Jump to content

Paul's soulmate?


Guest 2smart4u
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest 2smart4u

I think I've found Paul's soulmate, she's alive and well living in Washington and working as the Governor of the state. The Governor has allowed an atheist group to place a hateful poster denouncing all religion as lies in the Statehouse right next to the manger scene. How's that for Christmas spirit!! This seems to me to be something Paul would support and endorse. Having read enough of Paul's posts and knowing his twisted logic, I'm sure he'd say the atheists have rights and not mention all the Christians that will be offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think I've found Paul's soulmate, she's alive and well living in Washington and working as the Governor of the state. The Governor has allowed an atheist group to place a hateful poster denouncing all religion as lies in the Statehouse right next to the manger scene. How's that for Christmas spirit!! This seems to me to be something Paul would support and endorse. Having read enough of Paul's posts and knowing his twisted logic, I'm sure he'd say the atheists have rights and not mention all the Christians that will be offended.

Here is what the sign actually says:

"At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail."

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."

"There is only our natural world."

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

That's their point of view. Why shouldn't they be able to display it?

Apparently it never occurs to you that a religion that preaches eternal torment in a fiery hell might offend someone.

Or that an image of a dead man hanging on a cross, having just been tortured to death, might offend someone.

Or that the idea that one point of view should shut out everything else might offend someone.

Of course not. It's your religion, so it's OK.

You are such a dumba**.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found Paul's soulmate, she's alive and well living in Washington and working as the Governor of the state. The Governor has allowed an atheist group to place a hateful poster denouncing all religion as lies in the Statehouse right next to the manger scene.

The poster is not at all hateful. It merely states their wish for reason to prevail over superstition. If you contend that regarding religion as superstition is, in itself, hateful, I would point out that it is no different from how you regard every religion but one. Unless, of course, you believe that all religions are equally valid, that Vishnu, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, etc. are all real. The hatefulness you see, 2smart, is in the eye of the beholder.

How's that for Christmas spirit!! This seems to me to be something Paul would support and endorse. Having read enough of Paul's posts and knowing his twisted logic, I'm sure he'd say the atheists have rights and not mention all the Christians that will be offended.

Do you contend that atheists don't have rights, or that there is such a thing as a right to not be offended? Freedom of religion could not exist if a person's rights were dependent on their religious beliefs. Freedom of speech could not exist if not being offended was a right.

Personally, I think it would be much better not to allow any religious displays, including atheist ones, on government properties. But if it is allowed, it has to be allowed for all or it becomes a government endorsement of religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found Paul's soulmate, she's alive and well living in Washington and working as the Governor of the state. The Governor has allowed an atheist group to place a hateful poster denouncing all religion as lies in the Statehouse right next to the manger scene. How's that for Christmas spirit!! This seems to me to be something Paul would support and endorse. Having read enough of Paul's posts and knowing his twisted logic, I'm sure he'd say the atheists have rights and not mention all the Christians that will be offended.

Looks more like you want to be his soul mate. You can't keep talking about him. You probably put his picture under your pillow before you go to sleep at night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found Paul's soulmate, she's alive and well living in Washington and working as the Governor of the state. The Governor has allowed an atheist group to place a hateful poster denouncing all religion as lies in the Statehouse right next to the manger scene. How's that for Christmas spirit!! This seems to me to be something Paul would support and endorse. Having read enough of Paul's posts and knowing his twisted logic, I'm sure he'd say the atheists have rights and not mention all the Christians that will be offended.

That's not what the FFRF display says, but that's OK. I'm glad you've decided to set this all straight for us. Maybe you can explain how we can solve this problem. Just remember, go really slow because you're too smart for us.

1. I think Paul probably would say that atheists have rights. You're not denying that, are you?

2. Of course, we wouldn't be having this problem if Christians didn't insist on putting their religious displays on public property. But when they do it, everyone else has to be free to do the same thing. Remember, equal protection. If the Christians display, everyone else has to be given the same rights and the same access. So that's the problem. And now the world is looking to you, the smartest person on earth, for the solution.

3. You seem to be saying that the atheists are saying something hateful, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to put up their display. But what the atheists are actually saying is:

"At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail."

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."

"There is only our natural world."

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

{http://www.ffrf.org/news/2008/olympia.php}

Now you may not agree with that, but it's not hateful. They're not asking anyone to cause harm or disrupt anything. They're not shouting fire in a crowded theatre. They're just making a point, just like Christians are making a point with the Nativity scene. It's their religious belief, and it's further proof of the fact that your religion is offensive to atheists. As a matter of fact, it's far less hateful than saying that everyone who isn't a Christian will burn in hell forever. Now you may not like how that sounds, but it's objectively true. (Which doesn't matter to you, since you're not an objective person.) All religions are hateful and offensive to someone. So by that logic, no religions should be allowed to display on public property. That would solve the problem, because they all have plenty of places to display their point of view. But you want government to promote religion. Well it can't quite do that under our law, but whatever it does it will have to do it equally.

Furthermore, the atheists have a very good point. I wouldn't go as far as this group does, but it is true that religions are full of myths and superstitions, and they do cause people to close their minds and their hearts. Most Christians agree that more harm has been done in the name of religion than anything else - and yet they hold to their religions. The atheists are just saying, why do that. They're saying "imagine a society without religions based on myths and superstitions (gods)." That would be a better society. Again, you may not agree, but it's a reasonable point of view, try as you will to characterize it otherwise. If you have ever listened to John Lennon's song "Imagine," that's exactly what he was saying.

4. So why do the Christians, or the people who believe in a god, get to say what can and cannot be displayed on public property? Is it because they are in the majority? Well, that won't work because religious opinions aren't subject to a majority vote. Religious beliefs and opinions are matters of individual conscience. And because the 14th Amendment makes equal protection the law of the land, you can't favor one religious view over any other. So majority rule isn't the answer, because each person's right to religion is protected by law. It's not up for a vote.

5. Oh, but we really need to do this, you might say. No you don't. Christmas displays are on front lawns and church lawns and store windows all over the country. No harm will come if they're not also on public property. Where is the harm?

6. Of course, you could put on your usual smart-assed attitude and say that everyone should just do as you say because you're the smartest person here. But I think even you know better than that.

So I'm looking for a rule of law that would support your point of view, and I can't find one. I made that phrase really big because that's the issue, and you don't seem to be very good at seeing issues (smart as you are). Anticipating that the smartest person on earth might have trouble with the concept of a rule of law, here is a simple link to get you started on some research. {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law}

Give us a clear rule of law that supports your point of view. You're absolutely sure you're right, so you must know. And surely you're smart enough to explain it step by step and point by point.

And remember, please: go really, really slow because you're so much smarter than we are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found Paul's soulmate, she's alive and well living in Washington and working as the Governor of the state. The Governor has allowed an atheist group to place a hateful poster denouncing all religion as lies in the Statehouse right next to the manger scene. How's that for Christmas spirit!! This seems to me to be something Paul would support and endorse. Having read enough of Paul's posts and knowing his twisted logic, I'm sure he'd say the atheists have rights and not mention all the Christians that will be offended.

So, Atheists don't have rights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t say they are soul-mates, but Matt and I do know the leaders of the Freedom From Religion Foundation. They were kind enough to fly us to Wisconsin in October 2007, and present Matthew with an award. You can still view his address to the group online at http://www.ffrf.org/events/2007/video/part2.htm. Matthew follows Ellery Schempp, who was the Plaintiff in the 1963 Supreme Court case Abington School District v. Schempp. Matthew has also appeared twice on FFRF's radio program. You can hear those interviews at http://ffrf.org/radio/podcast/.

That said, I would prefer a more positive message than the one presented by FFRF on its display, which I understand was stolen today. So much for religious tolerance. However, FFRF makes a good point. Not all religious are based on myth and superstition, but the main monotheistic religions, including literally interpreted Christianity, Judaism and Islam are. Just because the message isn’t pleasant doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

But you’ve given me an idea, an excellent one, in fact. I’ll post a new topic when it comes to fruition. It may take up to a year, but when it happens, 2smart4u will be able to take some credit for it. Thanks for the idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their all Atheists until their on their back in an ambulance on the way to the hospital and then it's - - "Oh God don't let me die"

In your imagination, maybe.

Wonder if anyone ever did a study on the literacy rates of theists versus atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, I would prefer a more positive message than the one presented by FFRF on its display, which I understand was stolen today.

Stolen? How can that be?

Isn't the prime mantra for most religions "our God is a great and powerful God?"

Why would their followers skulk around in the night and remove the competitions adverts? Should not that be best left up to their "Great and Powerful God?"

They're so insecure. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
Their all Atheists until their on their back in an ambulance on the way to the hospital and then it's - - "Oh God don't let me die"

I've seen atheists get religion and start wearing crosses as soon as they got to Nam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen atheists get religion and start wearing crosses as soon as they got to Nam.

And I've seen people head straight for the bar the second they got out of church. So what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen atheists get religion and start wearing crosses as soon as they got to Nam.

I've seen people who went to church every week when they were kids, want nothing to do with religion after what they saw in Nam. You wouldn't have noticed, phony Patriot, because they didn't agree with you, so you just ignored them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen atheists get religion and start wearing crosses as soon as they got to Nam.

You probably did see that, but why did it happen and what does it mean?

Does is mean that there is a god? No, it doesn’t mean that. Just because people believe something doesn’t make it true. You seem to think the “converted soldiers’” fear has something to do with it, and it does, but in exactly the opposite way that you suggest. Fear makes their belief less reliable, not more reliable. How many of them kept their beliefs after they returned home? How many soldiers gave up their religious beliefs after military service? It doesn’t tell you anything about whether there is or is not a god. It only tells you how people react to things, and make decisions for non-rational reasons.

As you know, the last thing you want to do in the military is be different. You want to fit in. So if you come from a country where most people are Christians, that belief system will be more pronounced in the military. That is why the military academies are getting into trouble now, pushing religious belief (and in particular Christianity) on recruits. The military levels everyone out. It homogenizes human beings. It has to do that for the sake of discipline, but that shouldn’t extend to religious belief. Unfortunately, in some units, it does. So if a Lieutenant Paszkiewicz wanted to proselytize, he would have the power of his rank to back him up, and who would dare talk back? Practically no one in Kearny High dared talk back, and that isn’t even the military. That’s why you will never understand someone like Matthew.

What you forget is that we aren’t in the military, and Kearny isn’t a military base. People have to do things in the military that they shouldn’t have to do in civilian life. A person who really thinks this through doesn’t want a permanent military state.

I wish I could get through to you. You obviously have set your whole life around a set of assumptions. You wall yourself within that belief system, and nothing outside of it can get in. You’re probably very proud of building such an impenetrable wall around yourself, a fortress of belief. What you can’t see from in there is that what you’re keeping out is information that would make you a better and more reasonable person if you would let it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Patriot
You probably did see that, but why did it happen and what does it mean?

Does is mean that there is a god? No, it doesn’t mean that. Just because people believe something doesn’t make it true. You seem to think the “converted soldiers’” fear has something to do with it, and it does, but in exactly the opposite way that you suggest. Fear makes their belief less reliable, not more reliable. How many of them kept their beliefs after they returned home? How many soldiers gave up their religious beliefs after military service? It doesn’t tell you anything about whether there is or is not a god. It only tells you how people react to things, and make decisions for non-rational reasons.

As you know, the last thing you want to do in the military is be different. You want to fit in. So if you come from a country where most people are Christians, that belief system will be more pronounced in the military. That is why the military academies are getting into trouble now, pushing religious belief (and in particular Christianity) on recruits. The military levels everyone out. It homogenizes human beings. It has to do that for the sake of discipline, but that shouldn’t extend to religious belief. Unfortunately, in some units, it does. So if a Lieutenant Paszkiewicz wanted to proselytize, he would have the power of his rank to back him up, and who would dare talk back? Practically no one in Kearny High dared talk back, and that isn’t even the military. That’s why you will never understand someone like Matthew.

What you forget is that we aren’t in the military, and Kearny isn’t a military base. People have to do things in the military that they shouldn’t have to do in civilian life. A person who really thinks this through doesn’t want a permanent military state.

I wish I could get through to you. You obviously have set your whole life around a set of assumptions. You wall yourself within that belief system, and nothing outside of it can get in. You’re probably very proud of building such an impenetrable wall around yourself, a fortress of belief. What you can’t see from in there is that what you’re keeping out is information that would make you a better and more reasonable person if you would let it in.

So Paul, who wasn't there, knows what promped an atheist to find God in Vietnam. Your testimony wouldn't be allowed in a courtroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not what the FFRF display says, but that's OK. I'm glad you've decided to set this all straight for us. Maybe you can explain how we can solve this problem. Just remember, go really slow because you're too smart for us.

1. I think Paul probably would say that atheists have rights. You're not denying that, are you?

2. Of course, we wouldn't be having this problem if Christians didn't insist on putting their religious displays on public property. But when they do it, everyone else has to be free to do the same thing. Remember, equal protection. If the Christians display, everyone else has to be given the same rights and the same access. So that's the problem. And now the world is looking to you, the smartest person on earth, for the solution.

3. You seem to be saying that the atheists are saying something hateful, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to put up their display. But what the atheists are actually saying is:

"At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail."

"There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell."

"There is only our natural world."

"Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

{http://www.ffrf.org/news/2008/olympia.php}

Now you may not agree with that, but it's not hateful. They're not asking anyone to cause harm or disrupt anything. They're not shouting fire in a crowded theatre. They're just making a point, just like Christians are making a point with the Nativity scene. It's their religious belief, and it's further proof of the fact that your religion is offensive to atheists. As a matter of fact, it's far less hateful than saying that everyone who isn't a Christian will burn in hell forever. Now you may not like how that sounds, but it's objectively true. (Which doesn't matter to you, since you're not an objective person.) All religions are hateful and offensive to someone. So by that logic, no religions should be allowed to display on public property. That would solve the problem, because they all have plenty of places to display their point of view. But you want government to promote religion. Well it can't quite do that under our law, but whatever it does it will have to do it equally.

Furthermore, the atheists have a very good point. I wouldn't go as far as this group does, but it is true that religions are full of myths and superstitions, and they do cause people to close their minds and their hearts. Most Christians agree that more harm has been done in the name of religion than anything else - and yet they hold to their religions. The atheists are just saying, why do that. They're saying "imagine a society without religions based on myths and superstitions (gods)." That would be a better society. Again, you may not agree, but it's a reasonable point of view, try as you will to characterize it otherwise. If you have ever listened to John Lennon's song "Imagine," that's exactly what he was saying.

4. So why do the Christians, or the people who believe in a god, get to say what can and cannot be displayed on public property? Is it because they are in the majority? Well, that won't work because religious opinions aren't subject to a majority vote. Religious beliefs and opinions are matters of individual conscience. And because the 14th Amendment makes equal protection the law of the land, you can't favor one religious view over any other. So majority rule isn't the answer, because each person's right to religion is protected by law. It's not up for a vote.

5. Oh, but we really need to do this, you might say. No you don't. Christmas displays are on front lawns and church lawns and store windows all over the country. No harm will come if they're not also on public property. Where is the harm?

6. Of course, you could put on your usual smart-assed attitude and say that everyone should just do as you say because you're the smartest person here. But I think even you know better than that.

So I'm looking for a rule of law that would support your point of view, and I can't find one. I made that phrase really big because that's the issue, and you don't seem to be very good at seeing issues (smart as you are). Anticipating that the smartest person on earth might have trouble with the concept of a rule of law, here is a simple link to get you started on some research. {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law}

Give us a clear rule of law that supports your point of view. You're absolutely sure you're right, so you must know. And surely you're smart enough to explain it step by step and point by point.

And remember, please: go really, really slow because you're so much smarter than we are.

Wow. Somebody in Kearny actually has a brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Paul, who wasn't there, knows what promped an atheist to find God in Vietnam. Your testimony wouldn't be allowed in a courtroom.

It's not testimony and this isn't a courtroom. I was asking you to think your argument through using reason (not proof of specific facts), something you're obviously not willing to do.

See, here's how it's done. Someone makes a point and a supporting argument. You can challenge any of the points in the argument, or the conclusions if they don't follow from the points made. You can also challenge the premises. The point is to be reasonable, considering how people actually behave, not just how you want them to behave or imagine that they behave. Since you're not willing to do any of that either, no one can ever have any real discussion with you.

Now maybe you think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. If you look at the interchanges between you and anyone else here, you'll see that there is no interchange of ideas between you and anyone else. That's because you don't engage in any real discussion.

Try it. You might like it. It would certainly broaden your view of things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not testimony and this isn't a courtroom. I was asking you to think your argument through using reason (not proof of specific facts), something you're obviously not willing to do.

See, here's how it's done. Someone makes a point and a supporting argument. You can challenge any of the points in the argument, or the conclusions if they don't follow from the points made. You can also challenge the premises. The point is to be reasonable, considering how people actually behave, not just how you want them to behave or imagine that they behave. Since you're not willing to do any of that either, no one can ever have any real discussion with you.

Now maybe you think I'm exaggerating, but I'm not. If you look at the interchanges between you and anyone else here, you'll see that there is no interchange of ideas between you and anyone else. That's because you don't engage in any real discussion.

Try it. You might like it. It would certainly broaden your view of things.

Nice spin. But what about your presuming to know why an atheith found God in Vietnam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice spin. But what about your presuming to know why an atheith found God in Vietnam?

It wasn't spin. It was another futile attempt to get you to reason things through instead of just jumping from your bias straight to a conclusion.

And I didn't presume anything about anyone. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=93363 I just pointed our that many things go on in the military. I also pointed out that when people are afraid, they do things they wouldn't do when they are thinking straight. In any other context, you would call that common sense. And no, I don't have to have been in Viet Nam to know that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
It wasn't spin. It was another futile attempt to get you to reason things through instead of just jumping from your bias straight to a conclusion.

And I didn't presume anything about anyone. http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...ost&p=93363 I just pointed our that many things go on in the military. I also pointed out that when people are afraid, they do things they wouldn't do when they are thinking straight. In any other context, you would call that common sense. And no, I don't have to have been in Viet Nam to know that.

I am a member of the FFRF and although I don't necessarily support the display of this particular sign, overall the group does a great job representing the non-believing minority. I do feel however, that they have just as much right to express themselves as the religious people do. That is what makes this country great. I also had the pleasure of meeting Matthew at Freethought Day and I found him to be very articulate, well mannered and not at all arrogant. You are all taking cheap shots at Paul and I am not sure why. You may not agree with his opinions, but the least you can do is keep the atmosphere civil and non judgemental

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
I am a member of the FFRF and although I don't necessarily support the display of this particular sign, overall the group does a great job representing the non-believing minority. I do feel however, that they have just as much right to express themselves as the religious people do. That is what makes this country great. I also had the pleasure of meeting Matthew at Freethought Day and I found him to be very articulate, well mannered and not at all arrogant. You are all taking cheap shots at Paul and I am not sure why. You may not agree with his opinions, but the least you can do is keep the atmosphere civil and non judgemental

We have a new member joining Paul's Minion Club, welcome Kris.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...