Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by GSHAMBROOKE, May 1, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    Please explain my hypocrisy, because I'm not getting it.

    Homosexuality is simply a part of reality. The fact that you are unhappy with reality isn't really my problem.

    I imagine that are all sorts of things in reality that get your knickers in a twist. However your simply wishing it to not be true or condemning it because you don't like it isn't a healthy way to live.

    Once you give up the illusion of control and begin to accept reality for what it really is you will be much more like your avatar.

    Ride with the tide and go with flow.

    :hat:
     
  2. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    I thought so.

    But highly unnatural if you ask me. Nature never intended people to post things like that.


    Unnatural simply means it doesn't fit with how I think the world should work so I am going to close my eyes and my mind and condemn it.

    :hat:
     
  3. Blade96

    Blade96 shotokan karateka

    America sure likes irony. The ancestors fled to start a new country in the new world because of religious persecution and they wanted to be more free. Now, the religious in the usa can be more autocratic and evil as the people their ancestors fled from.
     
  4. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    If you look at the majority of conservatives in politics today they really aren't that conservative. You take any of the right wing supreme court justices and put them on the court in the 40's or 50's and they would be classified as moderate to slightly left wing. The left wing justices would have been arrested by Hoover and his FBI and brought up on charges of being commies.

    Sometimes you just need to look at things from a larger perspective.
     
  5. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    I'm not saying that the stimuli isn't the same, I'm just saying to be more PC the biology necessary for reproduction is the sexual activity of a male and female. If I'm getting what everyone is saying, reproduction is just a side effect of a chance encounter with the opposite sex. And the evolution of life had no bearing on the design of the human body, which without that design human life could not exist. Is that what your saying?
     
  6. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    No, he isn't. Read it again.
     
  7. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    Are you just hating America or do you have a specific source or example to back up your accusation?
     
  8. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    I can say with some confidence that she doesn't- funnily enough, nobody compiles statistics for levels of autocracy and evil. And demanding proof on internet forums is the act of a gobshite.
     
  9. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    Explain please I'm a little dense.
     
  10. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    He doesn't say that anywhere. He just thinks that there are motives other than reproduction for having sex, and that these motives are not unnatural. I would have thought that point would be abundantly obvious, but there you go.
     
  11. m1k3jobs

    m1k3jobs Dudeist Priest

    The human body isn't designed. Evolution doesn't design anything. Quit anthropomorphising the world.

    There is more to sex than reproduction. Just like there is more to eating than McDonald's.

    If homosexuality was unnatural you wouldn't be able to do it. You wouldn't even be able to think about it.

    Not everything that is produced by evolution is viable or functional or necessary. So sorry that reality doesn't match your world view.
     
    Last edited: Sep 1, 2011
  12. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    You're probably right but the fact they're associated with the party is a reaosn for concern. Every political party has some undesirable figures though so I'm likely reading to much into it.

    I'm not saying illegal immigration is a good thing and I don't think wanting it fixed is a bad thing, its normally on the agenda of every party wanting to win an election. Its the fact that out of all the problems the US has that they made immigration they're top priority. For a party formed out of wanting smaller government and tax cuts that seemed interesting to me but, again, by itself isn't that bad. When you look into the amount of polls into the group's membership that have found results leaning towards racism, or at least nationalism, (quite a few birthers, anti-Islam etc) then I can't help but feel its more a case of more people in America being non white or non chrisitan that's the real concern to these people.


    And what would happen if the banks weren't bailed out and subsequently collapsed? I agree there's been a bad lack of deterents being put in place but what can you do? Personally I'm in favour of bigger levies, at least until bail out money gets paid back, but the Tea Party opposes rises in taxes so that's out of the question. I imagine there's a pretty strong arguement to be made that it was a lack of government intervention that led to the banks being able to do what the hell they wanted and cause the crisis in the first place.

    I was going to say my beef with "traditional values" is its normal anti progressive and just a PC way of saying anti gay but you took it there yourself ;)

    Yes. Other people have already got onto why though so I won't expand on the "omg its not natural!" thing. Ignoring my personal feelings on homosexuality though its just another contradiction: The party and America itself is meant to be all about personal liberty so how can you then say what people do in their own bed is wrong or refuse to give rights to those people? If you want a land of freedom and liberty that's awesome but you can't then pick and choose who you give that freedom to just because you don't like them personally. I hate the Catholic Church with a passion but I know I can't ban all catholics from believing in its teachings or remove their right to worship.

    Not sure that example fits very well but best I can do.


    Cheers for the link


    Not to the degree of being a despot no but I do subscribe to the view that people need to be controlled to a certain extent.

    I don't think a far anything group should gain power. I don't like people who make up their mind before they hear the issue and spend some time to think about it.

    Ah right, my bad then. So a government isn't allowed to pass laws on religion but someone who is devout to the extent of being a puppet is allowed to make decisions that effect the country? Kinda wierd.

    It would be nice but I don't see it happening. The UK is far less religious than America but apparently there's still some thing over here about the Prime Minister having to be Protestant.
     
  13. Hannibal

    Hannibal Cry HAVOC and let slip the Dogs of War!!! Supporter

    Take a microcosmic example - Boy Scouts of America

    1) No gays (they are considered morally unclean by the BSA)
    2) No Atheists (see #1)
    3) No non-christians (see #1 & #2)

    All of these mind you despite the fact there are no such exclusions in the Boy Scouts movement origins or the ORIGINAL UK based org. And this is not atypical of the way the "religious right" seeks to put it's stamp on the smallest aspects.

    Another example - the US refuses to prosecute faith healers and their ilk because they say it involves "infringement of their right to believe and calls into question aspects of belief" despite the outright DANGEROUS methods those a-holes use in preaching their lies and nonsense

    Yet they had no such qualms about forbidding marijuana use in the Rastifarian sect which SHOULD come under the same legislation and protections

    This is not an indictment of Christianity, more an example of how religious freedom in the US pretty much means "free to be Christian"
     
  14. Giovanni

    Giovanni Well-Known Member Supporter

    thanks m1k3. most people really don't have an understanding on what evolution is or is not. i can see you're not one of those.
     
  15. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    Autocracy? coming from a resident of a country who has a Royal Family doesn't hold much stock for me, however if you want to continue to bloviate that verbiage then more power to you.
     
  16. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    Ah, but I'm not accusing you of autocracy. I'm accusing you of being a gobshite.
     
  17. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    LOL, you know what they say...you are what you eat. :hat:
     
  18. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    And you, by that logic, are George Bush's ballsack.
     
  19. Obewan

    Obewan "Hillbilly Jedi"

    So I'm poking fun at myself for your amusement, and you come back with that. Well if that's what you think of me fine, just know that it is about 100 steps up from what you are. And with that I bid you fair well.
     
  20. Taiji_Lou

    Taiji_Lou Banned Banned

    What's a gobshite? That sounds like a GREAT word....!!!!!! :)

    Great way to get banned... if that's your idea of great. :rolleyes:

    Oh, BTW.... I'm an American and I don't hate atheists! Mainstream America doesn't "hate" atheists either.....! what an awful (and somewhat generalizing) idea? Who told you we hate atheists?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page