Sorry,

used a tribal name in public

Rude of me, sorry.

CA, why don't you read what has been said, and consider the possibility that Draugnar is misrepresenting me.

I know you can't stand to see Christians criticized, but I think you can try being fair if you swallow your pride just for a little while.

So you are saying you don't want them to do it but you don't want to force them to stop. Must be a nice lollipop world you live in there, Shirley T.

And I'm not lying. But even if I were, I don't believe in that OT bullshit. I lie pretty regularly on this site, especially in game. But in this particular case, I was reading quickly and interpretted you r desire as a request that it be enforced. As long as you only live in a fairy tale where everyone does what you want them to without you having to force them, I've no problem with it. Enjoy your delusions. In the real world, children learn form their parents. They either learn there is a hell or there isn't a hell or that there isn't even a God so couldn't be a hell. Children learn by example and follow their parent's views for a time. In you rlollipop world, the parents have freedom of religion but yet somehow don't believe what their religion teaches. And they pass on their religion to their children but somehow don;t pass on what their religion teaches to their children. Alice, please come back from wonderland.

Gavrilop I am arguing with you about people's rights to try to extend there religion to others, along with whatever you bring up.

I have the right to say what I want, a right you seem not to understand. But I also would like to see this right used in a peaceful and moderate way in real life, another concept you seem not to be capable of comprehending.

> So you are saying you don't want them to do it but you don't want to force them to stop.

How else is any American *supposed* to live?

Do you want white supremacists to teach their children to be white supremacists?

> But in this particular case, I was reading quickly and interpretted you r desire as a request that it be enforced.

Well I explained that it wasn't, and you just kept on keeping on.

> Children learn by example and follow their parent's views for a time. In you rlollipop world, the parents have freedom of religion but yet somehow don't believe what their religion teaches.

No. Again, I've already explained what I mean:

"I want people to stop being religious, and thereby stop teaching religion to others.
You want atheists to stop being atheists, don't you? You want atheists to become Christians, and thereby to stop teaching atheism, and to teach Christianity instead."

> I have the right to say what I want, a right you seem not to understand.

Weirdly, you're the one who said I don't have the right to try to teach other people about atheism. But whatever.

> But I also would like to see this right used in a peaceful and moderate way in real life, another concept you seem not to be capable of comprehending.

Talking to people on the street is peaceful. Yet you said you don't like it when Christians to talk to people on the street about Christianity.

You also said you don't like it when people on internet message boards try to convince each other to change their views about religion. But that's what you're doing right now. So you should stop talking.

Weirdly, you're the one who said I don't have the right to try to teach other people about atheism. But whatever.

> I said that you do not get to choose what beliefs are taught or not. And you say that I put words in your mouth...

Talking to people on the street is peaceful. Yet you said you don't like it when Christians to talk to people on the street about Christianity.

I am talking about free speech. Once agian you take my words out of context, moderate is also part of the sentence and I would like to see that applied that to the subjects that are discussed.

You also said you don't like it when people on internet message boards try to convince each other to change their views about religion. But that's what you're doing right now. So you should stop talking.

I have never once said a single thing about your beliefs, much less changing them. Fail.

You said "You have no right to choose that it is your opinion that is taught."

I said "Taught where? What do you mean by this?"

You said: "you want to spread atheism, and teach/not teach that hell is real. So wherever you plan to do that."

You had no idea where I plan to do it, and you still said I have no right to choose to do it.

> moderate is also part of the sentence and I would like to see that applied that to the subjects that are discussed.

Why do you claim it not moderate to talk to people on the street?

> I have never once said a single thing about your beliefs, much less changing them.

My beliefs are that people should not believe in Hell, etc., and that atheists have a moral imperative to try to convince people to not believe in Hell, etc.

You are arguing against those beliefs of mine. You should stop talking.

Those statements are under the assumption that you are wanting your beliefs exclusively taught from authority, which is what you implied in your early posts.

Read my posts, I said moderate in regard to the subjects discussed.

You have no more right to try to convince people that there is no hell than other people have to try to convince people there is a hell. You are arguing for what you are arguing agianst.
But try to actually read this before you reply.

"Do you want white supremacists to teach their children to be white supremacists?"

I want them to have that right. So long as they don't act on it by attacking anyone who isn't white, they aren't commiting a crime.

As a Marine, I may not agree with everything someone else believes in, but I will defend to the death their freedom to believe it so long as they do not act upon it in a manor that denies another person their three basic inalienable rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

"My beliefs are that people should not believe in Hell, etc., and that atheists have a moral imperative to try to convince people to not believe in Hell, etc.

You are arguing against those beliefs of mine. You should stop talking. "

My beliefs are that people should believe in Hell, etc., and that people of faith have a moral imperative to try to convince people to believe in Hell, etc.

You are arguing against those beliefs of mine. You should stop talking.

"
"You want atheists to stop being atheists, don't you? You want atheists to become Christians, and thereby to stop teaching atheism, and to teach Christianity instead."

Actually, you are incorrect. I don't want that. I love and embrace diversity. I don't believe we should all be Christians. I don't believe in destroying atheism. Skepticism keeps believers on their toes and makes honest people continually reevaluate their point of view. It reinforces my beliefs in that I have had a near death (actually died) experience and so I know what I personally experienced. But it is atheists and atheism that forces me to review my own path and to look inward at my own self. so no, I don't want to convert everyone. I ponly wish to be a guide to those who truly seek it. I would no more desire to force you to believe in God than I would give up my own belief. so on that account, with regards to me, you are simply wrong.

> Those statements are under the assumption that you are wanting your beliefs exclusively taught from authority, which is what you implied in your early posts.

I didn't imply it. You assumed it.

> Read my posts, I said moderate in regard to the subjects discussed.

You said you don't like it when Christians try to convince people on the street to become Christians: "I just said how much I hate when Cristians do that."

> You have no more right to try to convince people that there is no hell than other people have to try to convince people there is a hell.

That's correct. We both have the right to do it.

> You are arguing for what you are arguing agianst.

No, you're just confused. Why don't you stop putting words in my mouth? Ask a question, maybe?


> I want them to have that right.

Yes, Draugnar. So do I. That wasn't the question. Do you want white supremacists to teach their children to be white supremacists?

> You are arguing against those beliefs of mine. You should stop talking.

It was seth who said he doesn't like it when people argue on internet message boards about religion. That's why I'm turning it around on seth. It doesn't make any sense when you say it to me, nor if I say it to you. I think we both agree that it's peaceful and moderate for people to talk on message boards.

I'll say that I've never felt any of the Christians of this site try to convert me, and generally when I bring up my non-standard religion, there's not any derision, which is pretty shocking for the internet in general.

I'm not here to defend Christianity, religion, people on this site, the concept of Hell, or anything else. I'm just saying that I think the wrong tree is completely being barked up here.

> I would no more desire to force you to believe in God than I would give up my own belief.

Who's talking about force?

Wouldn't you like it if I willingly, enthusiastically became a Christian tomorrow?

I honestly don't think he would care if you willingly, enthusiastically became a Christian tomorrow.

> wow exactly what I said. Great job.

> wow exactly what I said. Great job.

> wow exactly what I said. GREAT JOB.


>You want to be able to teach people people that there is no hell, and that is what your mission is. And you don't want others to teach their beliefs that there is a hell. Therefor, my statement.

> show me where I said that I don't like people to argue on Internet message boards about religion, that's right I didn't.

"Wouldn't you like it if I willingly, enthusiastically became a Christian tomorrow? "

I wouldn't care one way or another if a stranger on the internet suddenly became a Christian. Fuck, I don't care if my friends and family do or don't. I have a brother in law who married Jewish and converted and I am happy for him. I have a niece through his Jewish son who is Christian and and Nephew through his Jewish daughter who is Christian. But I readily admit that my faith and my religion are personal to me and if others don't want to believe or do wnat to belive or wnat to believe something radfically different, I am happy for them to be following whatever system of beliefs makes them happy (atheism is a system of beliefs in a lack of a God until God is proven not to exist). In whatsoever state I find you, so long as you are happy there, I am happy for you and for you to remain there.

> I honestly don't think he would care if you willingly, enthusiastically became a Christian tomorrow.

Maybe not me personally, but I'll bet he thinks there's something good about Christianity such that it's a good thing when someone out there decides to accept Jesus into their heart.


> You want to be able to teach people people that there is no hell, and that is what your mission is.

Yes.

> And you don't want others to teach their beliefs that there is a hell.

I'd prefer that they don't. But I don't want to make it impossible or illegal for them to do so.

> show me where I said that I don't like people to argue on Internet message boards about religion, that's right I didn't.

I said "So you're saying I have no right to talk to people on internet message boards, or on the street, or in bars, and tell them that there is no God and no hell. I have no right to buy the same public billboards that Christians can buy. That's what you're saying?"

And you replied "I just said how much I hate when Cristians do that. In case you haven't noticed I've been saying that people should be left to themselves as far as religion is concerned."

So you did say you hate when Christians talk to people about Christianity on internet message boards. If you didn't mean to say that, fine.

> In whatsoever state I find you, so long as you are happy there, I am happy for you and for you to remain there.

Alright, that's cool.

Trying to spread atheism makes me happy.

Ok so what I really said is that I don't like for people to try to convert people by basically "cold calling". And you tried to change it to say that I said that I don't like for people to argue* about religion on Internet message boards. Thanks for admitting it.

I don't see what you mean there, seth, but I just hope you understand me now. So if I go onto an internet message board and try to start a debate about how there is no God, you're okay with that? Or no?

@ gavri


Hey dude, yeah no problem. In all honesty what I see is nobody deliberately trying to misrepresent you, but when things get heated in a debate it becomes easy to assume so. Something that seems blatantly obvious to you might not come across to the other guy the way you specifically intended.

For instance this statement (and it isn't meant to criticize you, we all do it and you could show the same with one of mine).

"I want people to stop being religious, and thereby stop teaching religion to others.
You want atheists to stop being atheists, don't you? You want atheists to become Christians, and thereby to stop teaching atheism, and to teach Christianity instead.
I want people to stop being religious, and thereby stop teaching religion to others."

Just walking in and making an off-handed silly comment, without being invested in this discussion, it is easier for me to see what was happening. I don't think you meant that you wanted to ban religion any more than you believe anyone else wants to ban atheism (as if it were actually possible).

To use your phrase (without trying to insinuate hypocrisy, again we all do it from time to time) it was an "us vs. them" or more accurately a "me vs. you (plural)" statement. If you look at it though, you were trying pretty hard to get your point across and you started and ended with the same statement verbatim. It doesn't surprise me that they didn't get the middle part exactly as you meant. Psychologically, the first and last things are primarily what people attend to.
So, they thought your stated desire, "I want people to stop being religious, and thereby stop teaching religion to others." was the most important (confusing it with being your main point). I don't think you meant it quite that way, but I can certainly see how they misunderstood you too.

As I read it, you basically meant "Sure I want there to be no more religions, just like you wish atheism would go away". That's probably not quite it either, but it's basically what I got from it.

The problem came with "and stop teaching religion to others". I'd gather from the responses they saw that as a civil liberties issue. They saw it as a "Hey! You want me to not be able to talk about or spread my beliefs!" kinda thing. When I think you were just wishing aloud for the ultimate "win" for atheism and assuming the other guys wanted the same for religion.

In all seriousness. I don't wish for the end of atheism. Most Christians will tell you it's not about reaching (by that they usually mean converting) everyone, but giving everyone the opportunity to hear. Usually that's what they are doing.

You mentioned some opinions that you hold strongly. Seems to me that you would get farther extolling the virtues of what you believe, rather than spending so much time attacking a belief itself. There is always room for another good idea. Why does atheism have to be so worried about exaggerating the sins of religion? It really has little to do with hamstringing horses in the long run ;-) So, even if you win that one it isn't that much of a victory.

Why should everyone be behind LGBT rights? That might be something I could agree with you on. We just don't know right now. Why not talk about why your ideas are good, rather than so much about why mind are bad? If we truly had that discussion them people would gravitate to what is more appealing, wouldn't they?

**mine** not **mind**

darned arthritis ;-)

How do you not understand? But that rather makes sense since it has seemed like you haven't been reading some of the stuff I said ;)

And yeah that's kind of a trick question, with little relevance to what we have been discussing.

Crap didn't finish. I would rather you not, but if you are respecting the opinions of others and not trying to convert them I don't have a huge issue with it.

> In all honesty what I see is nobody deliberately trying to misrepresent you

I'm just noting that he accused me of lying first, and you said nothing about that. You probably didn't see. But it feels like you've ... got an agenda and a specific target. :)

> you started and ended with the same statement verbatim

Where? I'm looking back at when I said the "I want people to stop being religious, and thereby stop teaching religion to others" thing and I only see that I opened with it, not closed with it.

> As I read it, you basically meant "Sure I want there to be no more religions, just like you wish atheism would go away". That's probably not quite it either, but it's basically what I got from it.

It's gotten simplified; what I really want is for religions to stop teaching certain beliefs, as listed in my first comment. Then the question of God's existence would be something that interested people could debate among themselves, and disinterested people (like bo_sox, who started a thread to say how disinterested he is), wouldn't have to be bothered by the debates.

It's not that I want atheism to win, but spreading atheism is my route to the real goal, which is equal rights for all people, and freedom from fear of fake threats like Hell. Christian Universalists are pretty cool.

> Seems to me that you would get farther extolling the virtues of what you believe, rather than spending so much time attacking a belief itself.

I don't think so. We're in the kind of society where people can say what they want and easily be ignored. That's pretty good, it's halfway to the ideal. But criticizing certain ideas makes a lot of people freak out.

I specifically want it to be more widely socially acceptable to tell people their ideas are destructive and wrong. And even shitty and stupid (though I, personally, don't like saying that kind of stuff). The only way I can see to get there is by desensitizing people. I.e. by doing it.

> Why does atheism have to be so worried about exaggerating the sins of religion?

Point to where I'm doing that in this thread.

Like what seth just said.

"I would rather you not, but if you are respecting the opinions of others and not trying to convert them I don't have a huge issue with it."

That's a recipe for social disengagement, an atomized society where we don't really share what we think. I don't want a world where we respect each others' opinions. That's stifling. I just want a world where we respect each others' rights.

Ok so you don't want to respect the rights of others to have a different opinion?