?

Log in

No account? Create an account

October 30th, 2007


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
11:51 am
Why one particular atheist is angry.

I agree with pretty much everything she had to say.
So I'll just add, "amen."
Current Location: work
mood: calmcalm

(82 bits of drivel | babble incoherently)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:oceanic
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
What? I'm sorry, but I didn't say or imply anything like that in my comment. The whole point is that anyone, regardless of religion or lack thereof, shouldn't have to abide by health care laws influenced by a particular religion's morality. That says nothing about anyone's right to be upset or care about health care...?

I'm not sure what the last part of this comment has to do with this. If you'll clarify then I can answer to it.
[User Picture]
From:inlaterdays
Date:October 30th, 2007 04:57 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I didn't say you did. I'm reposnding to statements made in her post, as you requested.
[User Picture]
From:oceanic
Date:October 30th, 2007 05:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Sorry, my confusion.

So, your statement "religious women don't have the right to be upset about healthcare? Only atheists are allowed to have social concerns?" is supposed to be referencing the article? Where is that implied? I didn't see anything that supported that line of thought? Anyone can be (and should be!) concerned about health care, but she's talking specifically about religious beliefs being written into law. People can make their own decisions about their health care, whether based on religion or not, but when laws are based on religious belief, that takes the choice away from those that are non-religious (hence her original point, as paraphrased by me).

As far as "I think she's got it backwards. Most brands of Christianity actually teach that it is a good thing to help out the poor and the sick. That whole thing that Jesus guy did, yannow."

So that's an original teaching of Christianity. And? That doesn't excuse or invalidate all of the points she makes about what's the affect of religious teachings and organizations has actually been. She talks specifically in the post about what religion was meant to be, and how that's irrelevant when the actuality of how it impacts the world around it is different.
[User Picture]
From:inlaterdays
Date:October 31st, 2007 03:00 am (UTC)
(Link)
And you accuse Christians of not wanting to engage in debate?

First you start a debate with me, I keep going for awhile, and then request to bow out. You don't respect this but keep sending responses and trying to continue the discussion. Then you invite me to your journal. I give in and keep the conversation going. You state your confusion at our conflicting views, but stop responding.

I think this is because you want to continue at your journal, so I go over there as you asked, and make one polite reponse.

The next thing I receive from you is an angry reply saying you had told me you were done with the conversation, which you hadn't - you'd only expressed bafflement at our differing viewpoints. And now you've defriended me, which is fine but seems awfully petty to me. But it's your choice.

I've done the same and defriended you, but I am feeling very resentful about you attempting to set me up like this - as though the pretense of asking for an intelligent debate was an excuse to pull childish drama on your part.

I'm not impressed.

I suggest you practice some open-mindedness and tolerance before you insist on dragging people into debates in the future.
[User Picture]
From:wanderyng1
Date:October 31st, 2007 07:01 am (UTC)
(Link)
I've stared at this response for a good solid half an hour, trying to decide if I wanted to post it or not. I generally don't go back on my decisions once I decide I'm bored with a flame war so this is genuinely difficult for me.

Nowhere in this thread did I see you requesting to bow out of this "debate." Nor did I see oceanic ever respond to you in anger. What I saw was a thread spin wildly out of control. oceanic attempted to stem the flow by inviting you to continue the debate in her journal. You chose to ignore her and continue the debate here. oceanic finally decided after attempting numerous logical responses to you that these statements were falling on deaf ears and ended the conversation. At that point you decided to take her up on her invitation from earlier in the day, after she had already requested to end this conversation. I saw no anger in her request...exasperation perhaps, but no anger.

The fact that you actually have the gall to suggest someone open their mind and be more tolerant is perhaps one of the more laughable statements I've seen in this thread today. I find myself continually tickled by your uncanny ability to twist facts and opinions to say what you want them to say. What I find most amusing though is the lack of logic in any of your so called arguments. The fact that you continually resort to calling the author an idiot should have given all of us a clue that actually attempting to communicate with you under the guise of logical discourse was a farcical exercise at best.

I'm sure you will have a response; Dobermans can't let go of a steak once they've latched on. By all means have your last word if you find that it comforts you to leave it. I assure you that I do not intend to waste my time reading it.
Why one particular atheist is angry. I agree with pretty much… - another LJ. or: how i learned to stop worrying and love this life-thingy

> Recent Entries
> Archive
> Friends
> Profile
> Lord Google

Links
sluggy
userfriendly
sinfest
schlock
reallife
Cyanide&Happiness
goats
somethingpositive
pvp
xkcd
lil gamers
fruitfucker
ctrl-alt-del
Genius!
digger
LFG
applegeeks
threepanelsoul
drive!
vgcats
Erfworld
Freakangels
DresdenCodak
Angst!
.
EatYourBeer
rain?
POSTULATE!

> Go to Top
LiveJournal.com