Hobart damned; Tasmanians fail to notice any difference

[Tom Sawyer]

And Lion is fine with blaspheming Quetzalcoatl by the very act of worshiping Jesus.

Ya, I've noticed that he hasn't cut the heart out of a single virgin to bring about spring and is just counting on the revolution of the Earth around the Sun to end winter like some kind of chump. Given all the billions who'll die of starvation if he's bet wrong, he's playing pretty fast and loose with the lives of innocents here.

Totally ignoring my point. And frankly, Keith&Co is being intellectually dishonest..
I would NOT be deliberately blaspheming Quetzalcoatl by mistakenly thinking Jesus was Quetzalcoatl. The Dark Mofo people aren't accidentally blaspheming.
They are so certain of their fundy atheism that they don't care who they offend.

The Two Rules of Atheism.
1. There's no God
2. If there is a God I hate Him.

Ya, there's nothing wrong with either of those rules. There's no decent reason to believe that God exists, but if he does, then the guy described in the Bible is a tyrannical, genocidal asshole and one would be correct to hate him.

You don't care that if Islam is true, you're being cast into the outer darkness. You don't care that if Mormonism is true, you don't get your own planet. You don't care that if Flat Eartherism is true, you're going to fall off the edge of the world if you take a cruise. You don't care that if Infinity War is true, you have a 50% chance of getting turned to dust. Nobody cares about the negative effects of claims they think are fictional.

 

[Elixir]

The Two Rules of Atheism.
1. There's no God
2. If there is a God I hate Him.

You forgot #3:

3. All gods must be hated equally

I'm a baaaaad baaaad atheist. I actually prefer some gods over others. The one in your fav book is near the bottom of a very long list.
So I guess I'm headed for the atheist version of HELL.
There IS an atheist version of HELL isn't there Lion? You seem to be privy to all the ins and outs of atheism, so I cherish your spear-ritual guidance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

You seem to be privy to all the ins and outs of atheism, so I cherish your spear-ritual guidance.

Well, he only understands Hollywood Atheism, which presents as angry Christain for the most part, so your results may vary from his projections.

 

[bilby]

And Lion is fine with blaspheming Quetzalcoatl by the very act of worshiping Jesus.

Ya, I've noticed that he hasn't cut the heart out of a single virgin to bring about spring and is just counting on the revolution of the Earth around the Sun to end winter like some kind of chump. Given all the billions who'll die of starvation if he's bet wrong, he's playing pretty fast and loose with the lives of innocents here.

Totally ignoring my point. And frankly, Keith&Co is being intellectually dishonest..
I would NOT be deliberately blaspheming Quetzalcoatl by mistakenly thinking Jesus was Quetzalcoatl. The Dark Mofo people aren't accidentally blaspheming.
They are so certain of their fundy atheism that they don't care who they offend.

The Two Rules of Atheism.
1. There's no God
2. If there is a God I hate Him.

Rule 2 is just in your head, as a product of your anger that others don't accept your fantasies without question.

The Dark Mofo people don't care if they offend you; And they know that they can't offend god any more than they could offend Superman, Santa Claus, Bigfoot or Harry Potter.

Made up people don't take offence at stuff.

 

[Lion IRC]

For the last time, it's not about whether I'm personally offended - I'm not - and it's not about free speech, and it's not about proving whether God exists first then we'll talk etc etc

My point is about the difference between deliberate anti-religion sacrilege and the sort of 'mere atheism' which equates itself with non-stamp collecting or the color bald.

Could someone here PLEASE at least acknowledge that difference?

To put it another way...

Prayer - Father forgive them for they know not what they do
Answer - Oh yes they do!

 

[bilby]

For the last time, it's not about whether I'm personally offended - I'm not - and it's not about free speech, and it's not about proving whether God exists first then we'll talk etc etc

My point is about the difference between deliberate anti-religion sacrilege and the sort of 'mere atheism' which equates itself with non-stamp collecting or the color bald.

Could someone here PLEASE at least acknowledge that difference?

To put it another way...

Prayer - Father forgive them for they know not what they do
Answer - Oh yes they do!

For the last time, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.

The only way these things could be different is if the atheists doing them believed that the god they are deliberately insulting is non-fiction. And by definition, as atheists, they don't believe that.

You are projecting YOUR beliefs onto them, and getting upset because by YOUR standards, there is a difference. But atheists don't subscribe to your standards, and don't agree with you that there is a difference.

The difference exists ONLY in your mind. I doesn't apply to the people you are seeking to apply it to.


To put it another way...

Prayer - is meaningless. You are talking to something that exists only in your imagination. Any
Answer - Is also imaginary.

 

[funinspace]

I would NOT be deliberately blaspheming Quetzalcoatl by mistakenly thinking Jesus was Quetzalcoatl. The Dark Mofo people aren't accidentally blaspheming.
They are so certain of their fundy atheism that they don't care who they offend.

The Two Rules of Atheism.
1. There's no God
2. If there is a God I hate Him.

I am certain that your fundy God and the fundy Allah doesn't exist. I would not say that about the Blind Watchmaker, nor the slippery liberal Christian God, nor Ik Onkar. And I'm quite confidant that these imagined gods would not have a hissy fit about sarcastic humor directed towards the theological ramblings of their followers. Any claimed theological god that would torture billions of its creations for eternity for some pretty silly things like not believing in it would be a pretty sick puppy and should be hated if it existed. What human would torture their own children (extending it as long as possible) because the adult child said "fuck off and I am leaving and never want to talk to you again"? Funny what societies tend to do to people who abuse and kill their children...

For the last time, it's not about whether I'm personally offended - I'm not - and it's not about free speech, and it's not about proving whether God exists first then we'll talk etc etc

My point is about the difference between deliberate anti-religion sacrilege and the sort of 'mere atheism' which equates itself with non-stamp collecting or the color bald.

Could someone here PLEASE at least acknowledge that difference?

From the article from whence this thread began, this guy Mike Lynch makes a good point...I doubt he thinks his God is such a grouch...

University of Tasmania Fellowship of Christians campus director Mike Lynch said people needed to "chill out".

He said the installation of the crosses was "a bit boring".

"Being buried under the road is a bit like a Jackass episode, and hanging a cross upside down is like a Grade 12 art installation, so just chill out.

"My immediate reaction was a bit of an eye roll — here we go, a shock jock statement that gets Christians grumpy.

"It's a religious symbol and so for some people it is precious, so of course people are going to find that hurtful.

"For Christians, the cross is a symbol of shame and it's about God taking on shame for the salvation of the word, so there's a weird irony in getting offended by a symbol which in itself is offensive."

 

[Tom Sawyer]

For the last time, it's not about whether I'm personally offended - I'm not - and it's not about free speech, and it's not about proving whether God exists first then we'll talk etc etc

My point is about the difference between deliberate anti-religion sacrilege and the sort of 'mere atheism' which equates itself with non-stamp collecting or the color bald.

Could someone here PLEASE at least acknowledge that difference?

To put it another way...

Prayer - Father forgive them for they know not what they do
Answer - Oh yes they do!

OK fine, there's a difference. It's a pretty fucking irrelevant one, though. Both have to do with one's attitude towards things that do not exist and the specifics of two approaches towards non-existent things is basically moot.

Being concerned about the negative consequences from blasphemy is the same as being concerned that using Voldemort's name will draw an evil wizard's attention to you. I don't make a point of referring to him as "He Who Must Not Be Named" just in case because there is no actual evil wizard who's magicked himself up a spell to listen for people discussing him. Similarly, I don't make a point of maintaining a polite attitude towards God just in case because there is no actual god who's going to get all huffy if he hears someone dissing him.

 

[Keith&Co.]

OK fine, there's a difference. It's a pretty fucking irrelevant one, though.

That seems to be the point Lion's missing.
The distinction is without a difference except from Lion's point of view.
Not sharing Lion's POV, means there's no difference.