Thread: I think we can all agree on this.

I disagree with it. If you don't approve of something, you don't need to aggressively vilify it. Trouble is, this man's primitive drive of aggression is contaminating his rationality for comprehension.

I agree with it! Power to the old dude for standing up! It's about time someone did, anyway.

I like that guy very much. Faith is so often touted as something pure when really it is quite the opposite. Autonomy and freedom to make rational decisions are pure. Believing what somebody else tells you 'just because' has led to some of the worst atrocities in human history (I don't think I need to go into further detail here).

I disagree with it. If you don't approve of something, you don't need to aggressively vilify it. Trouble is, this man's primitive drive of aggression is contaminating his rationality for comprehension.

Yeah! I still don't understand why we didn't keep appeasing Hitler. wtf is up with that?

Aggressive religious or atheists equally suck.

Originally Posted by really

I disagree with it. If you don't approve of something, you don't need to aggressively vilify it. Trouble is, this man's primitive drive of aggression is contaminating his rationality for comprehension.

I think it's less about vilification as it is standing up for the right to call BS as it is and not letting it get special treatment simply because it's called religion.

I always hate how any atheist calling on religious BS is automatically aggressive. It's like the people using the label have no idea of what the word actually means.

Using words in a free press, and freedom of speech in our society to correctly point out the evils of something is not aggressive. Aggression is seeking out a conflict, whereas this is merely a response. It also conveniently ignores the actual acts of aggression (you know, suicide bombs, wars, real aggression) that occur in the name of religion.

Trouble is, this man's primitive drive of aggression is contaminating his rationality for comprehension.

You talk such a load of shit, you know that?

Because as we all know, using ironic and dark humour whilst correctly pointing out facts which REQUIRES COMPREHENSION is hugely aggressive.

You try and sound smart but as usual, there's no substance. A typical post from a pseudo-intellectual.

well that makes me feel better about my 'intolerance,' then. i had no idea about the blasphemy thing either - does anyone know more about that?

I'm in love with that guy.

It failed due to insufficient votes apparently. Not everybody in the UN is a wannabe totalitarian.

There's some funny footage from CNN about it on YouTube where the reporter says, 'they want to pass a law banning the critisizing of any religions; including ISLAM.' And then the rest of the report is about Muslims. :l

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah! I still don't understand why we didn't keep appeasing Hitler. wtf is up with that?

I don't quite get what you're saying - do you mean you'd like to approve of him and his ways? That's not what I mean.

Originally Posted by Mark75

I think it's less about vilification as it is standing up for the right to call BS as it is and not letting it get special treatment simply because it's called religion.

I call it vilification because it stems from an inner frustration and impatience, leading to abuse and negative attitudes, which then may go on to distort even the obvious of facts. Religion may have a bad reputation, but is that what it's really about? He obviously enjoys verbal abuse, and I think a lot of it comprises of warped facts.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

Because as we all know, using ironic and dark humour whilst correctly pointing out facts which REQUIRES COMPREHENSION is hugely aggressive.

My point is, none of that "dark humor", rhetoric, anger, abuse or attitude is needed in order to be rational about something. He's not even being rational, actually! Too many prejudgments and generalizations. Just makes the argument more impressive and dramatic, but obviously more hypocritical as well.

Originally Posted by really

I call it vilification because it stems from an inner frustration and impatience, leading to abuse and negative attitudes, which distorts even the obvious of facts. Religion may have a bad reputation, but is that what it's really about? He obviously enjoys verbal abuse, and I think a lot of it comprises of warped facts.

Either that or he's angry that BS is getting away with special treatment because it's called religion. I think you enjoy dismissive drive by posts with zero substance wherein you say nothing more relevant than "no that's wrong."

I don't quite get what you're saying - do you mean you'd like to approve of him and his ways? That's not what I mean.

Clearly what I said was analogous to what you said; if you disaprove of something, you don't have the right to do anything about it. We tried that in 1939 and it failed. If somebody is flagrantly abusing what you understand to be human rights, of course you have a right to act.

I love Pat Condell! I subscribe to his channel. By the way, it always helps to read the links in his video descriptions, that way you know exactly what issues he is referring to. I shall link, for lazy persons...

Where are all these militant atheists ruining Britain?

Sentenced to death for witchcraft by the religion of peace

Most of California's Black voters backed gay marriage ban.

Muslim countries seek blasphemy ban

A UN threat to US free speech

EDIT: Those are all for this one video.

Originally Posted by Xei

Clearly what I said was analogous to what you said; if you disaprove of something, you don't have the right to do anything about it. We tried that in 1939 and it failed. If somebody is flagrantly abusing what you understand to be human rights, of course you have a right to act.

That's not analogous. What I meant is, the anger and frustration is not required for a disagreement. Sure you have the right to act, but emotionality doesn't make it more of an obligation. We can also see that the anger fuels the argument itself but it follows that there isn't enough room for a reasonable conclusion. Flaming everything brings about exaggerations, selfishness and abusive generalizations.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Either that or he's angry that BS is getting away with special treatment because it's called religion. I think you enjoy dismissive drive by posts with zero substance wherein you say nothing more relevant than "no that's wrong."

I'm not denying it, I just disagree with it.