Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Are you sure about that?
Of course.
The idea that the "other side" all thinks the same is a just a way of making yourself feel better, not something based in any sort of reality. This applies to both sides.
It would be great if both sides would drop the stereotypes, but as I see it, one is less willing than the other.
I'm curious, does the irony of this post escape you, or are you trying to be clever?
There's no need to be snide.
There is an irony. One side wants to repress the other, or vise versa.
But what I see in this day and age is that one side is made to capitulate to the beliefs of the other, while its religious beliefs are conversely repressed via the government apparatus.
Of course there's a reason to be snide, you were trying to be snide when you broadbrushed the "other side" as being at fault for broadbrushing.
How have any atheists persecuted you, or made you capitulate, or prevented you from exercising your religion?
You do realize that Huggy doesn't speak for anyone other than himself, right?
Why is it so hard for you to recognize individuals rather than using anecdotes to define entire groups?
I do. But he doesn't mind using his own anecdotes to describe me or other people of faith. You say both sides are guilty of it, but then only call me, the one defending religion, down for using 'anecdotes to define entire groups.'
Bias, bias everywhere.
So, the fact that he does it makes it alright for you to do it too?
You're the one that I've seen broadbrushing in this thread, which is why I called you on it. I don't have any obligation to be "fair" or "even", I call bullshit when I see it - and I actually like you and want you to understand what I'm talking about, whereas I don't give a shit either way about Huggy.
Of course.
The idea that the "other side" all thinks the same is a just a way of making yourself feel better, not something based in any sort of reality. This applies to both sides.
It would be great if both sides would drop the stereotypes, but as I see it, one is less willing than the other.
I'm curious, does the irony of this post escape you, or are you trying to be clever?
There's no need to be snide.
There is an irony. One side wants to repress the other, or vise versa.
But what I see in this day and age is that one side is made to capitulate to the beliefs of the other, while its religious beliefs are conversely repressed via the government apparatus.
Of course there's a reason to be snide, you were trying to be snide when you broadbrushed the "other side" as being at fault for broadbrushing.
How have any atheists persecuted you, or made you capitulate, or prevented you from exercising your religion?
Doc, I was not being snide. You apparently know nothing of what emotions I put into the language of my posts. Don't get smart with me.
Each and every time an Atheist group wins a case against a religious group for their expression of belief in government, that impacts where and when I can practice my faith. You simply cannot see the bigger scope of this, can you?
You can practice whatever religion you want, whenever you want. No one has done anything to stop you.
You do realize that Huggy doesn't speak for anyone other than himself, right?
Why is it so hard for you to recognize individuals rather than using anecdotes to define entire groups?
I do. But he doesn't mind using his own anecdotes to describe me or other people of faith. You say both sides are guilty of it, but then only call me, the one defending religion, down for using 'anecdotes to define entire groups.'
Bias, bias everywhere.
So, the fact that he does it makes it alright for you to do it too?
You're the one that I've seen broadbrushing in this thread, which is why I called you on it. I don't have any obligation to be "fair" or "even", I call bullshit when I see it - and I actually like you and want you to understand what I'm talking about, whereas I don't give a shit either way about Huggy.
No, but it seems okay to you.
Stop. You have no idea the intent behind my posts. If I wanted to be snide, I wouldn't have posted this thread period. It is based on cogent points, not sarcasm.
You can practice whatever religion you want, whenever you want. No one has done anything to stop you.
So, did you not read my links? It seems to me you are ignoring cases that directly contradict your claim. The ACLU has zero to do with this discussion. I'm talking Athiests and their activists. People like the "Freedom from Religion Foundation."
Your ability to exercise your religion in the way you see fit is not effected at all by whether or not the Ten Commandments can be installed in the lobby of the state courts.
You can practice whatever religion you want, whenever you want. No one has done anything to stop you.
So, did you not read my links? It seems to me you are ignoring cases that directly contradict your claim. The ACLU has zero to do with this discussion. I'm talking Athiests and their activists. People like the "Freedom from Religion Foundation."
How is constantly broad-brushing all atheists and liberals based on anecdotes and individuals "cogent", by the way?
I don't think you know what "persecution" is. Let me know when Christians are being executed, as was common practice for atheists a few hundred years ago.
What book of the bible includes the commandment "Thou shall write articles praising the Christian god and thou shall publish them in Government newsletters"?
How is constantly broad-brushing all atheists and liberals based on anecdotes and individuals "cogent", by the way?
How am I 'broad-brushing' anyone? Unless an athiest describes his 'belief' to me in detail, I have no general definition of it. I'm not broad brushing, I describe them via their actions in the political arena, and for want of an actual definition. So many variants of Atheism, though all of them share the common belief that there is no God, or gods.
Liberals on the other hand have not spoken out against such activity. You might, but others won't. You may as well be an outlier.
I don't think you know what "persecution" is. Let me know when Christians are being executed, as was common practice for atheists a few hundred years ago.
Oh, you want to go that route? Obama's indifference to the Yazidi Christians being executed in the Levant by ISIS for not converting to their perverted version of Islam, for example? I do in fact know what persecution is. What goes on in our government is simply "persecution lite."
What book of the bible includes the commandment "Thou shall write articles praising the Christian god and thou shall publish them in Government newsletters"?
What in your worldview compels you to mock my faith?
How is constantly broad-brushing all atheists and liberals based on anecdotes and individuals "cogent", by the way?
How am I 'broad-brushing' anyone? Unless an athiest describes his 'belief' to me in detail, I have no general definition of it. I'm not broad brushing, I describe them via their actions in the political arena, and for want of an actual definition. So many variants of Atheism, though all of them share the common belief that there is no God, or gods.
Liberals on the other hand have not spoken out against such activity. You might, but others won't. You may as well be an outlier.
How is constantly broad-brushing all atheists and liberals based on anecdotes and individuals "cogent", by the way?
How am I 'broad-brushing' anyone? Unless an athiest describes his 'belief' to me in detail, I have no general definition of it. I'm not broad brushing, I describe them via their actions in the political arena, and for want of an actual definition. So many variants of Atheism, though all of them share the common belief that there is no God, or gods.
Liberals on the other hand have not spoken out against such activity. You might, but others won't. You may as well be an outlier.
Assigning any characteristics to "atheists" as a whole, or "liberals" as a whole is broadbrushing. I count at least to instances in just the above post, let alone any other posts in this thread.
I don't think you know what "persecution" is. Let me know when Christians are being executed, as was common practice for atheists a few hundred years ago.
Oh, you want to go that route? Obama's indifference to the Yazidi Christians being executed in the Levant by ISIS for not converting to their perverted version of Islam, for example? I do in fact know what persecution is. What goes on in our government is simply "persecution lite."
What book of the bible includes the commandment "Thou shall write articles praising the Christian god and thou shall publish them in Government newsletters"?
What in your worldview compels you to mock my faith?
Obama, just like every other American, ignores thousands of acts of persecution around the world that occur every day.
And it would be great if you could point out exactly where I've "mocked" your faith.
So, keep your religion out of our faces and all will be well.No one should be allowed to use coercive government to push their personal beliefs on others.
BINGO.
Instances of Governmen
How is constantly broad-brushing all atheists and liberals based on anecdotes and individuals "cogent", by the way?
How am I 'broad-brushing' anyone? Unless an athiest describes his 'belief' to me in detail, I have no general definition of it. I'm not broad brushing, I describe them via their actions in the political arena, and for want of an actual definition. So many variants of Atheism, though all of them share the common belief that there is no God, or gods.
Liberals on the other hand have not spoken out against such activity. You might, but others won't. You may as well be an outlier.
Assigning any characteristics to "atheists" as a whole, or "liberals" as a whole is broadbrushing. I count at least to instances in just the above post, let alone any other posts in this thread.
Did I just not acknowledge there are different types of Atheism? Or are you simply skimming over my posts?
Unless you have a finite definition of what Atheism is as a whole, you cannot accuse me of 'broadbrushing' anyone. Besides, I go by this definition, if there is any:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
-Wikipedia
I doubt you have any clue what it is either, I gather.
As for liberals, I go by this definition.
"Modern American liberalism combines social liberalism with support for social justice and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, same-sex marriage and government programs such as education and health care.[1] It has its roots in Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, Harry S. Truman's Fair Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. Conservatives oppose liberals on most issues; the relationship between liberal and progressive is debated.[2][3][4][5][6][7]"
-Wikipedia- Modern American Liberalism
I can't be broadbrushing when I am going by a distinct definition, now can I?
What makes you think that the majority of atheists are not like me?
What makes you think that atheism is defined by the loudest in the political sphere?
