Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by joseph boring on March 27, 2011 at 1:34pm

I think the lady is right. Every approach should be taken from insult to calling on their better judgement, but when I think about all the evil that has and is being carried out at this very moment in the insane name of religion, calling a spade a spade seems appropriate.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 27, 2011 at 1:56pm

Calling a spade a spade only states the obvious and does not change the fact that a spade is a spade.  I really hate it when politicians justify socially unacceptable stances by saying, "Well at least I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade," as though there is some sort of correlation between good judgement and lack of survival instincts.  Imagine pride in having the courage to walk up to a 300 lb professional wrestler to call him a 'dumb muscle head'.  Where is the virtue in stating the obvious? How does that possibly improve the situation?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by joseph boring on March 27, 2011 at 4:28pm

When is the last time you heard a politician use that term as  even I hesitate, because to some people it may have racial undertones. I grew up in a place and time when it simply meant telling the truth. Why would you possibly walk up to any one and call them something unless you knew this to be a fact. What is wrong with being honest even if it does offend. You cannot base the truth on who it might rub the wrong way, because it will allways bother someone because it invovles something so personal as their belief system no-matter how absurd

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 27, 2011 at 4:36pm

I'm just saying that being right doesn't make you righteous.  There is no virtue in knowing the truth, or even in asserting it, if you can't persuade others to its realization.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by joseph boring on March 27, 2011 at 8:02pm

Wrong. Being right is being right. What does virtue have to do with anything. You may want to examine some of the statements you are asserting, before publishing because if examined closely they do not make a lick of sense. So what if you can't persuade others to it's realization, whatever that is.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 27, 2011 at 8:57pm

Perhaps you should read a little more carefully then and try not to lose track of the discussion.  I'll try to use smaller words if that will help, but you can also look them up in google.

 

If you have no interest putting forth a persuasive argument on behalf of reason over blind faith AND you are in support of inflammatory billboards then what, other than inciting more hatred against atheists, are you hoping these billboards will accomplish?

Permalink Reply by joseph boring on March 28, 2011 at 1:28am

You can google all day and use as many big words as you like. At the end of the day it still has to make sense. You don't put up a persuasive argument on behalf of reason over faith or blind faith or draw distinctions on a billboard. Your intention should be to incite discourse were the truth might be realized. If you think the blind will suddenly see by being kind to them well I have some property you definitely need to purchase sight unseen.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 28, 2011 at 2:34am

I'll just let it continue in the other thread as we've run out of reply buttons here and you haven't said anything new.

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 25, 2011 at 11:39am

I strongly agree and I find Silverman to be unnecessarily confrontational. Unfortunately I think the choice is between falling in with 'the party line' or accepting the consequences of having a fractured community. I really don't see Silverman, or many of the other "god hurt me" atheists accepting a moderate approach.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Karp on March 25, 2011 at 11:43am

Heather, Silverman really bothers me. Did you see him on the O'Reilly factor? He came off sounding arrogant and childish and O'Riley came off sounding calm and reasonable. When O'Reilly looses it it's because he's out "thunk" by superior and calmer voices like Hitch and co. Silverman represented us in the worst way and brought up the "invisible man in the sky arugement" and from that point on O'Reilly had him.

Here's the video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BCipg71LbI

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Heather Spoonheim on March 25, 2011 at 11:50am

I started watching that clip before and just couldn't get through it.  Those billboards are just political suicide, and no matter how stupid O'Reilly may be, he knows how to politic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by joseph boring on March 27, 2011 at 2:04pm

It is about time people stopped thinking hurting their sensibilities and started calling them out. Personally I thought the jokers who were burning churches had the right idea, but for the wrong reason. Religion is a business and a scam that has done more to retard mans progress than all the disease and natural calamity combined. Imagine all the great works of art and science that have been destroyed by various religions over the centuries, let alone people killed and or tortured. It is about time people stopped kissing their asses and started treating them ( I mean the leaders) like the sick pieces of shit they are. I know this sounds harsh, but I am tired of seeing these bastards prosper because people are chicken shit, when it comes to organized insanity or self delusion.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page