They believe in like 30 million gods or something like that, they believe in reincarnation (which is even stupider), and they use their bullshit religion to persecute the poor as "untouchables".

I'm c'mon, at least many other religions -- Christianity, Islam, etc... -- help the poor. Hinduism actually brands them as evil. If any religion was created by some kind of elite conspiracy to control the public, you can be pretty sure it was Hinduism.

Anyway, I think we atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult.

You're retarded.

they believe in reincarnation (which is even stupider)

There is no evidence to disprove reincarnation; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Although that being said, I'm not saying you should believe in reincarnation.

Anyway, I think we atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult.

Why should atheists try to bring down any religion? It's impossible to know who's correct, and in the end we'll probly find out that we're all wrong, so why fight about it? I can understand you pointing out irrational ideas of Hinduism because I belive that everything should be questioned, but to say that you want to bring down Hinduism seems slighlty absurd to me.

first of all, shithead, if you claim that hindus are "fucking retarded" please explain why over 900 million people subject to this faith. reincarnation is not a "stupid idea". it is only a theory of what could happen to you after you die. same like when you go to heaven or hell. if you feel like that hindus theory of life after death is too idiotic, then please try to kill yourself because there nothing you can do about it.

You're retarded.

Care to be a little more specific? Because while his post might have been a little sloppy, he does have some accurate points:

1. There is a Indian caste system perpetuated by the Hindu religion, and that caste system does in fact have a group of people often labeled "untouchables"

If you want to argue why a caste system that discriminates against a substantial portion of the population is good, then go right ahead. I would love to see that.

2. Reincarnation is unsubstantiated bullshit.

There is no evidence to disprove reincarnation; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are conflicting accounts of supposed reincarnation events, hoaxes exposed, a complete lack of any mechanism explanining the phenomenon, and as you say a lack of good evidence. If that's not enough, then I would say that the same comment ("There is no evidence to disprove reincarnation; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.") can be said of the claim of flying pink unicorns or tiny teapots orbiting Earth. I'm willing to bet that if you encountered someone who truly believed in any of those things you'd call it silly, stupid or ridiculous...

Care to be a little more specific? Because while his post might have been a little sloppy, he does have some accurate points:

1. There is a Indian caste system perpetuated by the Hindu religion, and that caste system does in fact have a group of people often labeled "untouchables"

If you want to argue why a caste system that discriminates against a substantial portion of the population is good, then go right ahead. I would love to see that.

2. Reincarnation is unsubstantiated bullshit.

1. I agree

2. So is every other theory about life after death, why does reincarnation need to be special?

3. Militant Atheism is a load of bullshit too. Why can't he leave the Hindus alone? Why must he fight their beliefs? Fight for the right of people(against the caste system, which is largely out of use for the most part), not against beliefs ingrained into a person and their culture.

2. So is every other theory about life after death, why does reincarnation need to be special?

Who said it was special? I said it was unsubstantiated bullshit.

Clearly in a thread about Hinduism... Hindu beliefs are going to be at the forefront of the discussion. Or do you want us to discuss the Christian version of heaven and hell in a thread about Hinduism?


3. Militant Atheism is a load of bullshit too. Why can't he leave the Hindus alone? Why must he fight their beliefs? Fight for the right of people(against the caste system, which is largely out of use for the most part), not against beliefs ingrained into a person and their culture.

Why is it a load of bullshit? Why shouldn't he fight against their beliefs when they perpetuate this discrimination (and the discrimination is pretty inherent in the religion tiself - it's not easy [maybe even impossible] to just attack their caste system without attacked the religion itself)? If their beliefs are unsubstantiated bullshit then they should be attacked. Please tell me one good reason not to.

This really is a hindu discussion thread :rolleyes: I am merely stating that, whether he agrees with the belief or not, it is not his right to attack it. The modern caste system barely appropriates discrimination in the negative direction. Lower castes are protected under modern Indian law and inter-caste marriages are pretty common in India today.

Extremist anything is always a load of bullshit. Militant Atheism is just as bad as extremist Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. They try to push their beliefs onto to someone else.

Why shouldn't he fight against their beliefs when they perpetuate this discrimination (and the discrimination is pretty inherent in the religion tiself - it's not easy [maybe even impossible] to just attack their caste system without attacked the religion itself)? If their beliefs are unsubstantiated bullshit then they should be attacked. Please tell me one good reason not to.

You don't tear down walls by building them higher.

There are conflicting accounts of supposed reincarnation events, hoaxes exposed, a complete lack of any mechanism explanining the phenomenon, and as you say a lack of good evidence.

And I could show you the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and others and make the claim that there is a lack of good evidence for anything but reincarnation to exist. There is no empirical evidence to support either of our claims and as such we should refrain from appealing to ignorance.

If that's not enough, then I would say that the same comment ("There is no evidence to disprove reincarnation; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.") can be said of the claim of flying pink unicorns or tiny teapots orbiting Earth. I'm willing to bet that if you encountered someone who truly believed in any of those things you'd call it silly, stupid or ridiculous...

So, are you saying that whatever has not been proven false must be true? How unscientific of you Rust. Now, as a student of science, if someone came up to me and told me of a celestial teapot, it would be a natural reaction of mine to be skeptical until they provide irrefutable, empirical evidence for their claim.

And as such, it is an affront to science when atheists use the celestial teapot argument, as they provide no evidence for their claim.

They believe in like 30 million gods or something like that

All the Hindu deities are actually a single God in different forms, so they are monotheists.

[QUOTE=Graemy;10289615] The modern caste system barely appropriates discrimination in the negative direction. Lower castes are protected under modern Indian law and inter-caste marriages are pretty common in India today.

QUOTE]

Tell that to the untouchable who was blinded when his upper-caste "betters" threw acid in his face because he fished in the "wrong" pond. But back to topic, sort of.

OP, I will cut you some slack because you are new here and ignorant. Please read the header -- "Intolerance will not be tolerated." This means, among other things, crude and ignorant bashing of ANY religion is not appropriate.

In short, STFU.

Tell that to the untouchable who was blinded when his upper-caste "betters" threw acid in his face because he fished in the "wrong" pond. But back to topic, sort of.


Blacks are still discriminated in the US today. I don't see your point. They are protected under Indian law, and discrimination is beginning to stop, much like discrimination against blacks in the US is slowing to a stop. It doesn't happen all at once.

I should tell him that he is protected under the law so the culprits can be apprehended.

I should tell him that he is protected under the law so the culprits can be apprehended.

The National Geographic recently ran a major article on discrimination in India. Either you are incorrect or they are.

The National Geographic recently ran a major article on discrimination in India. Either you are incorrect or they are.

There's discrimination in the US. Doesn't change the laws. Like I said, it takes time. It starts with laws, then slowly social acceptance.

Care to be a little more specific? Because while his post might have been a little sloppy, he does have some accurate points:

1. There is a Indian caste system perpetuated by the Hindu religion, and that caste system does in fact have a group of people often labeled "untouchables"


First of all, Hinduism isn't exactly a religion. It's a wide variety of beliefs based on the Vedas, in the region called Hindustan. So when someone generalizes an entire region of widely differing beliefs and practices and calls it an "evil cult", forgive me for not taking him seriously.

And as for the caste system, if you're the son of a brahmin, yet you never develop the proper mentality, you will not be treated as a brahmin.
I'm not saying its that simple, like if a service man had the means to become a brahmin, I doubt he would be accepted easily.
Anywhere you go there will be prejudice, it's not just isolated to India.

This really is a hindu discussion thread :rolleyes:

I'm glad we agree then, that asking why "Reincarnation is special" when nobody even said it was special and when any "special" focus it has been given is because of the topic of the thread, is silly.


I am merely stating that, whether he agrees with the belief or not, it is not his right to attack it


And just who the hell decided it's not his right to attack it? You did? He has the right to attack whatever he chooses; a right given to him by this forum. Any other "Right" (i.e. it being prudent or not, it being good or not, etc.) is your completely arbitrary and convenient designation.


. The modern caste system barely appropriates discrimination in the negative direction. Lower castes are protected under modern Indian law and inter-caste marriages are pretty common in India today.



"Barely" is a nice way of saying "It does".

Whether you think what discrimination does occur is enough to justify an attack or not is irrelevant, he apparently does and he has the right to engage in the "attack" (I'm using that word because you used it - to me calling a shitty post on an internet forum an "attack" is pretty laughable) if he wants to (see above).


Militant Atheism is just as bad as extremist Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. They try to push their beliefs onto to someone else.

So you get to add the adjective "militant" to any thing you disagree with and automatically get to dismiss it? Nifty!

If your position (or the one you are defending) is so weak that a shitty post on the internet from someone expressing his opinions somehow constitutes an "attack" or being "pushed a belief on" then your belief (or the one you're defending") is pretty fucking pathetic.

And I could show you the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson and others and make the claim that there is a lack of good evidence for anything but reincarnation to exist. There is no empirical evidence to support either of our claims and as such we should refrain from appealing to ignorance.

1. Oh, please do! That would be productive of you. I would then proceed to point out all the flaws in Stevenson's "research" as I've pointed out to Vanhalla when he made such claims (and provided Stevenson's claims as evidence) in the past. Go ahead.

2. I'm not appealing to ignorance in any way, shape or form. If you think I am then I would ask you to re-read what I've said. There is no appeal to ignorance there.


So, are you saying that whatever has not been proven false must be true? How unscientific of you Rust. No, I am not saying that at all. Can I now use a snarky remark like "How illiterate/stupid of you"? :rolleyes:

I'm saying that the lack of evidence is already enough reason not to believe in reincarnation. It may not be enough to claim that reincarnation is absolutely not true, but the OP never said that at all! He said it was stupid to believe in it. That's not an illogical position to take when the thing you're talking about is a supernatural, and unsubstantiated belief.


Now, as a student of science, if someone came up to me and told me of a celestial teapot, it would be a natural reaction of mine to be skeptical until they provide irrefutable, empirical evidence for their claim.Great! Apparently you agree with the OP.


And as such, it is an affront to science when atheists use the celestial teapot argument, as they provide no evidence for their claim.Huh? Why would they need to provide evidence? They are not claiming that the teapot exists (at least not in the origins of the argument itself); in fact, the argument implicitly suggests that there is no evidence and thus that it's silly to believe in such teapot! They are making an example: If someone would tell you that there is a tiny teapot orbiting Earth, you would be incredibly doubtful and dismissive of the claim. So then should you be in the case of equally unsubstantiated things, like the claims of Hinduism.

First of all, Hinduism isn't exactly a religion. It's a wide variety of beliefs based on the Vedas, in the region called Hindustan. So when someone generalizes an entire region of widely differing beliefs and practices and calls it an "evil cult", forgive me for not taking him seriously.


1. It's called/recognized as a "religion" by many. Could they be wrong? Of course. However, that merely means that it's a common mistake, and therefore all the more reason to not be dismissive of it.

2. You didn't just not take him seriously, you called him retarded and ignored his points. You have every right to do so, of course, and I have every right to point out what you did and how many of the points he made (albeit in a pretty foolish manner) still stand.



Anywhere you go there will be prejudice, it's not just isolated to India.

Nobody here EVER claimed that prejudice was isolated to India, so either you have some really shitty reading skills or you're making a strawman.

What was said was that there is prejudice in the caste system perpetuated by Hinduism. It seems you know this yet don't want to make any meaningful statement acknowledge it because it speaks badly of the philosophies you hold so precious...

Blacks are still discriminated in the US today. I don't see your point.

So what? That isn't a defense... "Your Honor, other people around the world rape..." isn't a positive defense of sexual abuse.

There being discrimination in the U.S. is all the more reason why people should be speaking out against it! Speaking of the discrimination in the Hindu caste system, in a thread about Hinduism, seems a like a good start...

I'm glad we agree then, that asking why "Reincarnation is special" when nobody even said it was special and when any "special" focus it has been given is because of the topic of the thread, is silly.

It's a hate post, not a discussion thread, although I will agree that it does generate discussion.



And just who the hell decided it's not his right to attack it? You did? He has the right to attack whatever he chooses; a right given to him by this forum. Any other "Right" (i.e. it being prudent or not, it being good or not, etc.) is your completely arbitrary and convenient designation.

It's kind of common sense, and it is commonly agreed among most of the population of the planet that intolerance is intolerable, whether or not those people follow it or not is beside the point.


"Barely" is a nice way of saying "It does".

Whether you think what discrimination does occur is enough to justify an attack or not is irrelevant, he apparently does and he has the right to engage in the "attack" (I'm using that word because you used it - to me calling a shitty post on an internet forum an "attack" is pretty laughable) if he wants to (see above).

I'm not calling his post an attack, but his intent to attack, as stated in his post: "bringing down this evil cult". Which in all honestly, if attempted will probably fail horribly.


So you get to add the adjective "militant" to any thing you disagree with and automatically get to dismiss it? Nifty!

If your position (or the one you are defending) is so weak that a shitty post on the internet from someone expressing his opinions somehow constitutes an "attack" or being "pushed a belief on" then your belief (or the one you're defending") is pretty fucking pathetic.

Way to be illiterate. Notice I also used the word "extremist" I dismiss them as being a bunch of bigots, and I dislike what they do. According to your logic, extremist groups have the right to go out and attack people, unless they give up their "worthless beliefs".

I'm not even going to reply to the last paragraph because it makes no sense.

So what? That isn't a defense... "Your Honor, other people around the world rape..." isn't a positive defense of sexual abuse.

There being discrimination in the U.S. is all the more reason why people should be speaking out against it! Speaking of the discrimination in the Hindu caste system, in a thread about Hinduism, seems a like a good start...

Way to take it out of context. The point was, that even though blacks won their civil rights almost 40 years ago, there is still discrimination. Hence, the laws that protect the lower castes in India, aren't going to make discrimination against them disappear.

It's a hate post, not a discussion thread, although I will agree that it does generate discussion.

Which has what do do with the fact that nobody called reincarnation special and that the topic was Hinduism and thus reincarnation would be likely discussed? Nothing? Great. I'm glad we agree you were wrong in implying anybody had called reincarnation special.

It's kind of common sense, and it is commonly agreed among most of the population of the planet that intolerance is intolerable, whether or not those people follow it or not is beside the point."It's common sense" is a weak argument. I can say it's common sense that he has the right to be as intolerant as he wants.

And no, whether they actually follow it or not is not "besides the point" that is absolutely crucial to the point: If they don't follow what they preach then it's quite obvious they don't truly believe "that intolerance is intolerable" but only that people should tolerate what they believe and nothing else!
In any case, if it's agreed that "intolerance is intolerable", then all the more reason to speak out against Hinduism which perpetuates a prejudiced system in the first place!I'm not calling his post an attack, but his intent to attack, as stated in his post: "bringing down this evil cult". Which in all honestly, if attempted will probably fail horribly.You can "bring down the evil cult" in a number of ways; physical violence is not the only sole option. So the only thing we do have - the only thing that is not rampant speculation on your part - is that the OP made a post criticizing Hinduism. That's it.
Way to be illiterate. Notice I also used the word "extremist" I dismiss them as being a bunch of bigots, and I dislike what they do. According to your logic, extremist groups have the right to go out and attack people, unless they give up their "worthless beliefs".How the fuck was I illiterate? I know you also used the word "extremist" and the same applies there as well: those are labels you throw around to dismiss what you disagree with.That's the only argument you gave: you called it militant atheism and then tried to poison the well by linking it with "extremist" things.

And please refrain from speaking about "my logic" because clearly you aren't even close to comprehending it. My "logic" simply says that it's fine for someone to make a post criticizing another religion; which is the only form of "attack" that has taken place. At no point in time have I said that it's okay to physically attack someone, if that's what you're implying.

I'm not even going to reply to the last paragraph because it makes no sense.And you dare talk about illiterate?

If the belief you're defending is so weak that a post on the internet - the only thing that has happened - constitutes an attack, then that belief is pathetic.

Way to take it out of context. The point was, that even though blacks won their civil rights almost 40 years ago, there is still discrimination. Hence, the laws that protect the lower castes in India, aren't going to make discrimination against them disappear.I know what the context is/was and I didn't take it out of context.

Here lets add the context and see if it changes anything: You said that the caste system "barely appropriates discrimination in the negative direction" and that there were laws in place against such discrimination. AM gave an example of a brutal attack against a member of the lower caste, thus putting into question that "barely" adjective you used. You said that blacks are discriminated against in the U.S. even though there are laws. That's the context. Does it change anything I said? No.

The fact that laws against discrimination exist does not refute the point that the discrimination does exist (what the OP was saying and AM was showing with his example) and is perpetuated by the Hindu beliefs in such a caste system. That's the point.

You don't tear down walls by building them higher.

Are you suggesting that you know that he is building figurative walls and that he is building them higher? Or is this just one of your lame attempts to say a truism as if it were part of the discussion and then run away as soon as someone calls you on it?

1. It's called/recognized as a "religion" by many. Could they be wrong? Of course. However, that merely means that it's a common mistake, and therefore all the more reason to not be dismissive of it.

I don't mind if people call it a religion, just getting it out there (since you wanted elaboration) that it's more complex than many people imagine.

2. You didn't just not take him seriously, you called him retarded and ignored his points. You have every right to do so, of course, and I have every right to point out what you did and how many of the points he made (albeit in a pretty foolish manner) still stand.
I got the impression of a speculative, uninformed, conspiracy theory when I read it.


Nobody here EVER claimed that prejudice was isolated to India, so either you have some really shitty reading skills or you're making a strawman.

What was said was that there is prejudice in the caste system perpetuated by Hinduism. It seems you know this yet don't want to make any meaningful statement acknowledge it because it speaks badly of the philosophies you hold so precious...Considering the age of the Vedas, and the dimensions in the creation process in which they edified, the prejudice is not really surprising.
Does that make it right?
It's not for me to judge.
But here is what I think about it:
We resonate better with certain roles than we would with other roles. Why this is or how someone could know which path is best for that soul, we can only speculate.

I think if we had enough information we could reliably create a blueprint of the paths that would resonate well with that soul. But I do not think that anyone should be forced to do anything.

With that said, the tradition commonly associated with Hinduism does perpetuate prejudice in a way, but so does any other religion, ideology, or government in one way or another.

Would it be right call Capitalism an evil cult?

I don't mind if people call it a religion, just getting it out there (since you wanted elaboration) that it's more complex than many people imagine.

Yay! You had to be prodded into providing something more than "You're retarded", but you finally did. Awesome!


I got the impression of a speculative, uninformed, conspiracy theory when I read it.

Did you read the other things that do stand, like the unsubstantiated beliefs Hinduism has or the discrimination it perpetuates?

Considering the age of the Vedas, and the dimensions in the creation process in which they edified, the prejudice is not really surprising.
Does that make it right?
It's not for me to judge.
But here is what I think about it:
We resonate better with certain roles than we would with other roles. Why this is or how someone could know which path is best for that soul, we can only speculate.

I think if we had enough information we could reliably create a blueprint of the paths that would resonate well with that soul. But I do not think that anyone should be forced to do anything.

I imagine you have absolutely nothing to prove that at all, right? As usual...?


With that said, the tradition commonly associated with Hinduism does perpetuate prejudice in a way, but so does any other religion, ideology, or government in one way or another.

"Other things/people/religions do so as well" isn't a defense - not to mention pretty simplistic since the important point is not that they could be prejudiced, but whether day discriminate in the same (or worse) ways.


Would it be right call Capitalism an evil cult?

I would say it's silly, even though I'm not a capitalist. However that example/analogy ignores his other valid points. It would be analogous to someone calling capitalism an evil cult while also saying that it exploits the proletariat. It would be silly - in my eyes - to call it an evil cult, but that doesn't somehow mean that the other point wasn't made.

Are you suggesting that you know that he is building figurative walls and that he is building them higher? Or is this just one of your lame attempts to say a truism as if it were part of the discussion and then run away as soon as someone calls you on it?

Are you just attacking everyone in the thread who disagrees with the very obvious troll OP?

Do you really believe its better to be so nasty?

absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.



Well, there is a man with a chainsaw behind you. Except you can't hear, smell, see, or feel him.

But he's always there, just about to chop your head off.

I guess that ^ truth will remain until the end of time, seeing how you can't disprove it.

Anyway, I think we atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult.

Why single out the Hindus?
Why not declare a jihad on every retarded institution in existence?
Then once every last infidel is scorched off the face of your planet, proceed to killing yourself and your followers.

Are you just attacking everyone in the thread who disagrees with the very obvious troll OP?

No, not everyone. But would it be somehow wrong if I were?


Do you really believe its better to be so nasty?

Do you? Again, the point is to get you to say something meaningful in the discussion, and not to bombard us with truisms and silly questions that don't explain your own position, as Hare so accurately predicted.

Vanhalla: Divide and Conquer. Next.

I believe that it would be wrong to control others, and that individuals should be allowed to do with their life what they wish as long they do not control the life's of others. Discrimination is an attempt to control others.

Discrimination will only end when we stop discriminating. Saying "Hindus are fucking retarded" because their beliefs are different then my own would be no less discriminating then their caste system. As Graemy said, the laws have changed and they are attempting to get rid of the discrimination of the caste system, but social values change slowly. That change is in motion, however.

Reincarnation cannot be known to be true or false any more then any other theories about after death. Why should people not believe it if they would like to?

As Hare pointed out, they believe all those Gods to be manifestations of Brahman, but why they should be discriminated against for their beliefs in the first place, I do not understand.

However, the main reason I believe some sort of interest group should not work towards "bringing down" Hinduism would be that to do so is to discriminate themselves. It is an attempt to control others, they would be perpetuating the very meme they disagree with in Hinduism.

I think this applies to any attempts to "take down" any religion that controls other. By attempting to take it down, I would be attempting to control others myself. I think it applies to any attempt to make others see the world my way. You won't tear down the walls that divide us by adding to them.

I
Discrimination will only end when we stop discriminating. Saying "Hindus are fucking retarded" because their beliefs are different then my own would be no less discriminating then their caste system.

Calling someone names is as discriminating as a caste system that has provided injustice for more than a thousand years? Give me a break. They are nothing close to comparable.

Calling someone "retarded" might be childish, but it's nothing more than someone expressing their opinion verbally. Verbal attacks are only a very small part of the discrimination faced by those deemed "untouchable" in the Indian caste system. To compare the two is insulting.


As Graemy said, the laws have changed and they are attempting to get rid of the discrimination of the caste system, but social values change slowly. That change is in motion, however.

The laws, as far as I know, are regarding state-sponsored discrimination. That is, discrimination cannot happen in public grounds. That does not mean that discrimination is not happening, and is not being perpetuated by Hinduism and it's belief in this caste system.

So the point still stands: the Indian caste system and the discrimination inherent in it are being perpetuated by Hinduism and the laws, while providing some protection, aren't going to magically change the Hindu religious traditions.

This is tantamount to speaking against the KKK. The KKK is barred from violating people's rights, yet it is still spreading discrimination of other races. The difference here is that the discrimination isn't limited to races, but arbitrary castes.

Speaking against such hateful groups isn't any form of discrimination that I can see, or at least it's nothing close to what they support and/or carry out.


Reincarnation cannot be known to be true or false any more then any other theories about after death. Why should people not believe it if they would like to?

The OP said it was stupid, not that they couldn't believe in it if that's what they wanted. It's stupid in that there is no credible evidence suggesting that reincarnation is a reality, and thus foolish to believe in it.

I would absolutely love to believe in a million of different things - I have some amazing fantasies with me an Angelina Jolie - but that doesn't mean I'm going to claim that is reality because I understand that there is nothing suggesting that's the case.


It is an attempt to control others, they would be perpetuating the very meme they disagree with in Hinduism.

That convenient label could be applied to almost anything! "Hey, don't you mention that they are discriminating, lest you be discriminate yourself!".

Positive change can happen if this "control" (a ridiculous self-serving adjective you're using) is directed in the right way. Take the Civil rights movement, and other movements that included disobedience.

I think it applies to any attempt to make others see the world my way. You won't tear down the walls that divide us by adding to them.

"Make" others? Who here is "making" one believe in anything? Nobody that I could see. I see people calling Hinduims names, but that's nothing close to "making someone believe something". It's a statement made to convince (albeit in a very childish manner); that or a statement expressing frustation, or a statement intended to "Troll". None of those are "making someone else see the world your way".


P.S. I find it extremely ironic that you're here preaching against being discriminatory yet it was you who attempted to dismiss the OP as an "obvious troll" and attempted to imply that I shouldn't be "attacking" the people who disagree with him...

What I find funny is how many people have complained about the atheists of this board, and how they supposedly concentrate on Christianity only - those complaining usually claim the atheists do so because they are rebelling against their Christian family or something similar - yet when we have a thread discussing another religion, these very same people don't do anything to attempt to discuss any legitimate points that have been made therein. They do the oppossite.

Discrimination is discrimination. Its not the name calling I was referring to, it is the desire to control others.

Specifically that Hinduism should be "brought down".

the point still stands: the Indian caste system and the discrimination inherent in it are being perpetuated by Hinduism and the laws, while providing some protection, aren't going to magically change the Hindu religious traditions.

I did not say they would. It may be impossible to completely rid a society of discrimination, but there are laws in place to attempt to curb it. Making a thread on totse complaining about it is not going to end discrimination either, and neither would "bringing down" Hinduism. Perpetuating the belief that Hinduism is evil and should be brought down is discriminating itself.

The OP said it was stupid, not that they couldn't believe in it if that's what they wanted.

He said Hinduism is an evil cult that should be brought down.

I would absoltuely love to believe in a million of different things - I have some amazing fantasies with me an Angelina Jolie - but that doesn't mean I'm going to because I understand that there is nothing suggesting that's the case.

I don't see any Hindu's in this thread suggesting that you must believe in reincarnation.

Since you seem to have taken over the OP's position, I'll ask you: why should Hindu's not be allowed to believe in reincarnation?

Positive change can happen if this "control" (a ridiculous self-serving adjective you're using) is directed in the right way.

So taking down the so called 'evil cult' that is Hinduism (which is the change the OP wants to make) is positive?


"Make" others? Who here is "making" one believe in anything? Nobody that I could see. I see people calling Hinduims names, but that's nothing close to "making someone believe something". It's a statement made to convince (albeit in a very childish manner).

I never said anyone was making anyone do anything. I said that I think it applies to those situation, and the OP's desire to bring down the so called evil cult of Hinduism would be one of those situations.

P.S. I find it extremely ironic that you're here preaching against being discriminatory yet it was you who attempted to dismiss the OP as an "obvious troll" and attempted to imply that I shouldn't be "attacking" the people who disagree with him...

All I did at first was post a single line summarizing my position. You urged me to explain myself further.

I never intended to 'dismiss' the OP, but it is obviously a troll post ... or a very young and confused atheist who no longer cares about his thread.

I didn't imply you should or should not be doing anything, I just asked you if thats all that you were doing, because thats how it looks.

Discrimination is discrimination. Its not the name calling I was referring to, it is the desire to control others.

Specifically that Hinduism should be "brought down".



Read what you yourself wrote:

Discrimination will only end when we stop discriminating. Saying "Hindus are fucking retarded" because their beliefs are different then my own would be no less discriminating then their caste system.

You are clearly talking about the name calling as well (i.e. "Saying Hindus are fucker retarded") and equating that to the discrimination of the Hindu caste system.


I did not say they would. It may be impossible to completely rid a society of discrimination, but there are laws in place to attempt to curb it. Making a thread on totse complaining about it is not going to end discrimination either, and neither would "bringing down" Hinduism. Perpetuating the belief that Hinduism is evil and should be brought down is discriminating itself.


The OP didn't claim that the discrimination would magically end with this thread either, nor did he say there was no laws attemoting to curbe it. The existence of laws doesn't answer his point.

The thread attempts to point out the discrmination inherent in the Hindu caste system and paints it in a negative light. Again, it is the equivalent of speaking against the KKK even though there are laws against the discrimination of blacks or Jews. The existence of laws doesn't mean that the discrimination doesn't happen or that the KKK is good.

Moreover, even if we accept that saying Hinduism must be brought down is "discrminating", that isn't telling much. Saying that we want to bring down such things as the Imperial system in India, or the segregationist system in the U.S (as Ghandi and MLK did) would be "discriminating" by that logic, however, that doesn't refute their nobel intent or any positive results.

He said Hinduism is an evil cult that should be brought down.


Yes: that he would like to see it stopped. I would like to see no racism, however I would protect the right of people to hold racist beliefs.


I don't see any Hindu's in this thread suggesting that you must believe in reincarnation.

Since you seem to have taken over the OP's position, I'll ask you: why should Hindu's not be allowed to believe in reincarnation?


Who said they had? I said that the OP called reincarnation stupid and I gave a reason why someone could call it stupid. That's it. It's you who's now claiming things about what people "must belive" or not.

As for your question, it's a misleading one. At no point in time have I taken the position that Hindu's should not be allowed to believe in reincarnation. In fact, neither did the OP - that's simply your baseless accusation.

So taking down the so called 'evil cult' that is Hinduism (which is the change the OP wants to make) is positive?

If it means that it ends the discrimination and the disinformation inherent in Hinduism.. maybe. Of course, that also depends on how we define "taking down" which could include anything from violence to simple peaceful disobeidence and arguementation. Which road taken would influence any claim to it being positive.


I never said anyone was making anyone do anything. I said that I think it applies to those situation, and the OP's desire to bring down the so called evil cult of Hinduism would be one of those situations.

You said:

" By attempting to take it down, I would be attempting to control others myself. I think it applies to any attempt to make others see the world my way. You won't tear down the walls that divide us by adding to them."

You accused the OP of wanting to take down Hinduism, and you said that "by attempting to take it down you would be attempting to control others". How is that not you saying that the OP was attempting to control others, and thus attempting to make others "see the world his way"?

I never intended to 'dismiss' the OP, but it is obviously a troll post

Please, not even you believe that load of bullshit. There would be absolutely no point in mentioning that he's a troll aside from wanting to be dismissive. Unless you like to provide useless opinion... [I]you troll.

Dude, you try way too fucking hard. I'm not going to continue on with this - I don't really care!

Enjoy defending this trolls hate thread.

Ha! Replying to someone is "trying too hard" for you? Well that's just fucking sad. :eek:


P.S. I'm not defending a hate thread, contrary to your dishonest portrayal. I'm defending legitimate points raised therein: The discrimination inherent in the Indian caste system, and the lack of any evidence meaningful evidence regarding reincarnation.

No, I just don't care to reply to all that. I said you try too hard.

But I would like to reply to your postscript.

I'm not defending a hate thread, contrary to your dishonest portrayal. I'm defending legitimate points raised therein: The discrimination inherent in the Indian caste system, and the lack of any evidence meaningful evidence regarding reincarnation.

Then why have you been arguing what the OP's intentions are with me?

ANY system that designates both desired and undesired roles allows discrimination to exist, but it is not the allowance of discrimination that creates discrimination. Here, in America, I am allowed to call people spics, niggers, kikes, whops, goombas, gooks, chinks, rednecks, redskins, trailer trash...and that's just the verbal expression of racial discrimination. Nevermind that I'm allowed to freely spend my money on any political cause...the KKK, NAMBLA, NORML, NAACP. Those are monetary expressions of discrimination. I can take people to court...I could even decide to only sue blacks that piss me off while forgiving the whites that offend me. And there are PLENTY of people who champion that very behavior in this country.

I am told to stay clear of the povert; my own race speaks hatred of other races in their absence; the church tells me to stay away from the unbelievers; the unbelievers tell me to stay away from the church...there's a million different systems in this world that attempt to form our mind into a judge: "There is good and evil, and you must be good, so stay away from evil...and oh yeah, let US tell you exactly what that evil is so you hate the right thing."

Not only am I pushed constantly towards hating people, but I'm allowed to do it! I live within a system that attempts to perpetuate discrimination just as much as Hinduism does within India. Still though, it only exists by my hand if I decide to buy into the hatred. I wish I were perfect in this one aspect, but I do fall into hatred.

I do judge other races, I do judge women, I do judge the non-believer. But that I have done these things does not make them right or just...that I am allowed to do it does not make it responsible. That I am told to do it does not make it acceptable. It falls upon me as my own responsibility to work more and more towards an unconditional love for all mankind. It is MY responsibility to quit believing the lie, not the world's to quit speaking it.

Good post Hex. The last line is very good.

No, I just don't care to reply to all that. I said you try too hard.

But I would like to reply to your postscript.

I know what you said, try reading what I said and the context of it:

The only thing I've done in this thread that could remotely be linked to "effort" is reply to people. You said I try too hard, thus you must deem "replying to people" hard. Hence: Replying to someone is "trying too hard" for you?



Then why have you been arguing what the OP's intentions are with me?

Because you've been attributing intentions baselessly? Me arguing intentions doesn't mean I am defending a hate thread as you so dishonestly said.

first of all, shithead, if you claim that hindus are "fucking retarded" please explain why over 900 million people subject to this faith. reincarnation is not a "stupid idea". it is only a theory of what could happen to you after you die. same like when you go to heaven or hell. if you feel like that hindus theory of life after death is too idiotic, then please try to kill yourself because there nothing you can do about it.


"900 million" people believe it because they, as with the majority of most people belonging to any given religion, are born into it. They don't know any different. The only reason there's so many is because India is overpopulated.

The only retarded things in hinduism I see are:

too much conservatism ie. holy cows taking over cities, taking a crap wherever they like.
Just plain fucking dumb, as it has an effect on the whole populace. One hindu said to me "You do not sleep in here, therefor it doesn't have to be clean", and so he was called 'the lazy guy' at my workplace because according to him keeping places clean is wasting time.

Also, anything with a caste system is doubly retarded, if the castes are utter bullshit (born into a caste, cannot touch a person from a lower caste).

Well, any religion that is even slightly strict (Hinduism, Christianity etc.) is bullshit to me, it's just following retarded and imaginary rules.

Excellent points, as usual Rust has the debate in fucking spades, and had it 3 pages ago. What I enjoyed the most was this little gem right here.....

What I find funny is how many people have complained about the atheists of this board, and how they supposedly concentrate on Christianity only - those complaining usually claim the atheists do so because they are rebelling against their Christian family or something similar - yet when we have a thread discussing another religion, these very same people don't do anything to attempt to discuss any legitimate points that have been made therein. They do the oppossite.

Spot on.

Which has what do do with the fact that nobody called reincarnation speci.al and that the topic was Hinduism and thus reincarnation would be likely discussed? Nothing? Great. I'm glad we agree you were wrong in implying anybody had called reincarnation special.

How about the fact that your sole argument for it was that this was a hindu discussion thread? I was merely stating the fact that any life after death theory is bullshit, and none should take bullshit preference over the other since it cannot be known what happens, except the brain stops functioning. He stated that reincarnation is "stupider" than the 30 million gods they believe in, to me this is saying that it is the bag that holds the most manure. However, this point doesn't matter at all.



"It's common sense" is a weak argument. I can say it's common sense that he has the right to be as intolerant as he wants.

And no, whether they actually follow it or not is not "besides the point" that is absolutely crucial to the point: If they don't follow what they preach then it's quite obvious they don't truly believe "that intolerance is intolerable" but only that people should tolerate what they believe and nothing else!
In any case, if it's agreed that "intolerance is intolerable", then all the more reason to speak out against Hinduism which perpetuates a prejudiced system in the first place!


So were some of your arguments, you aren't blameless either, so don't complain. Sure he can criticize any religion however much he wants, but conspiring against it is idiotic, let the religion live out what it has left, let it die on it's own.



You can "bring down the evil cult" in a number of ways; physical violence is not the only sole option. So the only thing we do have - the only thing that is not rampant speculation on your part - is that the OP made a post criticizing Hinduism. That's it.


What are some of these ways to bring down the evil cult? As I said, he can criticize as much and as sloppily as he wants, but attempting to force his beliefs on someone, through bringing down the "evil cult" is idiotic and wrong, not including annoying. It isn't rampant speculation, it was an obvious troll post and his stated intentions are obvious, which is the point in trolling.


How the fuck was I illiterate? I know you also used the word "extremist" and the same applies there as well: those are labels you throw around to dismiss what you disagree with.That's the only argument you gave: you called it militant atheism and then tried to poison the well by linking it with "extremist" things.


Define dismiss, because I'm not dismissing anything in my opinion. My bad, I took militant atheism by its name, "militant" atheism. It actually means(to those who are falling into the same trap I did) atheists who stand up for their beliefs, ie: stating their atheist views, fighting to keep separation of church and state, etc. Looks like you dismiss extremist things too if you think that extremist things poison the well.


And please refrain from speaking about "my logic" because clearly you aren't even close to comprehending it. My "logic" simply says that it's fine for someone to make a post criticizing another religion; which is the only form of "attack" that has taken place. At no point in time have I said that it's okay to physically attack someone, if that's what you're implying.


As I have stated before, his post is perfectly fine, except for his stated intent for attack.


And you dare talk about illiterate?

If the belief you're defending is so weak that a post on the internet - the only thing that has happened - constitutes an attack, then that belief is pathetic.


I am not a hindu, which is why this makes no sense. And again, as I have repeatedly stated, which you can't seem to comprehend, is that the problem isn't his post, but his stated intent for attack, be it physical, spiritual(lolwut?), verbal, whatever else there is. It would be pointless to carry out any such attack because it wouldn't accomplish anything anyway.


I know what the context is/was and I didn't take it out of context.

Here lets add the context and see if it changes anything: You said that the caste system "barely appropriates discrimination in the negative direction" and that there were laws in place against such discrimination. AM gave an example of a brutal attack against a member of the lower caste, thus putting into question that "barely" adjective you used. You said that blacks are discriminated against in the U.S. even though there are laws. That's the context. Does it change anything I said? No.

The fact that laws against discrimination exist does not refute the point that the discrimination does exist (what the OP was saying and AM was showing with his example) and is perpetuated by the Hindu beliefs in such a caste system. That's the point.

Way to go and still not use the full context, read the full exchange. You also used a different quote from me, then what I was arguing against in that post, although that changes little. The point was that discrimination won't stop suddenly because of a few laws, and it takes time for it to stop entirely, but it begins with laws. I believe I have said this before.

How about the fact that your sole argument for it was that this was a hindu discussion thread? I was merely stating the fact that any life after death theory is bullshit, and none should take bullshit preference over the other since it cannot be known what happens, except the brain stops functioning. He stated that reincarnation is "stupider" than the 30 million gods they believe in, to me this is saying that it is the bag that holds the most manure. However, this point doesn't matter at all.

No, the point is that nobody was calling it special, nor treating it special. I called it unsubstantiated bullshit, and it is. The reason why it was mentioned was because this thread deals with the beliefs in Hinduism. Hence asking this question " So is every other theory about life after death, why does reincarnation need to be special?" is absurd because nobody treated it special amongst other "theories about life after death".


So were some of your arguments. Sure he can criticize any religion however much he wants, but conspiring against it is idiotic, let the religion live out what it has left, let it die on it's own.

Whether you think it's idiotic or not is irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss your opinion of what you conveniently think is "idiotic" about the OP.

The point is you said he didn't have a right to attack it. He does. He has the right to attack it verbally just like he did. Anything else (e.g. you thinking he's conspiring some sort of violent attack against Hinduism) is pure speculation on your part because at no point did he say he wanted violence.

What are some of these ways to bring down the evil cult? As I said, he can criticize as much and as sloppily as he wants, but attempting to force his beliefs on someone, through bringing down the "evil cult" is idiotic and wrong, not including annoying. It isn't rampant speculation, it was an obvious troll post and his stated intentions are obvious, which is the point in trolling.


No, it is rampant speculation because at no point in time does he explicitly say any of the outrageous things you're accusing him of! Show me where he said he would do anything else other than verbally attack the religion... You can't. Why? He did not.

At worse he said he wanted to see it taken down, which does not necessarily mean violently.

Moreover, you calling him a troll doesn't help your case as that's all the more reason not to take any of the supposed threats you are claiming he made seriously.



Define dismiss, because I'm not dismissing anything in my opinion. My bad, I took militant atheism by its name, "militant" atheism. It actually means(to those who are falling into the same trap I did) atheists who stand up for their beliefs, ie: stating their atheist views, fighting to keep separation of church and state, etc. Looks like you dismiss extremist things too if you think that extremist things poison the well.

Wrong. That simply means that I understand that so many people do use the label "extremist' conveniently to dismiss other stuff thus correctly called you on it when you did it.

As for defining dismiss, you are associating "Militant Atheism" as wrong/bad merely by the adjectives you decided to use.

As I have stated before, his post is perfectly fine, except for his stated intent for attack.


Saying "I think we atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult" is in no way an "intention to attack"; at least not physically. I can "bring down" oppressive movements/systems through non-violence, like MLK or Ghandi.


I am not a hindu, which is why this makes no sense. And again, as I have repeatedly stated, which you can't seem to comprehend, is that the problem isn't his post, but his stated intent for attack, be it physical, spiritual(lolwut?), verbal, whatever else there is. It would be pointless to carry out any such attack because it wouldn't accomplish anything anyway.


I didn't call you a Hindu, nor do you have to be a Hindu for my argument to make sense. So again, please don't call me illiterate when you can't make sense of a simple sentence.

And again, as I have repeatedly stated, which you can't seem to comprehend, is that he never explicitly stated any intention to "attack" in any way other than verbally. You might think attacking verbally is pointless... great... who cares? Sorry but I'm not here to discuss what you think is stupid, idiotic or pointless.

The important point is that, contrary to your claim, he has the right to attack Hinduism the way he did as much as he wants. He wouldn't have the right to attack Hindus physically... but he didn't say he would.


Way to go and still not use the full context, read the full exchange. You also used a different quote from me, then what I was arguing against in that post, although that changes little. The point was that discrimination won't stop suddenly because of a few laws, and it takes time for it to stop entirely, but it begins with laws. I believe I have said this before.


If you think I didn't use the full context then show me what relevant part - something that would refute what I said - I left out. Do so or kindly spare me the bullshit and admit that the fact of what I said remains: nobody disputes that laws exist against the discrimination, that still changes nothing of what the OP said or AM said.

No, the point is that nobody was calling it special, nor treating it special. I called it unsubstantiated bullshit, and it is. The reason why it was mentioned was because this thread deals with the beliefs in Hinduism. Hence asking this question " So is every other theory about life after death, why does reincarnation need to be special?" is absurd because nobody treated it special amongst other "theories about life after death".



Again, I said this point doesn't even matter.


Whether you think it's idiotic or not is irrelevant. I'm not here to discuss your opinion of what you conveniently think is "idiotic" about the OP.

The point is you said he didn't have a right to attack it. He does. He has the right to attack it verbally just like he did. Anything else (e.g. you thinking he's conspiring some sort of violent attack against Hinduism) is pure speculation on your part because at no point did he say he wanted violence.

Who gave him the right? You did? An argument used by you, earlier. This is pure speculation on your part, I in no way, shape, or form did I say he was going to perform a violent attack against Hinduism.


No, it is rampant speculation because at no point in time does he explicitly say any of the outrageous things you're accusing him of! Show me where he said he would do anything else other than verbally attack the religion... You can't. Why? He did not.

At worse he said he wanted to see it taken down, which does not necessarily mean violently.

Moreover, you calling him a troll doesn't help your case as that's all the more reason not to take any of the supposed threats you are claiming he made seriously.

More speculation on you part. He never said what type of attack he was going to attempt. It doesn't necessarily mean violence, but it doesn't rule it out, does it? I'm just arguing a point.


Wrong. That simply means that I understand that so many people do use the label "extremist' conveniently to dismiss other stuff thus correctly called you on it when you did it.

As for defining dismiss, you are associating "Militant Atheism" as wrong/bad merely by the adjectives you decided to use.

Extremist ideological groups(specifically of the religious kind) are wrong because they try to force their beliefs on someone else, this violates his right to think what he wants. This is wrong/bad. I apologize for my lack of clarity in that post, I meant to carry on and say I didn't mean to be discussing Militant Atheism, but rather a more extreme form of militant atheism. You will find the reason for my fault in the previous post.


Saying "I think we atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult" is in no way an "intention to attack"; at least not physically. I can "bring down" oppressive movements/systems through non-violence, like MLK or Ghandi.

Yes, but oppressive movements and systems aren't ingrained beliefs. I'm sure he wouldn't waste his time and he would want to succeed. Boycotting a Hindu temple will probably have the opposite desired effect. He would have to take a more aggressive(not necessarily physical) approach.


I didn't call you a Hindu, nor do you have to be a Hindu for my argument to make sense. So again, please don't call me illiterate when you can't make sense of a simple sentence.

And again, as I have repeatedly stated, which you can't seem to comprehend, is that he never explicitly stated any intention to "attack" in any way other than verbally. You might think attacking verbally is pointless... great... who cares? Sorry but I'm not here to discuss what you think is stupid, idiotic or pointless.

The important point is that, contrary to your claim, he has the right to attack Hinduism the way he did as much as he wants. He wouldn't have the right to attack Hindus physically... but he didn't say he would.


Yes, it does. You said that if my belief was so weak that his post would be perceived as an attack on it, but 1)it doesn't and 2)I would have to be hindu for his post to offend me.

Again you aren't comprehending. The post isn't the attack the intent to attack is what I have a problem with. Stop speculating on what he will and will not do, he didn't say how he was going to attack them, and that needs more clarification. He has the right to criticize Hinduism as much as he wants.


If you think I didn't use the full context then show me what relevant part - something that would refute what I said - I left out. Do so or kindly spare me the bullshit and admit that the fact of what I said remains: nobody disputes that laws exist against the discrimination, that still changes nothing of what the OP said or AM said.

Um, this part maybe They are protected under Indian law, and discrimination is beginning to stop, much like discrimination against blacks in the US is slowing to a stop. It doesn't happen all at once.. Which is what the point that I was making.

Again, I said this point doesn't even matter.

Of course it doesn't matter to you, you look foolish!

You now look even more foolish, since I was already wanting to end the discussion on this point, when I said: "I'm glad we agree then, that asking why "Reincarnation is special" when nobody even said it was special and when any "special" focus it has been given is because of the topic of the thread, is silly."

Don't blame me because you continued the discussion.


Who gave him the right? You did? An argument used by you, earlier. This is pure speculation on your part, I in no way, shape, or form did I say he was going to perform a violent attack against Hinduism.

Are even following the discussion? This was already dealt with. Try to keep up.

You said he didn't have the right to attack it. I responded with:

"And just who the hell decided it's not his right to attack it? You did? He has the right to attack whatever he chooses; a right given to him by this forum. Any other "Right" (i.e. it being prudent or not, it being good or not, etc.) is your completely arbitrary and convenient designation."


So this question of yours is already answered: this forum gives him the right to verbally attack any religion he wants to.

More speculation on you part. He never said what type of attack he was going to attempt. It doesn't necessarily mean violence, but it doesn't rule it out, does it? I'm just arguing a point.

How the fuck am I speculating anything? I'm not. I'm stating a fact: at no point in time did he ever explicitly state he was wanted Hinduism to be violently attacked. That's not speculation, that's true... you even admit as much by saying " It doesn't necessarily mean violence"!

The only one speculating here is you, who admits it doesn't necessarily mean violence yet keep arguing "a point" that he doesn't have the right to attack it (which either means "attack it verbally" - and thus you're completely wrong because he does have that right - or it means "attack it violently" and thus you're speculating).


Extremist ideological groups(specifically of the religious kind) are wrong because they try to force their beliefs on someone else, this violates his right to think what he wants. This is wrong/bad. I apologize for my lack of clarity in that post, I meant to carry on and say I didn't mean to be discussing Militant Atheism, but rather a more extreme form of militant atheism. You will find the reason for my fault in the previous post.

Except the OP didn't "violate [anyone's] right to think what he wants! The only thing he did was insult the religion, and bring some points against it. At no point in time does that "violate" anyone's right. A violent attack might... which he didn't do, nor did he say he would do explicitly. Again, if you're saying he is planning a violent attack, that's your speculation.

Yes, but oppressive movements and systems aren't ingrained beliefs. I'm sure he wouldn't waste his time and he would want to succeed. Boycotting a Hindu temple will probably have the opposite desired effect. He would have to take a more aggressive(not necessarily physical) approach.

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I don't care whether you think it's useful or not. He doesn't have to do the things you think are fruitful or not, nor is that relevant here.

The point I was making (and apparently you agree with it but for some unknown reason can't just simply say "I agree" and have to provide some irrelevant commentary) is that his statements don't necessarily mean a violent attack because the only thing he said "atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult" could easily be a non-violent call against Hinduism.



Yes, it does. You said that if my belief was so weak that his post would be perceived as an attack on it, but 1)it doesn't and 2)I would have to be hindu for his post to offend me.


Not it doesn't. Learn to read.

I said:

"If your position (or the one you are defending) is so weak that a shitty post on the internet from someone expressing his opinions somehow constitutes an "attack" or being "pushed a belief on" then your belief (or the one you're defending) is pretty fucking pathetic."


You called what he did an attack, and "pushing a belief on". If you consider what he did - which is provide a few insults - to be "pushing a belief on you" then your belief ( OR THE ONE YOU ARE DEFENDING) is pathetic.

Again you aren't comprehending. The post isn't the attack the intent to attack is what I have a problem with. Stop speculating on what he will and will not do, he didn't say how he was going to attack them, and that needs more clarification. He has the right to criticize Hinduism as much as he wants.

Are you even reading your own post? Read what you just said there again please.

"...the intent to attack is what I have a problem with" immediately followed by "Stop speculating on what he will and will not do, he didn't say how he was going to attack them, and that needs more clarification"

It's you who's claiming the "intent to attack" is a problem! He either intents to attack verbally - which he as a right to do - or he intends to attack physically - which is pure speculation. Neither of those possibilities helps you. You're either speculating wildly if you're suggesting it's a physical attack, or just plain wrong if you're suggesting he doesn't have the right to verbally attack.


Which is what the point that I was making.

A point that doesn't contradict what the OP or AM said! Nobody is claiming that violence/discrimination must stop immediately after laws are in place! AM was simply giving you an very strong indication of the discrimination that happens there after you said it's "barely in the negative direction".

Do you understand? You said discrimination was "barely in the negative direction". AM provided evidence that seemed to contradict that. You responded with the equivalent of "There are laws in place against that". ... So what? Nobody denies there are laws in place against that, nor is anyone saying that discrimination must cease to exist immediately after they are put in place.

Of course it doesn't matter to you, you look foolish!

You now look even more foolish, since I was already wanting to end the discussion on this point, when I said: "I'm glad we agree then, that asking why "Reincarnation is special" when nobody even said it was special and when any "special" focus it has been given is because of the topic of the thread, is silly."

Don't blame me because you continued the discussion.


How about when I agreed with you a few posts ago. You look foolish.


Are even following the discussion? This was already dealt with. Try to keep up.

You said he didn't have the right to attack it. I responded with:

"And just who the hell decided it's not his right to attack it? You did? He has the right to attack whatever he chooses; a right given to him by this forum. Any other "Right" (i.e. it being prudent or not, it being good or not, etc.) is your completely arbitrary and convenient designation."


So this question of yours is already answered: this forum gives him the right to verbally attack any religion he wants to.



Again, I said his intent to attack is what bothered me. Who are you to say that this forum gives him that right? Are you Jeff Hunter? It doesn't say that he has the right to verbally attack(which I don't think he did in his post) any religion he wants to in the forum description.


How the fuck am I speculating anything? I'm not. I'm stating a fact: at no point in time did he ever explicitly state he was wanted Hinduism to be violently attacked. That's not speculation, that's true... you even admit as much by saying " It doesn't necessarily mean violence"!

The only one speculating here is you, who admits it doesn't necessarily mean violence yet keep arguing "a point" that he doesn't have the right to attack it (which either means "attack it verbally" - and thus you're completely wrong because he does have that right - or it means "attack it violently" and thus you're speculating).


If You keep ignoring parts of my discussion, I am going to stop discussing. How do you know he won't attack anybody physically? I never said he would, did I? But you keep insisting that I did. If he verbally attacks Hinduism verbally(which is going out to the hindu people or websites) and that is harassment. That is the only way he can verbally attack Hinduism, because posting on this forum sure isn't going to bring down shit.


Except the OP didn't "violate [anyone's] right to think what he wants! The only thing he did was insult the religion, and bring some points against it. At no point in time does that "violate" anyone's right. A violent attack might... which he didn't do, nor did he say he would do explicitly. Again, if you're saying he is planning a violent attack, that's your speculation.


If you can't comprehend what I continually reiterate, I am going to stop repeating it. I never said he did. His intent is though. You cannot deny that. He stated that he wanted to bring down Hinduism which would entail violating a person's right to believe in it.


What the fuck does that have to do with anything? I don't care whether you think it's useful or not. He doesn't have to do the things you think are fruitful or not, nor is that relevant here.

The point I was making (and apparently you agree with it but for some unknown reason can't just simply say "I agree" and have to provide some irrelevant commentary) is that his statements don't necessarily mean a violent attack because the only thing he said "atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult" could easily be a non-violent call against Hinduism.


It has to do with defining what he would do. No one is going to waste their time like that. Define the non-violent call against Hinduism. How would it be accomplished?


Not it doesn't. Learn to read.

I said:

"If your position (or the one you are defending) is so weak that a shitty post on the internet from someone expressing his opinions somehow constitutes an "attack" or being "pushed a belief on" then your belief (or the one you're defending) is pretty fucking pathetic."


You called what he did an attack, and "pushing a belief on". If you consider what he did - which is provide a few insults - to be "pushing a belief on you" then your belief ( OR THE ONE YOU ARE DEFENDING) is pathetic.


Then that just proves you are illiterate, because I have stated many times that his intent to attack was what bothered me, not his post. Please try to comprehend this. And attempting to call my position pathetic doesn't help your argument at all.


Are you even reading your own post? Read what you just said there again please.

"...the intent to attack is what I have a problem with" immediately followed by "Stop speculating on what he will and will not do, he didn't say how he was going to attack them, and that needs more clarification"

It's you who's claiming the "intent to attack" is a problem! He either intents to attack verbally - which he as a right to do - or he intends to attack physically - which is pure speculation. Neither of those possibilities helps you. You're either speculating wildly if you're suggesting it's a physical attack, or just plain wrong if you're suggesting he doesn't have the right to verbally attack.

He never said what he was going to do. Verbally attacking would be harassment. What he did was sloppily criticize Hinduism and state an intent to attack it.


A point that doesn't contradict what the OP or AM said! Nobody is claiming that violence/discrimination must stop immediately after laws are in place! AM was simply giving you an very strong indication of the discrimination that happens there after you said it's "barely in the negative direction".

Do you understand? You said discrimination was "barely in the negative direction". AM provided evidence that seemed to contradict that. You responded with the equivalent of "There are laws in place against that". ... So what? Nobody denies there are laws in place against that, nor is anyone saying that discrimination must cease to exist immediately after they are put in place.

I was arguing against what you said in this post So what? That isn't a defense... "Your Honor, other people around the world rape..." isn't a positive defense of sexual abuse.

There being discrimination in the U.S. is all the more reason why people should be speaking out against it! Speaking of the discrimination in the Hindu caste system, in a thread about Hinduism, seems a like a good start...
You said it wasn't a good defense, I said you took it out of context, and then you changed your argument.

How about when I agreed with you a few posts ago. You look foolish.

Where exactly did you did that? Because on the matter of calling reincarnation special, you have not agreed with me that I can see. You said something that had nothing to do with what I said ("It's a hate post, not a discussion thread, although I will agree that it does generate discussion.") and I reiterated that it was a silly question to ask ("Which has what do do with the fact that nobody called reincarnation special and that the topic was Hinduism and thus reincarnation would be likely discussed? Nothing? Great. I'm glad we agree you were wrong in implying anybody had called reincarnation special.").



If You keep ignoring parts of my discussion, I am going to stop discussing. How do you know he won't attack anybody physically? I never said he would, did I? But you keep insisting that I did. If he verbally attacks Hinduism verbally(which is going out to the hindu people or websites) and that is harassment. That is the only way he can verbally attack Hinduism, because posting on this forum sure isn't going to bring down shit.

I'm not ignoring anything:

1. I don't know he won't attack anybody. That's why I didn't say he wouldn't. Get it? On the issue of whether or not he would attack someone physically I haven't made a claim either way. I merely stated a fact: He hasn't said he would physically attack anyone.

2. While you maybe haven't literally said "He said he would physically attack someone" your statement was that he doesn't have the right to attack Hinduism.

You either meant that he plans to attack it verbally - which means you are wrong because he does have the right to attack it verbally (and your claim regarding harassment is also wrong not only because that's not his sole recourse, but also because going to websites and speaking or being insulting isn't harassment) - or you meant he plans to attack it physically - which is pure speculation.



If you can't comprehend what I continually reiterate, I am going to stop repeating it. I never said he did. His intent is though. You cannot deny that. He stated that he wanted to bring down Hinduism which would entail violating a person's right to believe in it.

No, you can't claim his intent is to do so, that's the whole fucking point! Since he hasn't violated anyone's rights and since he hasn't stated that he will, claiming that his intent is to do so is pure speculation on your part.

It has to do with defining what he would do. No one is going to waste their time like that. Define the non-violent call against Hinduism. How would it be accomplished?

I don't have to define it because I'm not here to argue in favor of it. I'm saying that's a possibility. Whether it be misguided or futile is another point all together. He might not be aware that it's futile, or you might be wrong in calling it a waste of time in the first place.

You can't say "Oh, nobody could hold that belief because it's silly". Yes they could. So even if we agree with you - for the sake of argument - that it would be a waste of time, you just can't conclude that "nobody would waste their time like that". What the fuck do you know?



Then that just proves you are illiterate, because I have stated many times that his intent to attack was what bothered me, not his post. Please try to comprehend this. And attempting to call my position pathetic doesn't help your argument at all

No, it proves you are illiterate since what I've already explained to you is that all your claims regarding "his intent to attack" are pure speculation! The only thing we have as of now is his post and the insults contained therein. Nothing else.


He never said what he was going to do. Verbally attacking would be harassment. What he did was sloppily criticize Hinduism and state an intent to attack it.

Verbally attacking someone isn't harassment in and of itself. Learn what harassment is before you start using it in arguments please.


You said it wasn't a good defense, I said you took it out of context, and then you changed your argument.

I didn't change my argument. It's not a good defense preciesly because it doesn't contradict anything AM or the OP said!

Where exactly did you did that? Because on the matter of calling reincarnation special, you have not agreed with me that I can see. You said something that had nothing to do with what I said ("It's a hate post, not a discussion thread, although I will agree that it does generate discussion.") and I reiterated that it was a silly question to ask ("Which has what do do with the fact that nobody called reincarnation special and that the topic was Hinduism and thus reincarnation would be likely discussed? Nothing? Great. I'm glad we agree you were wrong in implying anybody had called reincarnation special.").

If I agree with you that it generates discussion, that means I agree with your argument.


I'm not ignoring anything:

1. I don't know he won't attack anybody. That's why I didn't say he wouldn't. Get it? On the issue of whether or not he would attack someone physically I haven't made a claim either way. I merely stated a fact: He hasn't said he would physically attack anyone.

2. While you maybe haven't literally said "He said he would physically attack someone" your statement was that he doesn't have the right to attack Hinduism.

You either meant that he plans to attack it verbally - which means you are wrong because he does have the right to attack it verbally (and your claim regarding harassment is also wrong not only because that's not his sole recourse, but also because going to websites and speaking or being insulting isn't harassment) - or you meant he plans to attack it physically - which is pure speculation.


We both keep speculating. You keep saying that it might be a non-violent call, or not. We can't know that, so I guess arguing this point is moot. He can go to websites and criticize all he wants. But if he goes to a hindu website and verbally attacks it in the forums, he would be banned for harassment. Verbal attacking isn't definitely defined, so it can definitely entail harassment.


No, you can't claim his intent is to do so, that's the whole fucking point! Since he hasn't violated anyone's rights and since he hasn't stated that he will, claiming that his intent is to do so is pure speculation on your part.

He stated that he wants to bring hinduism down, which means he expresses a desire to make people not believe in it anymore.


I don't have to define it because I'm not here to argue in favor of it. I'm saying that's a possibility. Whether it be misguided or futile is another point all together. He might not be aware that it's futile, or you might be wrong in calling it a waste of time in the first place.

You can't say "Oh, nobody could hold that belief because it's silly". Yes they could. So even if we agree with you - for the sake of argument - that it would be a waste of time, you just can't conclude that "nobody would waste their time like that". What the fuck do you know?

I am asking you to define it because I don't understand what a non-violent attack(maybe not the best word) against hinduism would entail. Would be like normal non-violence movements?


No, it proves you are illiterate since what I've already explained to you is that all your claims regarding "his intent to attack" are pure speculation! The only thing we have as of now is his post and the insults contained therein. Nothing else.

No, he has stated that he wishes to take action against Hinduism. To bring down the cult.


Verbally attacking someone isn't harassment in and of itself. Learn what harassment is before you start using it in arguments please.

Verbal attacks aren't defined and can entail harassment. Harassment is persistent words, conduct or actions directed at an individual that badger, annoy, threaten or cause substantial emotional distress, word for word.


I didn't change my argument. It's not a good defense preciesly because it doesn't contradict anything AM or the OP said!

One case of discrimination is hardly an indication that it is wide spread.(although it is common in small villages). The bigger cities are much less discriminatory and it is disappearing. AM didn't even say much, he gave a case of discrimination. My rebuttal was that it happens and it is going to take time to stop.

If I agree with you that it generates discussion, that means I agree with your argument.

Maybe in your weird world, but "It generates discussion" does not mean "Yes, you are correct that nobody called reincarnation special". Not even close.


We both keep speculating. You keep saying that it might be a non-violent call, or not. We can't know that, so I guess arguing this point is moot. He can go to websites and criticize all he wants. But if he goes to a hindu website and verbally attacks it in the forums, he would be banned for harassment. Verbal attacking isn't definitely defined, so it can definitely entail harassment.

1. No, I do not keep speculating. That it might be a non-violent call isn't really speculation, it follows from what we know (or don't know). We cannot rule it out, hence, as far as we know, it's a possibility. That's not speculation; at least not of his intents. It's saying X hasn't been ruled out, thus we should maintain X as a possibility.

2. Verbally attacking might entail harassment, sure. It might not. This doesn't help your case. And no, going to a Hindu website and verbally attacking someone does not mean he would be harassing them necessarily.


He stated that he wants to bring hinduism down, which means he expresses a desire to make people not believe in it anymore.

No, not "make". That's something you added.

I would like to see a world where nobody is racist. That doesn't mean I have to force people not to be racist. I could merely be very hopeful, or a big dreamer.


I am asking you to define it because I don't understand what a non-violent attack(maybe not the best word) against hinduism would entail. Would be like normal non-violence movements?

What it would entail isn't really important. We don't have to agree what it is. We have to agree that it is possible. Call it X. The point still stands.


No, he has stated that he wishes to take action against Hinduism. To bring down the cult.

Yes, and exactly what that entails (i.e. if it means he wishes to violate people's rights or not) is pure speculation.


Verbal attacks aren't defined and can entail harassment. Harassment is persistent words, conduct or actions directed at an individual that badger, annoy, threaten or cause substantial emotional distress, word for word.

So? "Could" or "Can" doesn't refute the point. The same still applies: either he plans on doing A which is completely within his rights (let's say this A is any and all verbal attacks that aren't illegal) or B which everything that is not A (so, illegal verbal attacks and illegal physical attacks and anything else that doesn't fall into A).

Either you're suggesting that he is planning on doing A, thus you're wrong in saying he doesn't have that right, or you're saying that he's planning on doing B which would still be speculation!


Here's a hint: Claiming he's doing anything specifically is speculation. So you saying he doesn't have the right to attack, is already speculating that he is going to do something which he doesn't have the right to do!



One case of discrimination is hardly an indication that it is wide spread.(although it is common in small villages). The bigger cities are much less discriminatory and it is disappearing. AM didn't even say much, he gave a case of discrimination. My rebuttal was that it happens and it is going to take time to stop.

Now that, would be an actual reply to AM. Saying "There are laws against discrimination" was not. It didn't contradict anything AM said because AM didn't deny that there might have been laws. I'm glad we agree.

Though of course, now you have to substantiate that claim to begin with.

Maybe in your weird world, but "It generates discussion" does not mean "Yes, you are correct that nobody called reincarnation special". Not even close.

It does when your argument was that it isn't special to hear about reincarnation in a hindu discussion thread. I agreed it generated discussion, which means it is a hindu discussion thread, which means it isn't special to hear about reincarnation in a hindu discussion thread. Need anything else spelled out for you?


1. No, I do not keep speculating. That it might be a non-violent call isn't really speculation
lolwut? It isn't really speculation? Yes it is. We don't know exactly what he meant.

, it follows from what we know (or don't know).
Exactly, we don't know anything about it.

We cannot rule it out, hence, as far as we know, it's a possibility.
Which means it's speculation. Everything is a possibility.

That's not speculation; at least not of his intents. It's saying X hasn't been ruled out, thus we should maintain X as a possibility.

You said it might be a non-violent call. Which is speculation of what his intents might be.


2. Verbally attacking might entail harassment, sure. It might not. This doesn't help your case. And no, going to a Hindu website and verbally attacking someone does not mean he would be harassing them necessarily.

Yes it does, according to the definition of the word. Persistent words, conduct or actions directed at an individual that badger, annoy, threaten or cause substantial emotional distress. It would badger them certainly.(EDIT damn it I did it again.)

No, not "make". That's something you added.

I would like to see a world where nobody is racist. That doesn't mean I have to force people not to be racist. I could merely be very hopeful, or a big dreamer.

Then what would be bringing down hinduism? He said atheists should focus on bringing it down. Not that he would like to see a world without it.

What it would entail isn't really important. We don't have to agree what it is. We have to agree that it is possible. Call it X. The point still stands.

It is actually just for me. I just want to know.


Yes, and exactly what that entails (i.e. if it means he wishes to violate people's rights or not) is pure speculation.

To make it go away would entail people not believing in it anymore. And he wants to make it go away.


So? "Could" or "Can" doesn't refute the point. The same still applies: either he plans on doing A which is completely within his rights (let's say this A is any and all verbal attacks that aren't illegal) or B which everything that is not A (so, illegal verbal attacks and illegal physical attacks and anything else that doesn't fall into A).

Either you're suggesting that he is planning on doing A, thus you're wrong in saying he doesn't have that right, or you're saying that he's planning on doing B which would still be speculation!


Here's a hint: Claiming he's doing anything specifically is speculation. So you saying he doesn't have the right to attack, is already speculating that he is going to do something which he doesn't have the right to do!

That's no good either. You have to assume that he isn't doing anything illegal. Since Verbal attacking isn't defined, that makes it ambiguous as to whether it is harassment or not. Then it is hard to say what verbal attack is legal or not.


Now that, would be an actual reply to AM. Saying "There are laws against discrimination" was not. It didn't contradict anything AM said because AM didn't deny that there might have been laws. I'm glad we agree.

Though of course, now you have to substantiate that claim to begin with.

My reply wasn't just that there were laws though. I also stated that it is disappearing. I said there wasn't barely any negative discrimination. He gave a case. I stated that here are laws against it and discrimination is disappearing. I guess I just didn't expand enough on it for your definition of a good reply...or something.

It does when your argument was that it isn't special to hear about reincarnation in a hindu discussion thread. I agreed it generated discussion, which means it is a hindu discussion thread, which means it isn't special to hear about reincarnation in a hindu discussion thread. Need anything else spelled out for you?

Yes, I need you to spell out the same thing because this stupid little paragraph of yours doesn't satisfy anything. It's a wonderful example of atrocious reasoning,

"I agreed it generated discussion" is not equal to "It isn't special to hear about reincarnation in a hindu discussion thread".

For example. If in this very thread I said .999... =/= 1, I would probably generate a lot of discussion. That doesn't mean it's connected to anything relating Hinduism. "Generates discussion" does not equal " I agree it was a mundane thing to say in a thread about hinduism".

Need anything else spelled out for you? :rolleyes:


lolwut? It isn't really speculation? Yes it is. We don't know exactly what he meant.

... Exactly, we don't know anything about it.
...Which means it's speculation. Everything is a possibility.

...You said it might be a non-violent call. Which is speculation of what his intents might be.


It's precisely because we don't know what he meant that we are forced to conclude, for now, that both are possibilities!

I'm not saying X is true. I'm saying X is possible. That's not speculation, you already agree that Everything is a possibility!

Even then, lets agree with this ridiculous premise and call it speculation as well just for the sake of argument. It's still less speculation than what you did, which is claim that he didn't have the right to do it, which not only "speculates" on what he possibly meant, but also on what it must be (i.e. it must be something that he doesn't have the right to do).


Yes it does, according to the definition of the word. Persistent words, conduct or actions directed at an individual that badger, annoy, threaten or cause substantial emotional distress. It would badger them certainly.


Your argument is that you know for certain what it would to someone else? Are you really offering that as an argument? Are you a psychic? No. Then what the fuck do you know if it would "certainly" badger someone else? You don't. Stop wasting my time with this stupid shit, please.


Then what would be bringing down hinduism? He said atheists should focus on bringing it down. Not that he would like to see a world without it.

"Bringing it down" could mean strive to make it possible for us to see a world without it like MLK did.


It is actually just for me. I just want to know.

Great, just what I thought. I don't have time, sorry.



To make it go away would entail people not believing in it anymore. And he wants to make it go away.


Yes. People not believing in it anymore. Who said otherwise? That doesn't mean he wants it to be forced. Like I said, he could be a dreamer.


That's no good either. You have to assume that he isn't doing anything illegal. Since Verbal attacking isn't defined, that makes it ambiguous as to whether it is harassment or not. Then it is hard to say what verbal attack is legal or not.

No, it's quite good; you just don't understand it.

We don't have to define "verbal attacking" as long as we accept it can include things that aren't illegal. Are you claiming that all verbal attacks are illegal? If not, you are already accepting that at least some verbal attacks are legal, and thus that he could be referring to ones of those!

The point stands. A is any verbal attack that is legal, B is anything else.


My reply wasn't just that there were laws though. I also stated that it is disappearing. I said there wasn't barely any negative discrimination. He gave a case. I stated that here are laws against it and discrimination is disappearing. I guess I just didn't expand enough on it for your definition of a good reply...or something.

You claiming it's disappearing doesn't refute his example... it just reiterates your (since you provided nothing to substantiate that at all) baseless claim.

Care to be a little more specific? Because while his post might have been a little sloppy, he does have some accurate points:

1. There is a Indian caste system perpetuated by the Hindu religion, and that caste system does in fact have a group of people often labeled "untouchables"

If you want to argue why a caste system that discriminates against a substantial portion of the population is good, then go right ahead. I would love to see that.



Ignorance and half truths. Hinduism has many sects and many differing beliefs. That you should stereotype the whole religion is yet another proof of the lengths you will go to prop up your ego.

Ignorance and half truths. Hinduism has many sects and many differing beliefs. That you should stereotype the whole religion is yet another proof of the lengths you will go to prop up your ego.

Ha! This is pathetic. We were discussing something in another thread, you're butthurt so now you desperately try to find somewhere else to disagree with me - a post I made a week ago and not even to you - so you can insult me further. Sad.


That being said, you're right. I shouldn't have generalized the way I did. Please accept this revision:

"There is a Indian caste system perpetuated by various Hindu sects, and that caste system does in fact have a group of people often labeled "untouchables"

I apologize for the dreadful generalization I made I would hope you find it in your heart to forgive me. I will try my best so that it does not happen again. I am humbled with this lesson you have given me.

Namaste:)!

Anyway, I think we atheists need to focus more efforts on bringing down this evil cult.


Cult? No, this definitely isn't a cult. Scientology is a cult. Hinduism is just another religion.

That being said, you're right. I shouldn't have generalized the way I did. Please accept this revision:

"There is a Indian caste system perpetuated by various Hindu sects, and that caste system does in fact have a group of people often labeled "untouchables"


Namaste:)!

Your lame insincere apology hardly mitigates the vilification of several hundred million people. As for your intimidator/interregator bully tactics, one only has to revise your use of insulting language, subtle inuendo, and belittling of Graemy in this thread for proof.

Yes, I need you to spell out the same thing because this stupid little paragraph of yours doesn't satisfy anything. It's a wonderful example of atrocious reasoning,

"I agreed it generated discussion" is not equal to "It isn't special to hear about reincarnation in a hindu discussion thread".

For example. If in this very thread I said .999... =/= 1, I would probably generate a lot of discussion. That doesn't mean it's connected to anything relating Hinduism. "Generates discussion" does not equal " I agree it was a mundane thing to say in a thread about hinduism".

Need anything else spelled out for you? :rolleyes:

But I gave it a subject, it was the hatred of Hinduism. Which means bashing hinduism generates discussion about what is being bashed. Anyway, to make you happy or just plain concede this permanently, it isn't special to hear about reincarnation in a hindu discussion thread.


It's precisely because we don't know what he meant that we are forced to conclude, for now, that both are possibilities!

I'm not saying X is true. I'm saying X is possible. That's not speculation, you already agree that Everything is a possibility!

Even then, lets agree with this ridiculous premise and call it speculation as well just for the sake of argument. It's still less speculation than what you did, which is claim that he didn't have the right to do it, which not only "speculates" on what he possibly meant, but also on what it must be (i.e. it must be something that he doesn't have the right to do).

But it is pointless to deem what is possible. I could be right, you could be right, so continuing to argue about it is meaningless.


Your argument is that you know for certain what it would to someone else? Are you really offering that as an argument? Are you a psychic? No. Then what the fuck do you know if it would "certainly" badger someone else? You don't. Stop wasting my time with this stupid shit, please.

I realised this after the fact, extremely bad habit. When you try to shake someone's world it is irritating. I know because I have seen it happen and it has happened to me(Christian fundamentalists :( ).


"Bringing it down" could mean strive to make it possible for us to see a world without it like MLK did.

Yes it could. MLK didn't campaign against segregation because he looked in from the outside of the system and said, "This is stupid." He was being oppressed and saw others being oppressed and decided to change it.


Great, just what I thought. I don't have time, sorry.

ok


Yes. People not believing in it anymore. Who said otherwise? That doesn't mean he wants it to be forced. Like I said, he could be a dreamer.

Ok, so I guess we don't have enough information to go on for this either, I definitely exaggerated a little.


No, it's quite good; you just don't understand it.

We don't have to define "verbal attacking" as long as we accept it can include things that aren't illegal. Are you claiming that all verbal attacks are illegal? If not, you are already accepting that at least some verbal attacks are legal, and thus that he could be referring to ones of those!

The point stands. A is any verbal attack that is legal, B is anything else.


Because a verbal attack isn't formally defined, any formal attack could be defined as illegal.


You claiming it's disappearing doesn't refute his example... it just reiterates your (since you provided nothing to substantiate that at all) baseless claim.

Hmmm...ok I think I see now.

and belittling of Graemy in this thread for proof.

lolwut?

Your lame insincere apology hardly mitigates the vilification of several hundred million people. As for your intimidator/interregator bully tactics, one only has to revise your use of insulting language, subtle inuendo, and belittling of Graemy in this thread for proof.

Vilification of several hundred million people? Please stop exaggerating. I made a mistake, and acknowledged as much. That's it. The fact remains - and you didn't even bother saying otherwise, which serves to show how obvious it was - that you came here in a sad attempt to insult me after having discussed another issue in another thread.

As for the rest, any "belittling" the occurred, happened in another discussion, with another poster and regarding other issues. It has nothing to do with what you replied to, which is what you called a "bully bluster". You're grasping at straws, looking for anything to insult me with and it's blatantly obvious.

Not to mention that in another thread you argued in favor of theists/atheists being predisposed to wanting evidence or not based on their brain yet here you are ignoring the very possibility (as possibly as your claim regarding theists/atheists) that I may be predisposed to "belittling" other people based on my brain!

P.S. "Insincere apology"? Do you want me to provide evidence proving that it's sincere? Aren't you "right brained dominant" people supposed to believe things in faith?

But it is pointless to deem what is possible. I could be right, you could be right, so continuing to argue about it is meaningless.

No, it's not pointless. It allows us to at the very least speak of possibilities. What would be pointless - or rather just incorrect - is claim, as you did, that he (the OP) doesn't have the right to do something when you don't even know what that something is!


Yes it could. MLK didn't campaign against segregation because he looked in from the outside of the system and said, "This is stupid." He was being oppressed and saw others being oppressed and decided to change it.



Great, that's your opinion. Since I'm not here to debate whether you think what the OP was doing was a s good as what MLK was doing or not -but rather that it doesn't have to be violent, which you concede, then great! I'm glad we agree what the OP said does not necessarily mean violence, does he could have the right to do what he said if it meant something non-violent (and not illegal).




Because a verbal attack isn't formally defined, any formal attack could be defined as illegal.

Any formal attack? We're talking about verbal attacks. Not all verbal attacks are illegal. If you define them as all of them being illegal, then the OP could still be planning on doing something else which isn't illegal which is the important point:

In the end he either plans on doing A (anything not illegal that he has a right to do) or B (anything illegal that he doesn't have a right to do). Unless you're suggesting that A doesn't exist (i.e. that he doesn't have any right) then my point still stands: you still claimed he didn't have the right to do something when in fact you have no clue if that's the case.



lolwut?

No, worries. He's angry with me from another thread so he's trying to act like your defender/savior here just to get back at me, when in reality he probably doesn't even give a shit since our discussion had taken place days before and he hadn't even bothered saying anything then.

No, it's not pointless. It allows us to at the very least speak of possibilities. What would be pointless - or rather just incorrect - is claim, as you did, that he (the OP) doesn't have the right to do something when you don't even know what that something is!

Yes, we could discuss the possibilities. But it would be pointless to argue about what he is and isn't going to do(mostly started by me).


Great, that's your opinion. Since I'm not here to debate whether you think what the OP was doing was a s good as what MLK was doing or not -but rather that it doesn't have to be violent, which you concede, then great! I'm glad we agree what the OP said does not necessarily mean violence, does he could have the right to do what he said if it meant something non-violent (and not illegal).

Ok. I wasn't saying that it wasn't as good or not. I'm sort of saying that people should help themselves and generally will. I mean look at Iraq. We went in to liberate them(questionable) and ended up causing more violence and destabilizing the whole region.


Any formal attack? We're talking about verbal attacks. Not all verbal attacks are illegal. If you define them as all of them being illegal, then the OP could still be planning on doing something else which isn't illegal which is the important point:

In the end he either plans on doing A (anything not illegal that he has a right to do) or B (anything illegal that he doesn't have a right to do). Unless you're suggesting that A doesn't exist (i.e. that he doesn't have any right) then my point still stands: you still claimed he didn't have the right to do something when in fact you have no clue if that's the case.

Oops, I meant any verbal attack. Yea, I did exaggerate and made wild assumptions.


No, worries. He's angry with me from another thread so he's trying to act like your defender/savior here just to get back at me, when in reality he probably doesn't even give a shit since our discussion had taken place days before and he hadn't even bothered saying anything then.

I feel belittled by him for him telling me I feel belittled. (yay for chiasmus)

which is what you called a "bully bluster".
Damn! I already chose Roxberry