Religion

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)

111. There's nothing wrong to specifying denominations.

Reply to cbayer (Reply #108)

Fri Apr 27, 2012, 04:29 PM

Apr 2012

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

165 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does there need to be an Atheist/Theist dialogue? [View all] Taverner Apr 2012 OP

"there are a great deal of Atheists intent of "converting" theists." cleanhippie Apr 2012 #1

Not you, not me, and not most of us on DU Taverner Apr 2012 #2

Where? Exactly? cleanhippie Apr 2012 #6

Here is just one example Taverner Apr 2012 #20

OK, I'm pretty sure that cleanhippie and I aren't the only ones who thought your OP... trotsky Apr 2012 #23

Internet and Real World Taverner Apr 2012 #24

Yeah, I'm with you two. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #27

I thought the question was more broad than just DU. nt ZombieHorde Apr 2012 #69

Ok, I thought you meant here in DU. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #33

I apologize for the lack of clarity Taverner Apr 2012 #35

No need for apologies. thanks for the clarification. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #36

I feel no need to convert theists. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #3

I agree 100% Taverner Apr 2012 #4

THIS! cleanhippie Apr 2012 #7

Absolutely. obxhead Apr 2012 #17

Just calling any conversation "religious bullshit" is all the answer you need to give. Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #59

What a mean-spirited response. laconicsax Apr 2012 #65

Build your strawmen somewhere else. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #73

There goes civil rights legislation and a lot of other progressive things. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #64

We've been through this in other thread, but there is no indication Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #72

If you want a wall so that you are never in the vicinity of any "religious bullshit" Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #145

People can have all the religion they want. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #162

I don't have a clue and am not interested. Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #164

As long as any dialogue centers around objective facts, there should be no problem. stopbush Apr 2012 #5

Objective facts, huh? cleanhippie Apr 2012 #8

Tee hee, and of course right there is when the theists quit wanting to play, they have Lionessa Apr 2012 #10

Lionessa, FTW. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #13

That's a converatation stopper. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #60

What about perceptions? Taverner Apr 2012 #18

Is your last paragraph really the dialogue you're advocating? skepticscott Apr 2012 #9

I feel no need to convert atheists, and I would like to engage in dialogue, but... TygrBright Apr 2012 #11

That is the most impressive post I've ever read in this group. trotsky Apr 2012 #16

100% agree Taverner Apr 2012 #19

Bless you..... AlbertCat Apr 2012 #51

Excellent post, TB. cbayer Apr 2012 #52

Well, to take them in order: TygrBright Apr 2012 #78

I agree with much of what you say here and am willing to be an ally. cbayer Apr 2012 #79

I think the most important thing someone like you needs to realize... trotsky Apr 2012 #99

Thank you - awesome post EvolveOrConvolve Apr 2012 #66

+10 nt mr blur Apr 2012 #93

Show me where I can attack discrimination against atheists, and I'll fight it allong side you. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #114

Start with your own OPs. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #117

I had to pass, I'm afraid. mr blur Apr 2012 #12

In 'Murica Taverner Apr 2012 #44

Yes - there needs to be dialogue between everyone LeftishBrit Apr 2012 #14

Agreed. Whites/Blacks, Muslims/Christians, Muslims/Hindus, Christians/Jews, Muslims/Jews.... Taverner Apr 2012 #32

There already is one and it's going quite well. cbayer Apr 2012 #15

And why should a "truce" be negotiated skepticscott Apr 2012 #21

That's cool. I'll put you down in the doesn't want to participate column. cbayer Apr 2012 #22

What you advocate is a surrender skepticscott Apr 2012 #28

Exactly. "Tolerate my view, but yours is irrelevant" Taverner Apr 2012 #30

Really...most Americans would rather live next to a serial killer than an atheist Taverner Apr 2012 #25

Could you please show me your data? cbayer Apr 2012 #26

And I suppose your bias is OK? Taverner Apr 2012 #29

I wouldn't be a good mediator either. cbayer Apr 2012 #34

I don't think you even belong in the dialogue Taverner Apr 2012 #39

Oh, SNAP! cleanhippie Apr 2012 #56

On and here's your data Taverner Apr 2012 #31

I don't see anything in there about serial killers. Could you point it out? cbayer Apr 2012 #37

Funny how you get all specific when it comes to my claims Taverner Apr 2012 #38

You appear to want a dialogue only with those with whom you agree. cbayer Apr 2012 #40

+1000 skepticscott Apr 2012 #41

Having read it, I don't see anything there which comes within amile of your accusation. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #62

Where's the data that proves your god was born of a virgin? Taverner Apr 2012 #63

It's a story!! Why drag that in? It has nothng to do with this thread. Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #146

Since you are big on "facts," where did you get that one? nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #61

Interesting. trotsky Apr 2012 #71

After reading the comments I voted no based on what I saw here in this thread Leontius Apr 2012 #42

Yawn. How er...wise you are. nt mr blur Apr 2012 #47

Thanks, I wish I could say the same but Leontius Apr 2012 #48

And that majority would be the ones skepticscott Apr 2012 #49

This thread, this day, this topic. You want to fight your battles with those other posters in Leontius Apr 2012 #50

Not your problem, it just skepticscott Apr 2012 #55

I'm sorry you don't seem to see "This thread, this topic, this day" Leontius Apr 2012 #67

Oh, it's quite clear that you'd like to base your answer skepticscott Apr 2012 #68

Yep. Lots of "dialog" here. n/t LTX Apr 2012 #43

There's a local Interfaith Coalition in my area, bridging a number of organized religions pinto Apr 2012 #45

I'm sorry but I find the question meaningless dmallind Apr 2012 #46

So is Dawkins when he insults people or Newdow when he's being a preening git. AlbertCat Apr 2012 #53

OK, I have read it twice and am still digesting. cbayer Apr 2012 #57

I tried dmallind Apr 2012 #75

Nicely put. trotsky Apr 2012 #76

"If there were "other ways" of knowing there would be NO way of knowing." cleanhippie Apr 2012 #77

Yes .... I agree with cbayer AlbertCat Apr 2012 #58

What is "NTS"? n/t LTX Apr 2012 #74

no true scotsman - the Xian apologists' favorite fallacy dmallind Apr 2012 #80

I've seen the same argument here that de Botton is not a true atheist. cbayer Apr 2012 #83

The argument is that de Botton is a dick Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #84

Prove it. dmallind Apr 2012 #86

I think calling someone an Uncle Tom is a pretty clear statement that they are not cbayer Apr 2012 #88

Bullshit in the extreme. Have you read the damn book Uncle Tom is in? dmallind Apr 2012 #91

It's the same argument used by both theists and atheists to distinguish cbayer Apr 2012 #81

Surely you can link to some examples where atheists have done it, then. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #82

You called him an "uncle tom atheist" and others have suggested that he is just in it cbayer Apr 2012 #87

Do you REALLY not understand the NTS or just desperately trying to avoid backtracking dmallind Apr 2012 #89

I don't respond to people that call me a liar. cbayer Apr 2012 #92

Tough crap then because I responded to lies. There's only one other alternative after all dmallind Apr 2012 #95

That's not the NTS fallacy. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #90

I see your point, but wonder about this other point. cbayer Apr 2012 #94

First one is NTS and second one isn't. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #96

I have often wondered if Phelps isn't an example of Poe's law. cbayer Apr 2012 #98

And yet no one has claimed that about de Botton. trotsky Apr 2012 #100

I've thought that of Limbaugh, too Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #101

I've also thought that about Limbaugh. cbayer Apr 2012 #103

Your "good faith" has nothing to do with it. trotsky Apr 2012 #105

I can't speak for the folks you mention - I don't know Phelps or the others OriginalGeek Apr 2012 #116

I have met some as well. They regard me with pity, lol. cbayer Apr 2012 #118

That analysis leaves two important things out: laconicsax Apr 2012 #121

Do either of those things diminish the good done by religious leaders, congregations and cbayer Apr 2012 #123

That depends on what you mean. laconicsax Apr 2012 #124

But as we discussed earlier, they would not acknowledge a shared religion. cbayer Apr 2012 #125

You're overlooking what both have in common. laconicsax Apr 2012 #128

Every individual sees, reads, hears things through their own prisms. cbayer Apr 2012 #129

It isn't that complicated laconicsax Apr 2012 #132

Wow, you sure do make a lot of assumptions about people of faith. cbayer Apr 2012 #134

Yes, I do assume that people's attitudes and beliefs are shaped by their environment. laconicsax Apr 2012 #137

What assumptions? skepticscott Apr 2012 #138

lol - yeah, I've felt that pity many times OriginalGeek Apr 2012 #130

I am glad that you have your aunt and uncle. cbayer Apr 2012 #131

Everything that **YOU** believe defines a Christian? dmallind Apr 2012 #97

Let me try my hand at this. laconicsax Apr 2012 #102

I agree that it becomes much more complex because of the lack cbayer Apr 2012 #104

Those "most basic tenets" aren't interpreted the same. laconicsax Apr 2012 #106

I can buy that. It's seems like an argument about semantics, then. cbayer Apr 2012 #108

I think you are kind of getting it. Goblinmonger Apr 2012 #109

OK. I think I can do that. cbayer Apr 2012 #110

Not always. :) nt rrneck Apr 2012 #143

There's nothing wrong to specifying denominations. laconicsax Apr 2012 #111

I'm not so much concerned about specifying denominations, more about cbayer Apr 2012 #112

Nothing wrong with that either. laconicsax Apr 2012 #115

Now you're just bringing up more problems. trotsky Apr 2012 #107

What?? dmallind Apr 2012 #85

+1000 Taverner Apr 2012 #126

Waste of time skepticscott Apr 2012 #139

Need? No. Do I support such discussion? Yes. laconicsax Apr 2012 #54

Fantastic answer. nt ZombieHorde Apr 2012 #70

Then your goal must be to get rid of the 1st amendment. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #113

WTF are you talking about? No one wants to rid anything, stop fabricating things. cleanhippie Apr 2012 #119

1,432 posts Taverner Apr 2012 #127

There's another word for "fabricating" skepticscott Apr 2012 #141

Damn, Charles! When you make shit up, you go all out! laconicsax Apr 2012 #120

Um, I have no idea where you deduced that from my posts... Taverner Apr 2012 #122

Clearly the first amendment guarantees the freedom of religion to exist and speak in the Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #135

Why would a publicly (tax) supported park be a haven for oilpro2 Apr 2012 #136

The court has spoken about most of these things. Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #144

No, it doesn't skepticscott Apr 2012 #140

Not when "free exercise" means lobbying government. rrneck Apr 2012 #142

Dialogue? Man, I'm just here for the lulz. Evoman Apr 2012 #133

Well, we might just affirm you as a person with guts.We ight even listen to you. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #147

It's so generous of you to consider listening to someone on a discussion board. laconicsax Apr 2012 #148

your snark is tedious and ignored. If you have something txo say, then say it.nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #151

This is a discussion board. laconicsax Apr 2012 #154

He's like me....he is here for some righteous lulz. Evoman Apr 2012 #155

I don't care. Evoman Apr 2012 #149

I guess it is important (to me at least) that you do give a shit. nt Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #152

Oh please, no it's not. Evoman Apr 2012 #153

Hey. Great! While you really don't know what is going on inside me, and have missed it by a mile, Thats my opinion Apr 2012 #156

Haha. Evoman Apr 2012 #158

Good luck in this fight. I hope this round is easier and knocks the cancer out for good. Leontius Apr 2012 #160

Evoman......FOR THE WIN!!!! cleanhippie Apr 2012 #161

Or rrneck Apr 2012 #150

Your snark is tedious and ignored. laconicsax Apr 2012 #157

ha! Evoman Apr 2012 #159

I think what would really help dialogue felix_numinous Apr 2012 #163

+10000 Taverner Apr 2012 #165