Author Topic: 1st amendment question  (Read 1577 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: 1st amendment question
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2012, 04:19:30 PM »
I have never met an antitheist who did not mean to offend. Offending is what differentiates them from atheists.

sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1st amendment question
« Reply #16 on: October 11, 2012, 04:30:16 PM »
The trailer was dubbed, wasn't it?

The fact is that Maher was not deliberately trying to offend, and it was far more thoughtful than the trailer.

That's no fact in any way.  How do you know that wasn't his intention?  That's just a presumption.  Mine is that he was deliberately offending all religion, by way of ridicule.  Just because it was better produced doesn't make the ridicule any less offensive to those religions

"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1st amendment question
« Reply #17 on: October 11, 2012, 08:40:00 PM »
Part of the diffrence is the times.

This is after the "Arab Spring" and there are new publics to manipulate.

I imagine somewhere someone wanting a good reason to be offended and useing a search engine all evening untill he has found the most offensive and stupid video he can get.

A guy doing that will indeed find something.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 1st amendment question
« Reply #18 on: October 12, 2012, 12:31:46 PM »
I have never met an antitheist who did not mean to offend. Offending is what differentiates them from atheists.

==========================================================
As rule most religions depend on miracles and illogical events for their justification. This is why nonbelievers are drawn to disbelieve.

Take the Doctrine of Original Sin:

We are all sinful by nature because an ancient ancestor took poor culinary advice from a talking snake. Therefore, we need to accept what was allegedly said by a Son of God, born of a virgin and written down 70 years after his death, and engage in weekly ritual cannibalism to confirm our belief.

That is the core of Christian belief. It clearly defies logic. Saying this offends those who dislike being accused of believing illogical nonsense.

There are surely better reasons to endeavor to lead a moral life that does not require talking reptiles, magical fruit, a virgin birth and ritual cannibalism .

The atheist simply says, "I reject this as illogical." Most atheists do not bother to even say this publicly. Some Jews ridicule Christians (read what Maimonides said about Jesus), Some Christians and Muslims ridicule one another.

Otherwise, all they can say it "our magic and miracles are true, yours are not".

Human beings are at their best when they think logically about most of our endeavors, but when it comes to religion, a lot of people are stuck in the Middle Ages.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."