Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
Nobody has hurt more people than religion. They long ago lost any benefit of the doubt. We don’t have to be polite, or give them any power, because we’ve seen what they will do with it, every single fucking time.
So, No, fuck those religious whack jobs, we shouldn’t have to live OUR lives, based on THEIR delusions.
I don’t believe in the magic of Religion to make people moral. I also don’t believe in its opposite. People use religion or tradition to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.
If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?
Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.
Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.
I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.
I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.
Atheism is a religious stance, and is practiced like one. When it’s used to harm non-believers especially it’s really easy to see this.
I wouldn’t give Christians or any other religion a pass on this, so I’m not giving Atheists one either.
Nobody has hurt more people than religion. They long ago lost any benefit of the doubt. We don’t have to be polite, or give them any power, because we’ve seen what they will do with it, every single fucking time.
So, No, fuck those religious whack jobs, we shouldn’t have to live OUR lives, based on THEIR delusions.
Start by taxing, and regulating, churches.
I don’t believe in the magic of Religion to make people moral. I also don’t believe in its opposite. People use religion or tradition to justify what they wanted to do anyway.
It’s not actually the scapegoat’s fault.
No, it’s not.
Not watching football isn’t a “football stance”.
Not eating pork chops isn’t a “pork chop stance”.
Not drinking jagermeister isn’t a “jagermeister stance”.
Not reading Spider-Man comics isn’t a “Spider-Man stance”.
Not being religious isn’t a “religious stance”.
Not doing something isn’t a stance on that something, that’s goofy
Vegans
d’awww. Look who thinks they know stuff
So cute
Nice word-salad.
Thanks.
If whatever you believe means you feel you have the right to be unkind to people who believe otherwise, it’s problematic. Even if you want to hold onto a different definition of whatever it is you believe, if you use it as an excuse to be unkind it’s still a problem. It’s not the label that’s the problem, it’s the behavior.
If you end up acting just like them, why should anyone believe you’re any different?
Very “it’s not a warcrime if it’s not wartime” energy.
Sounds something that a nazi would say.
It’s the same tolerance paradox. I don’t have to be kind if your “beliefs” create suffering.
Good thing your opinion means jack shit, because your basis is fundamentally flawed and incorrect.
Do you think it shows weakness to be polite to those you disagree with? I think it works better to approach people with respect if I want them to consider what I’m saying. It already feels like an attack when someone says you’re wrong, and I don’t want to harden minds against what I think is right.
I’m not always good at it, and I have spoken to people harshly often. It never produced anything but hard feelings on their part. I think it can be satisfying to be mean, and I was looking for an excuse to act in a way that’s less moral without feeling bad about myself. I think even if I was right, I usually didn’t need to be mean about it.
I think that it’s likely nothing I’m doing on this website is important enough to justify me being unkind about it.
Get back to me when there are “discussion rooms” for practising atheists in public spaces 😆
If it’s sauce for the goose, it’s sauce for the gander. Whatever your belief of lack of it, I want to see you respected and treated well.
Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.
Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.