Saw this question on r/atheism today.

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think Religion is great for anyone incapable of critical thinking but with that said, I don't give a fuck what you believe just don't push it on other people.

I think Atheism is great for critical pricks, but I give don't a fuck if you like it or not. Stop trying to wreck things for every one else like doing dumb shit like having Christmas decorations taken down to just be a dick and ruining things for other atheists and religious alike.

This isn't about atheism or religion really. It's about who is the biggest dick. Right now in this forum the religious aren't winning that contest.

I don't know what is the ultimate answer to serious questions but I'm open to a lot of opinions, many of which I disagree with, but I still don't know. Others? Yeah they do know, and that makes them the ones who are incapable of critical thinking.

Here's a pretty good saying.

Bertrand Russell - "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

 

[thraashman]

She got her way and offended most of her community doing it. That's control. Now the ACLU wants to prosecute a couple florists who didn't appreciate her actions for not wanting to send flowers to her. Really?

What if she had been black and the flower shop refused to fulfill an order to send her flowers based on her skin color? We have anti discrimination laws in this country and it's generally accepted that you cannot discriminate on the basis of color, creed, or gender (would also include sexual orientation if the GOP didn't block all attempts to update laws to include that). They discriminated on the basis of creed (religion).

It should also be noted that the group suing is Freedom From Religion Foundation, not the ACLU. And they're suing not prosecuting, there is a difference.

 

[Moonbeam]

Atheists, weak and strong are believers. They don't believe in what they assume God is so they don't believe in that God. But what they assume God is doesn't exist. They do, however, believe in their assumptions of who God is and, thus, what it is they don't believe in.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You should understand the difference between "people who are Atheists" and "Atheists" as a collective.

People who are Atheists persecuted the religious in the Soviet Union. Atheists as a collective have no directive to persecute the religious. If you had read what he was establishing you'd understand the difference.

If you understood the reality you would find that the Soviet Union and China sought to persecute the religious because they were.

Now there are a great many religious in the US. When was the last time any of them tried to hunt you down?

"No atheist has a mandate to persecute the religious, but all religious have one to persecute the atheist" is your argument?

Someone better tell Dawkins.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the religious or the atheist. It is how the individual decides to interact with others. That's it.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Actually, its in defiance of control. Both cases are about laws that were broken and the people in control allowing it despite it because illegal.

In the case of the florist, they did not want to full fill the order which would have been acceptable. Instead they stated they wouldn't full fill the order because of the religion of the customer, which is against state law.

Wrong...they never said they wouldn't full fill the order because of the religion of the customer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation contacted three florists in Cranston, RI andall three turned down the request. FFRF claimed that one florists told them "I will not deliver to this person." Another said they were closed that day, and another said they didn't want to be involved. Nobody said it was because of the "religion" of the recipient. Anyway I thought atheism wasn't a "religion"...I'm so confused.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Wrong...they never said they wouldn't full fill the order because of the religion of the customer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation contacted three florists in Cranston, RI andall three turned down the request. FFRF claimed that one florists told them "I will not deliver to this person." Another said they were closed that day, and another said they didn't want to be involved. Nobody said it was because of the "religion" of the recipient. Anyway I thought atheism wasn't a "religion"...I'm so confused.

They'll sue because they can, but there's no legal basis. I don't think "not having a religious belief" is a religious class. The FFRF can always claim that atheism is a belief though and they'd be right.

 

[IBMer]

Wrong...they never said they wouldn't full fill the order because of the religion of the customer. The Freedom From Religion Foundation contacted three florists in Cranston, RI andall three turned down the request. FFRF claimed that one florists told them "I will not deliver to this person." Another said they were closed that day, and another said they didn't want to be involved. Nobody said it was because of the "religion" of the recipient. Anyway I thought atheism wasn't a "religion"...I'm so confused.

You didn't read both articles.

Apparently, soon after the suit, a local florist refused to deliver a dozen red roses to Ahlquist, citing “religious reasons” for the botanical snub.

People always try to twist around the whole Atheism is or isn't a religion thing... it is almost always in result of a misreading or misstatement. You can say that it was because of the "religion", but by religion, you can mean "not my religion" or "lack of religion". You think of it as "religion" meaing Christian, Judaism... etc, because that is your frame of reference.

 

[OCNewbie]

There is nothing inherently wrong with the religious or the atheist. It is how the individual decides to interact with others. That's it.

I think it's understood that religions define the manner in which people on earth should live, and MUST live in order to obtain an eternal afterlife (after all, that is one of the major selling points, if not THE selling point, for being religious), so if someone is religious, and their religion is telling them they MUST persecute, or even destroy/kill those "others", then I think that's an inherent problem with those who follow those religions (ie: the religious).

 

[Moonbeam]

Here's a pretty good saying.

Bertrand Russell - "The fundamental cause of trouble in the world is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."

There is one kind of certainty I don't mind, expressed by Mulla Nasruden when he said, Oh my Beloved, wherever I look it appears to be Thou. For the lover there is only love and nothing to contend about, no where to go, nothing to do, nothing to become. The lover and the Beloved are one.

 

[IBMer]

If you understood the reality you would find that the Soviet Union and China sought to persecute the religious because they were.

That is in no relation to the comment. The Soviet Union and China didn't persecute the religious because their doctrine told them to.

Now there are a great many religious in the US. When was the last time any of them tried to hunt you down?

"No atheist has a mandate to persecute the religious, but all religious have one to persecute the atheist" is your argument?

Persecution has many levels of magnitude. Just because they aren't hunted down doesn't mean they aren't persecuted.

Someone better tell Dawkins.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the religious or the atheist. It is how the individual decides to interact with others. That's it.

Why would anyone need to tell Dawkins anything? You say there is nothing inherently wrong, but some religions have documents which their believers follow and use as basis for a multitude of things. It is easy to make a generalization based on this fact. Fortunately there are a lot of people who ignore or don't follow all merits of their religion.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think it's understood that religions define the manner in which people on earth should live, and MUST live in order to obtain an eternal afterlife (after all, that is one of the major selling points, if not THE selling point, for being religious), so if someone is religious, and their religion is telling them they MUST persecute, or even destroy/kill those "others", then I think that's an inherent problem with those who follow those religions (ie: the religious).

This is incorrect. There is no agreement, there is no "quid pro quo," there is no bargaining. Those who believe also believe they should act in a certain way but, they also know as humans we are going to fail. The point is to try your best and pray for forgiveness.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I think it's understood that religions define the manner in which people on earth should live, and MUST live in order to obtain an eternal afterlife (after all, that is one of the major selling points, if not THE selling point, for being religious), so if someone is religious, and their religion is telling them they MUST persecute, or even destroy/kill those "others", then I think that's an inherent problem with those who follow those religions (ie: the religious).

Would you find where Christ told his disciples to "Go out and preach the Good News and make sure you kill them if they don't accept it". or where he said "I have not come to save the righteous, but have come to slay the sinners"? How about when the adulterous woman was being stoned. Did he go "YAAHHHH" and start chucking them?

If you are going to say "yeah, but look what wrong were done in the name of Chrisitanity" I'm not going to argue that, but I will if you were to say that the many millions of Christians out there really want to slit your throat because Jesus said to. There are a lot of people who have done a great deal of good because they thought their god wanted them to. New Orleans? That was in great portion rebuilt by people from churches taking their own money and going out to do so. My mothers house was torn apart along with much of her town by a tornado not too many years ago. The Mennonites send workers, Mennonites themselves, who for not much more than the cost of materials rebuild homes and communities, because that's part of going out and doing good. They didn't kill her when they were done.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You didn't read both articles.



People always try to twist around the whole Atheism is or isn't a religion thing... it is almost always in result of a misreading or misstatement. You can say that it was because of the "religion", but by religion, you can mean "not my religion" or "lack of religion". You think of it as "religion" meaing Christian, Judaism... etc, because that is your frame of reference.

I did read both articles...only the Salon article used the phrase "religious reasons". The author of that article (Katie Mcdonough) has questionable credibility in my opinion. This is based on her saying that State Representative Peter Palumbo (who called Ahlquist an “evil little thing&#8221 was a Republican. Just how do you get that kind of shit wrong if you're a competent reporter?

 

[OCNewbie]

The point is to try your best and pray for forgiveness.

I think that's basically bullshit. People voluntarily make way too many compromises based on what they feel is doable in regards to what the Bible says people should do. Like premarital sex, how many so-called Christians rigidly adhere to that rule anymore? People pick and choose what they feel they're willing, or not willing, to sacrifice, and they arbitrarily come to the conclusion that whatever rules they are NOT following is fine, because of the number of rules they seemingly are. How does that equate to "trying your best" when people knowingly do NOT follow the guidelines the Bible lays out that they CAN, quite conceivably, follow?

 

[IBMer]

I did read both articles...only the Salon article used the phrase "religious reasons". The author of that article (Katie Mcdonough) has questionable credibility in my opinion. This is based on her saying that State Representative Peter Palumbo (who called Ahlquist an “evil little thing”) was a Republican. Just how do you get that kind of shit wrong if you're a competent reporter?

If that is indeed that case that no reason was used, then hopefully it will be thrown out of court. If a reason was indeed given then they broke the law.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I think that's basically bullshit. People voluntarily make way too many compromises based on what they feel is doable in regards to what the Bible says people should do. Like premarital sex, how many so-called Christians rigidly adhere to that rule anymore? People pick and choose what they feel they're willing, or not willing, to sacrifice, and they arbitrarily come to the conclusion that whatever rules they are NOT following is fine, because of the number of rules they seemingly are. How does that equate to "trying your best" when people knowingly do NOT follow the guidelines the Bible lays out that they CAN, quite conceivably, follow?

Free will is a bitch isn't it? Of course people fail, of course people bargain with themselves and attempt to with God, of course people get lazy. The point is God, and only God, will judge you for your sins when you have died. God did NOT want to give a list of rules to live by. He relented and said he would but, that we wouldn't like them. Why? Because, humans are incapable of living sin free lives. Do not judge the belief in God by the people who practice religion poorly.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If that is indeed that case that no reason was used, then hopefully it will be thrown out of court. If a reason was indeed given then they broke the law.

What religion was the person who didn't get flowers?

 

[IBMer]

What religion was the person who didn't get flowers?

She was of the "not my religion" religion.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

She was of the "not my religion" religion.

Which religion was that? Put a name to it.

 

[IBMer]

Which religion was that? Put a name to it.

Why is one needed?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Why is one needed?

Because you claimed that what was done was illegal and you mentioned religion. If someone is black I can't deny them service for that reason. If they are any other protected group the same. I can't deny a muslim service because of their religion. So what's the legal basis?

 

[alzan]

Well, if you want to just redefine the word to mean anything you want, then everything can be a religion.

Not particularly useful, however.

Lack of belief in gods is no more a "religion" than lack of belief in dragons.

Blasphemer!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Blasphemer!

Funny, because I see a lot of preachers here

 

[IBMer]

Thats up to debate now. One site has no claim of reason other than they won't deliver to that person another claims "Apparently, soon after the suit, a local florist refused to deliver a dozen red roses to Ahlquist, citing “religious reasons” for the botanical snub.". Since the person is well known to the area to be an Atheist, the logical conclusion for one giving "religious reasons" its because of an objection to her non-theistic lifestyle or it is in retaliation to having an illegal display that agrees with their theistic belief taken down. Then again thats up to the court to decide.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Because you claimed that what was done was illegal and you mentioned religion. If someone is black I can't deny them service for that reason. If they are any other protected group the same. I can't deny a muslim service because of their religion. So what's the legal basis?

I think you're really stretching the limits of credulity here. The atheist was discriminated against on a religious basis, regardless of the fact that his atheism isn't a religion per se. If a Christian discriminates against a Muslim because the Muslim is not a Christian, it is no different when the Christian discriminates against an atheist because the atheist is not a Christian.

There is no religious test for citizenship, so when a person A denies another person B his rights as a citizen (that is, to be treated equally as other citizens) because B fails to meet A's own personal religious test, A is guilty of religious discrimination, regardless of person B's religion or lack thereof.