Did an atheist ever make you feel really upset?

fatmammycat

'....and then this one time, at band camp....'

midlandsmissus

lostexpectation wrote: »

i continue to be by you.

But lostexpectation,

You were quite sharp to me on another thread and told me to stop complaining about atheists, and I said to you already that this wasnt meant to be a thread complaining about atheists! I did already say that to you??? but you didnt reply to me on the other thread.

so why are you confused now?

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

An EMO Satanist

:eek:

Did he just call Manson "Emo"?

:pac:

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

:eek:

Did he just call Manson "Emo"?

:pac:

well he is- covered Tainted Love didnt he -well Emo that is.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

well he is- covered Tainted Love didnt he -well Emo that is.

Nah, he's proper '90s goth. The emo look is just Goth-lite. And the music is totally different.

Derailed.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Nah, he's proper '90s goth. The emo look is just Goth-lite. And the music is totally different.

Derailed.

Hes about as Goth as Alice Cooper

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

Hes about as Goth as Alice Cooper

Are you talking goth music or goth makeup/dress sense?

CDfm

music - The Cult - Bauhaus -The Cure

Tech3

whats an atheist?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

music - The Cult - Bauhaus -The Cure

I'll happily concede the point. The Goth look in the 90's was used by followers of industrial rock and metal. The Emo look is just a toned down variation on that. With crap music.

CDfm

tech2 wrote: »

whats an atheist?

dunno - but I think it is an agnostic with a conscience:pac:

PDN

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'll happily concede the point. The Goth look in the 90's was used by followers of industrial rock and metal. The Emo look is just a toned down variation on that. With crap music.

Emo, County Laois?

The Emo look is an old culchie in a flat cap.

CDfm

What did the agnostic get for Christmas? Confused:pac:

Valmont

aifricfan16 wrote: »

well i think maby he was an atheist but i'm not sure. he liked marilyn manson so maby yah.

Ah, don't do Manson the disservice of calling him emo, he was around before emo's and he'll be around long after too. The only unique thing about emo's is the really really bad music they like.

Hellm0

And ye the atheists did say to the Christians,"Verily we hath derailed thine thread". And ye how the Christians did weep.

CDfm

Valmont wrote: »

Ah, don't do Manson the disservice of calling him emo, he was around before emo's and he'll be around long after too. The only unique thing about emo's is the really really bad music they like.

Which makes Manson an EMO

Hellm0

CDfm wrote: »

Which makes Manson an EMO

Silence, Manson was no EMO. The guy came up with some of the finest industrial metal of his time, if some EMO's like Nirvana would that make Kurt Cobain one?

CDfm

Hellm0 wrote: »

Silence, Manson was no EMO. The guy came up with some of the finest industrial metal of his time, if some EMO's like Nirvana would that make Kurt Cobain one?

Covering tainted Love was what EMOCORE?????????????

There is a school of thought saying Kurt was emo.

http://acelceva.deviantart.com/art/Kurt-Cobain-was-EMO-77946503

But then children- self harm is not to be emulated - other than being silly it ruins clothes.

lostexpectation

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But lostexpectation,

You were quite sharp to me on another thread and told me to stop complaining about atheists, and I said to you already that this wasnt meant to be a thread complaining about atheists! I did already say that to you??? but you didnt reply to me on the other thread.

so why are you confused now?

I was newly religious myself, and I found that this, made me upset when I was talking to atheists. As I had never experienced this before, I was asking people's advice on here about it.

I think it was really to do with my new belief that you go to hell if you don't believe, and obviously I don't want anyone to go to hell, so this made me upset when I was talking to non-believers and thinking about that aspect at the same time.

It wore off for me after a while, I supose I got more used to being on the religious side, and talking to atheists from this point of view, and it doesn't bother me as much now.

newly religious?, how newly religious are you, having previously been an atheist(as you said), how is it you can't understand them. and how is it you got used to it after a week of being on here?? bizzarre

CDfm

Hellm0 wrote: »

Silence, Manson was no EMO. The guy came up with some of the finest industrial metal of his time, if some EMO's like Nirvana would that make Kurt Cobain one?

Back on topic a bit. The original shock rocker -which essentially is what Manson is -is Alice Cooper. If Im not mistaken he is a Baptist.

He looks on his shows as vaudiville and here what he has to say about Manson -essentially that being blasphemous isnt shocking with CNN doing what it does as liveTV.

http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=38588

ChocolateSauce

Alice Cooper +2!

Manson +0.5

Not bad, but not great. Good maybe? He did kinda drop off the radar though, whereas Cooper still tours!

seadog9

I don't believe in any religious stuff myself, and I can say I have been upset by Christians before, when I was younger, which shows that both sides aren't perfect, I however have never upset anyone based on there religion, because quite frankly I couldn't give a f*ck what they believe in.

I have however upset people based on what football team they support:D.

PDN

seadog9 wrote: »

I don't believe in any religious stuff myself, and I can say I have been upset by Christians before, when I was younger, which shows that both sides aren't perfect, I however have never upset anyone based on there religion, because quite frankly I couldn't give a f*ck what they believe in.

I have however upset people based on what football team they support:D.

Unfortunately, if you post again without reading the charter (particularly the bit about swearing or facsimiles thereof) then this Christian will upset you by issuing an infraction.

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately, if you post again without reading the charter (particularly the bit about swearing or facsimiles thereof) then this Christian will upset you by issuing an infraction.

And I quote PDN from another thread....

PDN wrote: »

Bullcrap.

Perhaps PDN should read the charter herself and be more careful when admonishing others for breaking rules that she is unable to follow herself.

"Let he who is without sin............"

I may not believe in everything in the bible but I recognise that there are may words of wisdom between its covers.

At least seadog9 had the decency to block out a letter.

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is hypocrosy.

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

And I quote PDN from another thread....



Perhaps PDN should read the charter herself and be more careful when admonishing others for breaking rules that she is unable to follow herself.

"Let he who is without sin............"

I may not believe in everything in the bible but I recognise that there are may words of wisdom between its covers.

At least seadog9 had the decency to block out a letter.

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is hypocrosy.

So crap is a swear word where you come from? And there I was thinking you were Irish. That is amusing.

Boards.ie has a filter that automatically edits the word **** - but not crap. The reason, of course, is that one is deemed to be swearing while the other is not. Go figure.

BTW - it's as well you can't stand hypocrisy since you are unable to spell it.

But thanks for assuming (wrongly) that I'm female.

CDfm

achtungbarry wrote: »

And I quote PDN from another thread....



Perhaps PDN should read the charter herself and be more careful when admonishing others for breaking rules that she is unable to follow herself.

"Let he who is without sin............"

I may not believe in everything in the bible but I recognise that there are may words of wisdom between its covers.

At least seadog9 had the decency to block out a letter.

If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is hypocrosy.

Your post was mindly irratating -but not in the least upsetting.

I must be getting more tolerant of atheists or they are getting softer,

Go me.

achtungbarry

PDN wrote: »

So crap is a swear word where you come from? And there I was thinking you were Irish. That is amusing.

Boards.ie has a filter that automatically edits the word **** - but not crap. The reason, of course, is that one is deemed to be swearing while the other is not. Go figure.

BTW - it's as well you can't stand hypocrisy since you are unable to spell it.

But thanks for assuming (wrongly) that I'm female.

Apologies for wrongly assuming you were female.... as well as a grammar obsessive.

You are also a bully and a downright hypocrite for calling out somebody out on an infraction that you have made yourself..... no matter how you defend it.

I do not interact with bullies so this will be the last thing I will say to you on the matter.

There are many christians out there who really try to live up to the decent principles of Christianity. Sadly you are not one of them.

I never thought I would be puttting a mod on my ignore list.

CDfm

achtungbarry wrote: »

Apologies for wrongly assuming you were female.... as well as a grammar obsessive.

You are also a bully and a downright hypocrite for calling out somebody out on an infraction that you have made yourself..... no matter how you defend it.

I do not interact with bullies so this will be the last thing I will say to you on the matter.

There are many christians out there who really try to live up to the decent principles of Christianity. Sadly you are not one of them.

AB - you are swapping semantics over whether a word is a swearword or not.Seadogs **** is and is gratuitous on a christian thread.

Crap is coarse maybe but not crude.

Anyway -have you ever been upset by an atheist?

achtungbarry

CDfm wrote: »

AB - you are swapping semantics over whether a word is a swearword or not.Seadogs **** is and is gratuitous on a christian thread.

Crap is coarse maybe but not crude.

Anyway -have you ever been upset by an atheist?

I'm sure I have on some occasion but I don't think atheists, christians or any other groups have a monopoly on causing upset.

And as for semantics........... what would Christians and atheists argue about if we didn't have semantics

CDfm

achtungbarry wrote: »

I'm sure I have on some occasion but I don't think atheists, christians or any other groups have a monopoly on causing upset.

And as for semantics........... what would Christians and atheists argue about if we didn't have semantics

AB that sounds like a severe case of repressed memory on the atheist front.

Christians are good -atheists on the other hand would start a fight in the hairdressers and dont believe anything thats printed even the football results- if they cant recreate the results themselves. Fantasy football leagues are therefore an atheist invention.:D:

PDN

achtungbarry wrote: »

Apologies for wrongly assuming you were female.... as well as a grammar obsessive.

You are also a bully and a downright hypocrite for calling out somebody out on an infraction that you have made yourself..... no matter how you defend it.

I do not interact with bullies so this will be the last thing I will say to you on the matter.

There are many christians out there who really try to live up to the decent principles of Christianity. Sadly you are not one of them.

I never thought I would be puttting a mod on my ignore list.

I'm also a big softy in that this is the second time you've indulged in back seat modding in a thread without getting an infraction.

Next time please use the PM button or take it to feedback.

To all other posters (who aren't ignoring me) crap, crud & baloney are all acceptable in this forum. f*ck, c*nt and w*nker are not. Anything beyond that try using your common sense (if you have any).

BTW, I didn't write the rules - it's just my job to try to enforce them without having to dirty my hands with too many trolls.

achtungbarry

CDfm wrote: »

AB that sounds like a severe case of repressed memory on the atheist front.

Christians are good -atheists on the other hand would start a fight in the hairdressers and dont believe anything thats printed even the football results- if they cant recreate the results themselves. Fantasy football leagues are therefore an atheist invention.:D:

As an atheist I can tell you I could start an argument with myself

And there have been many football results that I still can't believe in to this day ............. even with plenty of evidence (they usually involve Cyprus)

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

Christians are good -atheists on the other hand would start a fight in the hairdressers and dont believe anything thats printed even the football results- if they cant recreate the results themselves. Fantasy football leagues are therefore an atheist invention.:D:

First we're blamed for the USSR, now Fantasy Football! What next, the French and their secular state?

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

What next, the French and their secular state?

The French -ahem! Not only did the surrender twice in WWII but were on the loosing side both times. Doesnt that tell you something:eek:

marco_polo

CDfm wrote: »

The French -ahem! Not only did the surrender twice in WWII but were on the loosing side both times. Doesnt that tell you something:eek:

Good at surrendering and making cheese? :pac:

The story that they invented freedom fries is just a myth though.

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

The French -ahem! Not only did the surrender twice in WWII but were on the loosing side both times. Doesnt that tell you something:eek:

Yes. It tells me they had more integrity than to hide behind a flag of neutrality while depending on others to defend them from Nazism.

There. Now that should be guaranteed to take the thread wildly off topic!

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

Yes. It tells me they had more integrity than to hide behind a flag of neutrality while depending on others to defend them from Nazism.

There. Now that should be guaranteed to take the thread wildly off topic!

I dont understand - it looks like you are talking about Eire in WWII.

There were a whole lot of reasons behind Irish Neutrality and these included reoccupation by Britain and a recurrance of a civil war scenario -very complicated.I imagine as a nation we had more experience than others and I know from conversations with elderly relatives that they were very aware of the intentions and attrocities of the nazis. So it was fear not a lack of moral courage that kicked in.

It has always struck me as odd that Irish country people had been aware of the Nazi attrocities and the German population claimed not to be.

Hindsight is a great thing -there is no doubting the moral courage of the British in standing up to the Third Reich- but it was mixed with self preservation and belief it could suceed.The Irish motivation was fear and survival.

rockbeer

CDfm wrote: »

it was fear not a lack of moral courage that kicked in.

What's the difference? Surely by any sensible definition courage is acting the right way in spite of fear.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

Yes. It tells me they had more integrity than to hide behind a flag of neutrality while depending on others to defend them from Nazism.

PDN, are you from another country by any chance?

Ireland could have offered f. all to the Allied side from a military POV. The most useful thing was the weather information, which they did give.

robindch

Húrin wrote: »

Ireland could have offered f. all to the Allied side from a military POV. The most useful thing was the weather information, which they did give.

You're forgetting that around 50,000 (I believe) Irish citizens joined the Allied forces during WWII.

It may not have been official government policy to help them go, or to respect them when they returned, but that does not lessen the contribution of those men, especially the 5% or so who did not come back.

CDfm

rockbeer wrote: »

What's the difference? Surely by any sensible definition courage is acting the right way in spite of fear.

The primary responsibility for a government is to protect its own people. Which it did under very difficult circumstances.

Between 1 & 2% of the population served in the forces and how many more worked in other areas for the war effort.

Dont forget - they sarcrafised the Channell Islands to the Germans - less than 20 years previously burnt down Cork City.

I cant have seen the British caring about a German invasion of ireland.

PDN

Húrin wrote: »

PDN, are you from another country by any chance?

Ireland could have offered f. all to the Allied side from a military POV. The most useful thing was the weather information, which they did give.

I am a citizen of the Kingdom of heaven who despises earthly patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel. You will not find me falling over myself to protect the reputation of any man-made nation state.

Ireland could have given the British permission to use Irish ports to protect convoys. Failure to do so cost many lives.

Ireland could have provided sanctuary for Jewish refugees from Nazism.

Ireland could have mustered enough dignity not to send a telegram to the German government upon Hitler's suicide lamenting the death of a "great leader".

marco_polo

CDfm wrote: »

The primary responsibility for a government is to protect its own people. Which it did under very difficult circumstances.

Between 1 & 2% of the population served in the forces and how many more worked in other areas for the war effort.

Dont forget - they sarcrafised the Channell Islands to the Germans - less than 20 years previously burnt down Cork City.

I cant have seen the British caring about a German invasion of ireland.

Yes a permanent base for German bombers less than 30 miles from their coast would have been no issue for them at all.

CDfm

PDN wrote: »

I am a citizen of the Kingdom of heaven who despises earthly patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel. You will not find me falling over myself to protect the reputation of any man-made nation state.

Ireland could have given the British permission to use Irish ports to protect convoys. Failure to do so cost many lives.

Ireland could have provided sanctuary for Jewish refugees from Nazism.

Ireland could have mustered enough dignity not to send a telegram to the German government upon Hitler's suicide lamenting the death of a "great leader".

Aha PDN- I know there were flaws. But ireland protected its own population very well.

You didnt answer the question -which was really are you British? Immaterial to me but the assumption thats being made.

From the Hitler apology - remind me was it a Chilean General Pinochet the British refused to extradite recently. Funny old world isnt it.

CDfm

marco_polo wrote: »

Yes a permanent base for German bombers less than 30 miles from their coast would have been no issue for them at all.

So our neutrality benefited the British too by not having an extra Irish front. It may have had strategic benefits.

PDN

CDfm wrote: »

From the Hitler apology - remind me was it a Chilean General Pinochet the British refused to extradite recently. Funny old world isnt it.

Yes, indeed it was. The British have a record of protecting dictators. As I already said: you won't find me falling over myself to protect the reputation of any man-made nation state.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

You will not find me falling over myself to protect the reputation of any man-made nation state.

Ireland could have given the British permission to use Irish ports to protect convoys. Failure to do so cost many lives.

Ireland could have provided sanctuary for Jewish refugees from Nazism.

Ireland could have mustered enough dignity not to send a telegram to the German government upon Hitler's suicide lamenting the death of a "great leader".

I'm inclined to agree with you.

CDfm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm inclined to agree with you.

thats easy to agree with in hindsight- while the allies were carving up the world we were just observers and while it was a very daft thing to do- DEv was folowing protocol.Still very moronic -but he had been a maths teacher in his previous life.

Húrin

PDN wrote: »

I am a citizen of the Kingdom of heaven who despises earthly patriotism as the last refuge of a scoundrel. You will not find me falling over myself to protect the reputation of any man-made nation state.

Ireland could have given the British permission to use Irish ports to protect convoys. Failure to do so cost many lives.

Ireland could have provided sanctuary for Jewish refugees from Nazism.

Ireland could have mustered enough dignity not to send a telegram to the German government upon Hitler's suicide lamenting the death of a "great leader".

It's not about patriotism, so much as knowing Irish history. Taking Britain's side would have been utterly disastrous for a number of reasons:

A condition of Ireland's independence treaty was British retention of three important ports. They were returned to Ireland in 1938. This was highly controversial and was a cause of the civil war. On the eve of WWII, the civil war wounds were very much still open, and the return of these ports to British control so soon after winning them back, could easily have ignited another civil war. Remember, people were not aware of the magnitude of the Nazi threat, nor the scale of its evil. It is unlikely that democratic government would have survived a civil war. Ideally the British should have been allowed to use the ports for the war, but it was an impossibility given domestic politics.

Ireland would also not have the ability to cope with being regularly bombed by Germany, which would have happened had we joined the Allies. Ireland would have been vulnerable to an easy German invasion, with obvious consequences for Britain.

I agree entirely that it was disgraceful for Ireland not to take in refugees, especially considering how the government of the time claimed to have a moral foreign policy.

CDfm wrote: »

You didnt answer the question -which was really are you British? Immaterial to me but the assumption thats being made.

No, that's not what I was asking.

Chardee MacDennis

I would say you were feeling the same way I feel when I talk to religious people, very sorry that they haven't realized how wrong they are! I'm sure it's vice-versa!