Most Amazing "WIN" this Year by far...

friedgreencorrado wrote:

Salanis wrote: No. You said the article was opposed to religion. You need to explain that now, if only so that we can all laugh at you more.

Dude, that was cold. Let the man talk, OK? Otherwise we got a *BIG* flounder on our hands.

The man can talk. I'm genuinely waiting for him to explain where he interprets the article as being opposed to religion.

Am I suddenly not allowed to give people a hard time on this board. Come on! I included the requisite smiley! See! Smiley!

friedgreencorrado wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Wow, so I'm the first agnostic to flounder a thread with religious overtones? Effing rebel, that's what I am.

ROFL! oldsaw, you actually sound like my SWMBO. She calls herself an "apathetic agnostic" (her own words: "..don't care if it's *possible* to know, and I don't give a M3 BMW E36 either way!"), and constantly teases me that she cares *less* about the subject of the supernatural than I do..because I actually bother to claim a side! I know we probably disagree about how funny this is, but it still won't keep me from buying ya a beer one day!

I'll take you up on the beer offer anytime, as long as you accept mine.

OTOH, you've described your previouis SWMBO and you couldn't be further "off" by comparing me to her. You don't know me and certainly never lived with me.

I'll only observe that the concept and the related article are funny. And, with the history on this board (with it's propensities), posting the link is akin to those who scratch on a scab and those who whine about the scars.

Put me in that category if one likes, but do so by placing one's self in similar category.

Just sayin............

oldsaw wrote: OTOH, you've described your previouis SWMBO and you couldn't be further "off" by comparing me to her. You don't know me and certainly never lived with me.

Current SWMBO. I didn't mean to offend with the tale, just thought you'd find the whole thing humorous. I didn't mean it as a "comparison" at all.

Salanis wrote: The man can talk. I'm genuinely waiting for him to explain where he interprets the article as being opposed to religion.

It never occurred to you that by making that "laugh at you again" insult that he might just give up discussing it?

Salanis wrote: Am I suddenly not allowed to give people a hard time on this board.

Hey, I don't own the thing..so I really don't know.

friedgreencorrado wrote: It never occurred to you that by making that "laugh at you again" insult that he might just give up discussing it?

I busted that out because he said he was going to give up discussing it.

friedgreencorrado wrote: Current SWMBO. I didn't mean to offend with the tale, just thought you'd find the whole thing humorous. I didn't mean it as a "comparison" at all.

No offense ever taken, but the clarification is appreciated.

IIRC, the previous model was a version that would even make me go all "pagan" and build a bonfire.

For what it's worth, I laughed at Salanis's comment. I thought it was funny. Or maybe that was me laughing at Salanis!

I didn't actually say I was going to give up discussing it. I said I never should have gotten into it in the first place, and that others frequently say nothing because we have come to learn what to expect. As earlier stated, this board often gives carte blanche to people who want to make anti-religious rants, and jumps on people of faith.

Regarding the article being opposed to religion... really? It's sarcasm, parody guys. What sarcastic parody is is in FAVOR of anything? That's what parody IS!

Sounds like some of you are wanting to say it is humorous and serious at the same time. Can't be both.

The man in the article is using humor to make a serious statement. He does not think there should be religious exceptions to the law. I think the law probably existed for a legitimate reason (like proper identification on a legal document), and exception should not have been made (perhaps including religious). Either that or get rid of the stupid law. Making a mockery of it didn't accomplish much other than giving the folks on the internet something to laugh at.

Personally, I think it is pretty funny that he had to wait 3 years and have a judge determine that he was of sound mind to stand trial. Apparently the matter was in question!

I'll bet those religious wackos didn't have to wait 3 years for their license.

HiTempguy wrote: SVreX, all I have to say is, I think people find it ridiculous when religion gives somebody special privileges.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

I never imagined this thread would go this direction.

SVreX wrote: Sounds like some of you are wanting to say it is humorous and serious at the same time. Can't be both.

Sure it can.

He was making a serious point, in a humorous way.

z31maniac wrote:

HiTempguy wrote: SVreX, all I have to say is, I think people find it ridiculous when religion gives somebody special privileges.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I never imagined this thread would go this direction.

I agree.

So that is addressed by giving him special religious privileges??

z31maniac wrote:

SVreX wrote: Sounds like some of you are wanting to say it is humorous and serious at the same time. Can't be both.

Sure it can. He was making a serious point, in a humorous way.

Umm... I already said that.

Either you take his point seriously or you don't. I actually respect his point, and appreciate his presentation. Just can't understand why I am being asked what about it was opposed to religion (or at least religious exceptions). THAT was the entire point.

^Like with oldsaw, if you go back and read the thread, I believe you are the one that brough it up, then everyone asked for you to explain your position.

In reply to z31maniac:

Both SVrex and I have offered our positions on the article and how the board members typically approach threads of this ilk. We happen to agree even though I fall into the realm of "ye of little faith".

Maybe it wasn't DoU's intent to stir-up anyone, but both he and you have been around long enough to know better.

I'm not sure what I did wrong in this thread, but I'll gracefully bow out now.

SVreX wrote: Some of us have to work very hard to say nothing while others ridicule and make fun of us.

And some of us have to work very hard to say nothing while others tell us we are evil heathens who are going to be sent to a lake of fire for all eternity because we have no invisible friend - or even just the wrong flavor of invisible friend.

I'd call that at least an even wash.

And that's leaving out the question of who has caused more harm to the other side, historically.

SVreX wrote: Regarding the article being opposed to religion... really? It's sarcasm, parody guys. What sarcastic parody is is in FAVOR of anything? That's what parody IS!

I don't think parody necessarily means it's opposed to something, just pointing out the absurdity of it. Like... any episode of South Park.

Sounds like some of you are wanting to say it is humorous and serious at the same time. Can't be both.

I give you Exhibit A:

Duke wrote:

SVreX wrote: Some of us have to work very hard to say nothing while others ridicule and make fun of us.

And some of us have to work very hard to say nothing while others tell us we are evil heathens who are going to be sent to a lake of fire for all eternity because we have no invisible friend - or even just the wrong flavor of invisible friend. I'd call that *at least* an even wash. And that's leaving out the question of who has caused more harm to the other side, historically.

Wow.

My comment was specifically about this board. Regarding that, I'm pretty sure no one has called you (or anyone else here) an evil heathen, threatened to send you to a lake of fire, or any other such thing. I am ABSOLUTELY POSITIVE I never have.

So, I am asking people to be responsible for their own words on this website.

You, however, seem to be suggesting somehow that I take the blame for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch hunts, and who knows what other atrocity because of nothing I have said or done, but rather some strange guilt by association just because I am a Christian.

Even wash??

I spend a lot of time on THIS website being silent because of the bashing that goes on here. In 7 years of my participation on this site, I have no recollection of a single thread that focused on atheist bashing.

The rest of that stuff is pretty irrelevant.

SVreX wrote: You, however, seem to be suggesting somehow that I take the blame for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Salem witch hunts, and who knows what other atrocity because of nothing I have said or done, but rather some strange guilt by association just because I am a Christian.

Yes. Also Planned Parenthood bombings, all movies directed by Mel Gibson, and every song ever released by every Christian Rock band.

Salanis wrote: and every song ever released by every Christian Rock band.

Woah woah woah there skippy, listen to some Thousand Foot Krutch... ok, they aren't really Christian rock (that's what they STARTED as, but they are more like Eric Cartman's version of Christian rock )

Dang, 28 days already?

HiTempguy wrote: Woah woah woah there skippy, listen to some Thousand Foot Krutch... ok, they aren't really Christian rock (that's what they STARTED as, but they are more like Eric Cartman's version of Christian rock )

Are you saying that they really love Jesus?

Come on. Everyone knows that in order to really blow people's minds, you need just a little bit of the devil.

SVREX:

Apologies. I thought your were speaking in a larger sense. And certainly you personally are a good guy. I'd be happy to share a coffee or a beer with you. I wasn't saying that you have damned me.

However, I have been told all those things by other people of faith. Certainly you are not accountable for those events. And you can claim that they were not being "real" Christians - but the fact remains that THEY sure felt they were acting rightly based on what THEIR god told them. Which, as they say, is the crux of the biscuit. None of them can prove whatever assertions they make, and frankly that's what pisses us off - the willingness of conservative busybodies to make others believe and act as they do. Given that it is all - no matter which flavor of belief - based on completely unverifiable faith, that chafes pretty hard on those who fail to share the faith.

That's why I call it an even wash if the faithful have to take a few slings and arrows. The most your average atheist wants is to be left alone - which cannot be said for the average evangelical.

In reply to Duke:

If the average atheist just wants to be left alone, they fit the profile of a majority of Christians

The issue is that evangelicals don't come to this board to proselytize, but non-believers come to inflict their own brand. Does this indicate we have a lot of below-average atheists on the board?

Am I the only one who thinks this prank was more about making fun of beurocracy than religion?