Posts that seem less than useless, or something like that

[fivemack]

Originally Posted by wblipp

I think you are saying "I don't know of any, so there must not be any." If you want to learn how wrong you are in real, personal terms, and you live in the United States, find a Unitarian Universalist church and ask your questions over coffee after the service. You'll find real live atheists (not everybody by any means, but they are there) with real moral codes and paying attention to their spiritual development.

There's one at 5 Emmanuel Road, Cambridge, UK too.

[petrw1]

Originally Posted by petrw1

You have the right to free speech BUT ... not in a way that offends, disgraces, slanders or otherwise adversely affects others..

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Noone has a right "not to be offended". If such a right existed we would all stay home and never have any contact with others, because everyone has things that offend him/her.

Everyone hears things we do not like. Free speech is meaningless if the only allowed speech is something that
is liked by everyone.

No, you can't please everyone and you can't avoid sometimes offending others; however, as I began to abbreviate my examples an important word was implied but left out.

Originally Posted by petrw1

You have the right to free speech BUT ... not in a way that intentionally offends, disgraces, slanders or otherwise adversely affects others..

"intentionally" here can also be interpreted as:
- "has a strong possbiility to"
- "is likely to"
- "in most cases will"
etc.
Does or does not the speaker have the best of intentions in his message? Even so, he may still offend someone ... but then does the speaker apologize for the oversight or at least try to understand how it could have been offensieve or explain how it was NOT meant to offend?

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by petrw1

No, you can't please everyone and you can't avoid sometimes offending others; however, as I began to abbreviate my examples an important word was implied but left out.


"intentionally" here can also be interpreted as:
- "has a strong possbiility to"
- "is likely to"
- "in most cases will"
etc.
Does or does not the speaker have the best of intentions in his message? Even so, he may still offend someone ... but then does the speaker apologize for the oversight or at least try to understand how it could have been offensieve or explain how it was NOT meant to offend?

Indeed. Sometimes people say things knowing that someone WILL be
offended.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by Mini-Geek

What an oxymoron. An atheist concerned about his spiritual development is like a not stamp collector (from the analogy, "atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby") concerned about his stamp collection!
(I'm not saying you're lying, but that the atheists in question are contradictory)

You are wrong, but it's a common error. In the popular mind Christianity has captured all the language about spirituality. This thinking leads to claims like those by the OP.

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by fivemack

There's one at 5 Emmanuel Road, Cambridge, UK too.

Somehow we ended up living a block from the largest Unitarian Chapel in England, Rosslyn Hill Unitarian Chapel. It feels very much like my UU congregation back in the US. But the minister tells me that many English Unitarian Chapels are predominately Christian anti-Trinitarian.

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by wblipp

But the minister tells me that many English Unitarian Chapels are predominately Christian anti-Trinitarian.

Many US protestant churches use trinitarianism as "litmus test" as to weather or not that they deem you 'chrisitian' or a 'cult'.

[Uncwilly]

Unrelated link.

http://ronkayela.com/2010/01/if-you-want-to-know.html

[wblipp]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Many US protestant churches use trinitarianism as "litmus test" as to weather or not that they deem you 'chrisitian' or a 'cult'.

It's been about a century since there was a strong Christian Anti-Trinitarian presence in America, but it was once a substantial position. Many of the founding fathers identified themselves as Unitarian's - this is what they meant. Most of the Transcendentalists were Unitarians. The denomination founded by the Pilgrims - now called United Church of Christ or more popularly "Congregationalist" - had a massive rift over Unitarian vs Trinitarian beliefs in the early 1800's. You can see the consequences of that battle throughout New England still today by whether the big church on the green is Unitarian or Congregationalist.

[Zeta-Flux]

My impression of the comments so far:

I'm a Christian (but not a creedal or protestant Christian). But I've been surprised by questions and comments from believers along the lines of "Where exactly did [the atheists] get their moral codes?" Don't they get them from their beliefs about the universe, just as we believers do? I'm starting to understand the frustration that cheesehead expressed previously when people asked why he wasn't a murderer.

[FactorEyes]

I shudder at the number of hours I have spent with Christians. All this time, the only thing preventing them from rape, murder, or killing babies is their faith; they must fight off the temptation to steal, kill, or maim every few moments.

Knowing of the crises and lapses of faith which plague many religious people, I must henceforth never fail to be armed in their presence. As long as their faith is sure, I am safe, but should one of them have a moment's doubt, the walls might well soon be covered with a Pollock canvas of my blood and viscera.

I can't imagine living in a world where the only thing stopping me from rape and murder is a belief in a divine presence who will judge me.

I'm lucky, I guess. I'm occasionally tempted to bitch-slap someone, but rape and murder don't cross my mind.

[Dougal]

i think he should be banned,if he cant spell he's obviously a troll.

i guess il have to be banned with him.