by BurnTheShips 55 Replies latest jw friends
Dude, that's a lousy comparison. Seriously. It works about as well as a dookie in the urinal.
How is it a bad comparison, because one we're looking back at saying "yes they were oppressed" and one we're right in the middle of and you're on the oppressive side?
I like watching Christians cry about how they are not allowed to discriminate against others.
Oh boo-hoo... I'm not allowed to prevent gay people from getting married!
Oh boo-hoo... I'm not allowed to force tax payers to pay for my religion!
How is it a bad comparison, because one we're looking back at saying "yes they were oppressed" and one we're right in the middle of and you're on the oppressive side?
Dude, if I was black I would be so tired of every crybaby comparing his status to my ancestors. I've never heard of atheist slaves, unless it's a gulag and the atheists are the masters, and besides, atheist slaves wouldn't be atheist for long. Take away all the cushy luxuries and the vast majority of atheists get religion real fast.
BTS
I'm an agnostic.
As far as Hitler. A lot of people say he was a Christian.
And a lot of Christians say he was an atheist.
It appears he was Jewish at least genetically, not religiously.
There are 2 sides too every coin, in this case there are 3 or 4 sides.
Nobody can really put their finger on what hitler was, everybody is trying to pass him off.
And they all have some dirt to back up their postitions.
For sure Hitler was the political leader of a Christian Nation.
Just like a certain ding bat from texas.
And both killed a lot of innocent people trying to usher in a new world order and carry out
the god of their immaginations will.
Jaguar... The nazi thing in this discussion has reference to this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
FYI
Oh, and BTS wins this because the intent of the post was not to argue for the correctness of any given position, but rather to submit emotional consonance with the sentiments of the article posted - this despite the attempt which was partially successful to change the topic.
The only thing one might logically have done in response (on the part of those who feel that the article posted was in fact not correct and that atheists ARE in fact not shrill, repetitive and dull in response to the straw man "Theist" argument shrilly and repetitively put forth) is to say "I simply don't see it that way. True, Dawkins and those like him are an embarrassment to our cause, but we simply have to embrace all those we can as we simply don't have the numbers we need to make any significant impact and furthermore we're feeling a bit ignored of late and that's rather depressing to the lot of us."
Sigh... I'd read that, but it's much too long. And I'm too busy being boring.
Take away all the cushy luxuries and the vast majority of atheists get religion real fast.
You've just earned a new nickname bud. "Bullshit Burns." Fits rather well.
Good one, Tuesday!! "Just like those pesky negroes who kept saying simply because they were the minority didn't mean they could get pushed around or have another's values pushed upon them..."
But I hafta ask - WHAT group of atheists has Charlotte Allen been hanging around?? Bill Maher's an atheist, and very entertaining! Sam Kineson was an atheist - I think - and hilarious.
I'm a happy Pagan atheist - don't ask.... - and I think I'm kinda fun! Zid 
You've just earned a new nickname bud. "Bullshit Burns." Fits rather well.
Care to engage my line of reasoning "Dumbass Doe"? Take away the cushy luxuries of modernity, add a pinch of hardship and a dash of short term existential doubt, and I think a lot of atheists would have epiphanies.
BTS
Care to engage my line of reasoning "Dumbass Doe"? Take away the cushy luxuries of modernity, add a pinch of hardship and a dash of short term existential doubt, and I think a lot of atheists would have epiphanies.
In my experience, the opposite is true.
