Originally posted by Bardock42I just read it again, twice, before I got what he meant... strange syntax. Must be tired.
Dudes.Sym just said that except for the burning Christians that scenario isn't that horrible (i.e. pot isn't very harmful, sexual open mindedness should be accepted, abortions are okay). Though he was probably saying it in a lighthearted manner, I tend to agree.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Your posts make no sense, offer no regard for context and make give no productive contribution to debate. So please desisit from plaguing me with ill-structured questions or I will officially petition Bardock to have you removed.
I don't think I have that kind of power.
Originally posted by Bardock42And your answer for what the Good Book teaches? That morality and Religion should be synonymous. He's stating that they aren't...but according to Christian beliefs, shouldn't they be? If you're a believer anyway? They should be intertwined.
He's saying you are a ****. Your pseudo-intellectual posts are tedious at best, outright torture more often than not.
That is all that I am saying.........pfft...Testosterone...
And, btw, you know I don't always get sarcasm..........for damn sakes........get over it.
Originally posted by Deja~vu
And your answer for what the Good Book teaches? That morality and Religion should be synonymous. He's stating that they aren't...but according to Christian beliefs, shouldn't they be? If you're a believer anyway? They should be intertwined.That is all that I am saying.........pfft...Testosterone...
And, btw, you know I don't always get sarcasm..........for damn sakes........get over it.
That is not what I said.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Dudes.Sym just said that except for the burning Christians that scenario isn't that horrible (i.e. pot isn't very harmful, sexual open mindedness should be accepted, abortions are okay). Though he was probably saying it in a lighthearted manner, I tend to agree.
Ah. If that's the case, then I misconstrued it entirely. I thought he was saying it was a somewhat truthful account of atheists, rather than saying that most of the other stuff isn't that bad.
Originally posted by DigiMark007It's the "angry atheists" that flood youtube videos and discussion forums that create the stereotype, which doesn't usually hold up to legitimate inquiry.
Aren't those the "strong atheists" as oppose to the "weak atheists"?
Because, atheists, just like any other group are split...right?
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Aren't those the "strong atheists" as oppose to the "weak atheists"?Because, atheists, just like any other group are split...right?
No, those are "idiot atheists" that flood the internet with spam videos intended to provoke a reaction, not actually accomplish anything positive. Troll tactics, just on a different level. They're in such a minority as to be ignorable, except for the fact that they're so visible that such portrayals often become the archetype for atheism, unfortunately enough.
Anyway, I don't make a distinction in atheism, because it's not a sectarian schism like many Christian sects (or most religions). It's just a matter of the degree of your belief, or rather the degree in how you let those beliefs dictate your actions towards other religions and peoples. No formal definition exists for "strong" and "weak" atheism...it's largely a colloquial term used by atheists who feel the need to label different approaches to atheism, even though the same belief (or non-belief, as it were) is the same.