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.
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.
Though obviously I’d prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can’t deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it’s down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.
When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don’t need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It’s understandable.
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.
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.
I’m honored that you conceded the argument, if not gracefully.
Text comprehension isn’t your strongest side, is it? But then again, religion has been suppressing education for centuries, so it makes sense.
Though obviously I’d prefer a more civil exchange of ideas I can’t deny the ego boost of seeing someone give up. Once it’s down to name calling, it means you gave up on arguing your point.
When people have the faith in their ideas to agree to disagree, they don’t need to resort to name calling. People feel threatened and lash out. It’s understandable.
Tone policing wen you’re out of arguments, classic. Fuck your religion.
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
d’awww. Look who thinks they know stuff
So cute
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.