stfuconservatives
stfuconservatives:

littlefuckinglesbian:

theconcealedprince:


So I was in line at the grocery store earlier, and there was an older lady in line behind me. She saw that I was wearing a bracelet with rainbow on it. She then asked me if I was gay, which I replied no. She then told me to take the bracelet off because it’s for “faggots.” To that I say, “Well I happen to like ‘faggots’.” Then the cashier heard the conversation and told the woman that that particular register was for faggots only, and asked her to leave. The woman said that she wanted to speak to the manager. The manager came and guess what, he was gay.

Lets just say the woman left without her groceries.

Hahahahahah

Beautiful. This is how I want bigots to feel all the time. Like, “shit, we’d better not say anything racist/classist/homophobic/generally terrible because those people might call us out on our crap.” I don’t want hateful people to feel comfortable spreading their hate any more.

I agree. Would the same approach in regards to being an atheist be ok? Or would it be considered “rude”?

stfuconservatives:

littlefuckinglesbian:

theconcealedprince:

So I was in line at the grocery store earlier, and there was an older lady in line behind me. She saw that I was wearing a bracelet with rainbow on it. She then asked me if I was gay, which I replied no. She then told me to take the bracelet off because it’s for “faggots.” To that I say, “Well I happen to like ‘faggots’.” Then the cashier heard the conversation and told the woman that that particular register was for faggots only, and asked her to leave. The woman said that she wanted to speak to the manager. The manager came and guess what, he was gay.

Lets just say the woman left without her groceries.

Hahahahahah

Beautiful. This is how I want bigots to feel all the time. Like, “shit, we’d better not say anything racist/classist/homophobic/generally terrible because those people might call us out on our crap.” I don’t want hateful people to feel comfortable spreading their hate any more.

I agree. Would the same approach in regards to being an atheist be ok? Or would it be considered “rude”?

princessmoviesandinternetporn asked: why is it wrong for me to believe in what i believe in? i dont believe in one set system (for instance, i am not catholic) but i believe in a higher power, and i believe in karma, and i believe in the afterlife. why am i wrong?

The better question is, why are you right?

Obviously you’ve been able to convince yourself of your own beliefs, but are you able to show others that your belief in these things is well founded? Are you able to point to proof, signs, and indications that your belief in these ideas should be something others believe as well?

It is not up to me to prove to you your beliefs are wrong. It is up to you to prove that your beliefs are right. The reason that most Atheists are Atheists is because we base our perception of the world based on real, verifiable, testable information. If there were solid reasons to believe in these things many Atheists would.

There is no proof of a higher power, no proof of karma, and no proof of an afterlife. These ideas not only have no basis in reality but they offend reason and logic by lying outside of the realm of verification. The only possible basis for belief relies on faith. That is the basis we start with. So in order for me personally to consider your beliefs valid you would have to show me why your faith is more important than my facts. Yet, why would I do that with no proof?

I can’t prove to you you’re wrong, no one is responsible for disproving outlandish assertions. You can’t prove to me you’re right, going back to that whole pesky proof thing. You’re the one looking to make a contention that these things are real. You’re the one making a statement of belief. So I’ll return to my question, why are you right

atheistcartoons
atheistcartoons:

It’s futile to argue with creationists over details of the fossil record, or carbon-dating, or anything based on a logical analysis of the many flaws in their argument (including willful ignorance of what science is). The problem is not one of evidence. The problem is that they begin with the conclusion of their argument (“God made the world”) and work backwards: everything else is irrelevant.
Until they can be made to understand that beginning an argument with its conclusion is worthless, every other discussion is rendered moot.

atheistcartoons:

It’s futile to argue with creationists over details of the fossil record, or carbon-dating, or anything based on a logical analysis of the many flaws in their argument (including willful ignorance of what science is). The problem is not one of evidence. The problem is that they begin with the conclusion of their argument (“God made the world”) and work backwards: everything else is irrelevant.

Until they can be made to understand that beginning an argument with its conclusion is worthless, every other discussion is rendered moot.