The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > Atheists pursue redress with anti-discrimination legislation

Atheists pursue redress with anti-discrimination legislation

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All
Thin-skinned, too, eh? Must feel good to get this off your chest, though.

>>I think you should point out the reasons for the continuous vitriol and ad hominem comment in your posts. I would like some solid stuff here, not just weak-arsed interpretation of my words that you consider are so off the planet you need to act like a schoolyard bully.<<

Consider for a moment.

Right from the outset, faced with legitimate criticism, you lash out blindly, and with insult aforethought.

>>The armchair reaction to the intended bus slogans is understandable, expected and frankly, dismissed as irrelevant<<

Now you complain of "vitriol", and "ad hominem attacks".

It has probably escaped your notice, Mr Nicholls, that compared with your "vitriol", and "ad hominem attacks", I am a mere beginner.

As for "interpretation of your words", I'll leave that for others to judge. I don't seem to be entirely alone in thinking that you are pursuing a highly personal agenda here.

>>Those that know me and observant others do not consider I am on a personal ego-trip<<

Yep. Sure.

>>To be frank, when someone else wishes to be president of the AFA, I will gladly hand it over to her or him.<<

The phrase "poisoned chalice" springs to mind.

Can't think why.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 14 December 2008 12:38:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You buckle quickly for such a determined man, not digging yourself any deeper for now, eh? As much as I pity your distress or weariness, I genuinely do agree you needed a break, but we both know you can’t make these grandiose stands with out being at least able to tread water in their debate. That would be irresponsible. I mean you're the leader of a group suing an Australian state.

As an atheist unwillingly represented you and your group ( at your righteous insistence), I can expect sane standards and actual amendments (when needed) over vague apologies or mere mute back-downs. As you or your group would if I were representing you as in the wrong light, you are only having asked of you what you ask of theists…

Looking at you recite the bible with UOG, It becomes more clear, first most, you are a person deeply against religion. (maybe you have been hurt too) No one is saying you can't hold religious veiws or fight for social or political issues.

I hope you realise I am not attacking your position, and I too apologize for the sarcasm sneaking into my observations on your mental state in my last post.

UoG,
I think, has English as a second language, I can understand him/her, it's not hard.
Posted by meredith, Sunday, 14 December 2008 12:42:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator,

Where and how am I imposing personal ‘beliefs’ onto anyone? Are you writing for the sake of it, as that is the appearance you give?

Pericles,

Guess the ‘armchair’ statement has upset you even though it is from another thread. Too close to the bone, I would suggest. If you take that as ad hominem then maybe you don’t understand the expression.

What is the highly personal agenda I am pursuing? What a silly statement.

mererdith,

‘Buckle’ is not the right word. If someone cannot follow simple logic, I become bored with having to repeat it.

I am no more against religion than is necessary. Some see the necessity, some hide from it. I actually am pleased I had a religious upbringing. It taught me a lot about how humans can be swayed by emotion and cultural norms rather than evidence. Yes, I am very glad of it.

No need for an apology. I expect inconsequential nit-picking in place of real comment. That is a part of my job and of those in similar positions. Par for the course as we say.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 14 December 2008 1:06:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AFA Inc.
You are no more against religion than necessary?
Your repeated and repeated answer is reducible to the same biased belief based rhetoric.
Prove to me that your logic is irrefutable i.e. that there is absolutely no possibility that you could be wrong now or in the future. To assume that without absolute knowledge of the future is a belief/ faith by definition.

As for writing for the sake of was not my intention but it would appear that no amount of logic is going to demonstrate to you that there must be an element of unknown given man's somewhat limited scientific and intellectual abilities.

To hold the opening statement you logically MUST think your personal beliefs are superior than others. To then specifically use the words ‘than necessary’ can only indicates a pejorative judgement further enforcing the perception of both arrogance/brittleness in your argument.
It also forms the basis of my original point that you don’t seem to understand the difference between public policy and personal rights. One is an aggregated issue design(hopefully logically) for the good of everyone and the other the right to believe what they want without loaded put downs from individual who believe they have a ‘better’ view of what is good for others. People don’t need your approval for their beliefs to even question them on a personal level denying them their Personal Human Rights. PHR should be irreducible and not conditional on anyone else’s approval.
The point of the ad was to challenge others personal beliefs in order to gain converts. Otherwise is it would simple be pontificating on steroids.
This time I’m gone.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 14 December 2008 2:32:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
QUOTE david>>TheSundaySermon..follows<<[in the spirit of,i turn the other cheek]you have read the bible[plus taken some time to study its revelation[thus as far as aithiest go you are at least one who has done the study]let me speculate: the words of the bible didnt ring true[for you]you saw xtians doing un-xtian things[but bro let me intercede on their belhalf[they had the wrong-reasoning about jesus]

[other cheek[again]please]jesus didnt do miracles[he made definative statements that prove this['it is not yet my time'[when.NOT WATER;BUT[HAND_washing_water was made into wine][yet the next story sees him feeding 4000/5000 WITH NO HAND_WASHING jars

any jew WILL REFUSE TO EAT[sans these handwash-jars[thus feeding 100.000 judeans'all they wanted'was easy[no hand_wash;they didnt wantto eat[#the parrable is about our belief#[how EVEN with the messiah eating;THEIR belief wouldnt allow them to join him

next parrable[re/handwash]was when the deciples eat the SHEW-bread[WITHOUT WASHING'their'hands[to which jesus replies''IT IS NOT WHAT A MAN PUTS INTO his mouth that makes him unclean[but that which issues FORTH FROM IT']

but the big clue is jesus was born EMANUEL[meaning GOD_WITHin]_US[all]

meaning when we see jesus LOVE EVERYONE[except the money-changers]he is revealing the''SEE ME;SEE MY FATHER][ie god is love,love god;love neighbour]

thing is my dear david,you because of that ACCURSED bible know what im trying to say[shouldnt everyone at least KNOW their own holy texts[better than the murder of the shakspeare[shaking-spear][with his blood/filled vile-imagry]

see that god[or rather the writings revealing god]have focused on the wrong image of god[god dont judge[if you love neighbour then in heaven the neighbours WILL LOVE YOU[if you LOVE evil[you get to go to''one of myne fathers houses MANY ROOMS[each love has its own room['more shall be given']

thieves have their hell[room];murderors theirs[rapists have theirs[athiest even have their own rooms[when we die we are ALL born-again, then we go to our LOVE room]sorting the sheep from the goats[the wheat from the chaff[but i fear im throwing my seed on stoney ground[throwing pearl before wine]

anyhow;you been sold THE lie about god[there is NO JUDGMENT-DAy[there is no judgment[evil has its own cost[and redemption]

NO RELIGION[ALONE]TAUGHT ME THIS[all of them made this me;i am being]
Posted by one under god, Sunday, 14 December 2008 3:35:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
examinator,

That post confirms my suspicions that you are writing for the sake of it. You think by big noting yourself it gains you some kind of importance.

The sad thing in all of this is you muddy the waters about Atheism and don’t seem to care as long as you are the one, or so you think, who put the president of the AFA in his place.

Your arguments are like a fish struggling out of water, useless, in reaching any conclusion from the confused words and phrases you supply.

I make no claim of absolute knowledge, nor have I ever; I leave that to religious folk. I work on the available evidence not on mythology that has no evidence in support.

You have failed to answer a very basic question I have asked and skirted around it with self protecting rhetoric. I’ll ask one more time:

“Where and how am I imposing personal ‘beliefs’ onto anyone?”

You must realise that such an accusation is serious and even more so, as it is, total rubbish emanating only from your mind. I say that with confidence as nothing in my writings would lead one to suggest this is a remote possibility of what I am trying to achieve.

I expect a decent, non flowery response to this. Drop the posturing act; you are not impressing anyone who has a basic level of comprehension and reading ability.

Here is an example of your over burdened waffle with little meaning or none at all:

“To then specifically use the words ‘than necessary’ can only indicates a pejorative judgement further enforcing the perception of both arrogance/brittleness in your argument.”

This is by no means a Robinson Crusoe sentence from your keyboard but it will suffice.

The English language is so designed that complicated concepts can be explained using simple words and phrases. It is invariably so that those going beyond what is necessarily to explain a given idea are actually hiding that they do not have a case to put forward or it is self-aggrandisement. You do this excessively.

I am waiting.

David
Posted by Atheist Foundation of Australia Inc, Sunday, 14 December 2008 4:04:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. Page 11
  10. 12
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy