters support your position?

    Because I can easily quote your which support mine, Thomas Jefferson was quite clear. As if "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" wasn't clear enough.

    EDIT: Oops, forgot to address this:
    What have the Chrisitians of that community done specifically to warrant the attack? How are the beliefs any more illogical than the athiest theories? What scientific laws do you people on the "enlightened" side have that disprove any other religious theories? Until you bring something real and complete to the table, this particular Atheist behavior just looks immature, selfish, and rude.
    You wouldn't understand because you're in denial that we are a secular nation. So you wouldn't understand why its wrong for Christians to try and force Intelligent Design into science classes, or teach the Bible as literal history or to fight science.

    Also, Evolution beats creationism, skepticism is superior to credulousness, and there is nothing illogical about being an atheist. Nor is there such a thing as an "atheist theory."

    If you don't regard evolution, the rules of logic, or logical fallacies as "something real and complete" I cannot help you.

    You simply do not understand that "the government shall not be the church" is only half of what the wall of separation was supposed to do, the other half is that the church cannot become the government.
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 12-14-08 at 11:12 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  7. #367
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,534

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by Lachean View Post




    AHAHAHHAHAAH, Please, PLEASE call the 1st Amendment foundation, or a Constitutional law Attourney and tell them that. Please record it for me!
    Depends on the attorney's view and agenda, but the founding writings mean your laughing out of ignorance, but please, keep it up, I am quite amused at your utter lack of first amendment understanding.



    I understand the concept, what you don't understand is how irrelevant it is to this discussion, but I guess since you know so little you feel you have to repeat what little you do.
    Then you obviously don't understand the concept.



    Because attacking A belief is not attacking anyone in particular. If I were to say that Zeus was a myth, I would not be attacking anyone (and don't be so foolish as to think no one still believes in Zeus)
    Uh, yeah, it is, you are calling everyone who holds the belief stupid by default. Interpersonal communicationally challenged much?

    A belief is fixed, people are rational (mostly.) Which means that they are capable of changing their minds when faced with new evidence.
    So why do you keep holding on to your incorrect assumptions on the first amendment? Also, you are assigning rational value to a theoretically based belief, and one that is trying to force it's beliefs and practices upon others, including the elimination of alternate beliefs to itself(I am talking about Athiesm). You bring up this evidence thing, what scientific LAW does your side have that invalidates other beliefs, and WHICH pieces of evidence were presented in the holiday "there is no god" sign? Yeah, thought so......

    My point is that, if this sign were up in the bronze ages, and stated that flat-earth theory is a silly superstition that is holding back scientific progress regarding the heliocentrism, it would be no different.
    Except that scientific LAW has PROVEN that the earth is round, your side is preaching THEORY. Nice try though. Bring something concrete or bring yourself to the exit.

    If some people are under a misconception or believe a falsehood, there is NOTHING wrong with pointing that out.
    Except for the fact that you've got nothing which accomplishes this and it comes across as being a smug asshole.



    Really, in what post did you cite any case to me?
    Not to you, it's out there, go ahead and read.



    Yet you have not address how "congress shall make no law" = "congress shall make laws"
    And when did congress establish the Christian religion in the U.S.? Once again, do your homework.




    I've read the Federalist Papers, the Letters to the Delegates, and the letters to the Danbury Baptists explaining the meaning of the wall of seperation.
    Then you obviously missed something.



    Because I can easily quote your which support mine, Thomas Jefferson was quite clear. As if "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" wasn't clear enough.
    Obviously not since Jefferson wasn't against public religious expression.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #368
    Only Losers H8 Capitalism
    Spartacus FPV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In your echo chamber
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    12,888

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Uh, yeah, it is, you are calling everyone who holds the belief stupid by default. Interpersonal communicationally challenged much?
    Again you are mistaken, dogmatism is not a matter of intelligence. It is possible to be smart enough to assemble a nuclear bomb, and still expect 72 virgins in the after life.

    "You're wrong" does not mean "You're stupid for being wrong."

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    So why do you keep holding on to your incorrect assumptions on the first amendment?
    Because I do not regard them as incorrect, nor did the founding fathers, and you haven't quoted anything from the founders to the contrary.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Also, you are assigning rational value to a theoretically based belief, and one that is trying to force it's beliefs and practices upon others, including the elimination of alternate beliefs to itself(I am talking about Athiesm). You bring up this evidence thing, what scientific LAW does your side have that invalidates other beliefs, and WHICH pieces of evidence were presented in the holiday "there is no god" sign? Yeah, thought so......

    Except that scientific LAW has PROVEN that the earth is round, your side is preaching THEORY. Nice try though. Bring something concrete or bring yourself to the exit.
    Again you demonstrate your lack of scientific education. You use the word theory as if in the scientific sense it didn't mean a well supported fact.

    The fact that the earth is round and orbits the sun is a theory, not a law. Laws do not address such things, and no amount of support can make a theory into a law.

    Theory does NOT mean "a guess" in the scientific sense, but thanks again for proving to me that you have NO IDEA what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Except for the fact that you've got nothing which accomplishes this and it comes across as being a smug asshole.
    At least I can back up my claims, how do you think insulting people, and never citing your sources makes you look?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Not to you, it's out there, go ahead and read.
    Why are you even on a debate forum if you're too lazy to cite your sources? What a waste of time you were... At least you were a good laugh.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    And when did congress establish the Christian religion in the U.S.? Once again, do your homework.
    ahahahhahahah!

    Did you really just suggest that the only religious institutions the 1st Amendment applies to are the ones that congress established? HAAHAHAHAHAHHA.

    Please, name me one of these religions that congress has established, please!
    Last edited by Spartacus FPV; 12-14-08 at 11:23 PM.
    Haymarket's "support" of the 2nd Amendment, a right he believes we never had.
    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    no. You cannot lose rights you do not have in the first place. There is no such thing as the right to have any weapon of your choice regardless of any other consideration. It simply does not exist.

  9. #369
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 03:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    Sharing their beliefs is one thing, the sign in in the exact same area the manger was in first is an attack, completely different.
    It's purely in the eye of the beholder. Some view the nativity scene as an "attack" on their intelligence. So where are we now?
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  10. #370
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Atheists take aim at Christmas

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    It's purely in the eye of the beholder. Some view the nativity scene as an "attack" on their intelligence. So where are we now?
    Right back at "you don't have to believe in it if you don't want to do so but there's no need to make a blatant attack at those who do."

Page 37 of 83 FirstFirst ... 27353637383947 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •