DescentBB

Intolerant of other's opinions... what does that even mean?

Herculosis wrote:I simply stated the fact that the avatar bothered me.

Then why didn't you use the board Private Message function to do so instead of starting a damn thread about it knowing damn well that it would probably start a flame war which will probably result in everyone loosing the privilege to have an avatar? We lost the privilege for personal signatures because of something as petty as this. If you have a problem with a user in particular, contact them PERSONALLY instead of starting a damn thread about it.

Ok ... Time to bring out the BIG GUNS.....

<----------- Pika !!!!!!!

Oh ★■◆●.....now look what you've done!

Personally, I think mine makes a much bigger statement than either Stress's or Top's avatars do.

Testiculese wrote:They're intolerant because they're told to be. I don't think I know of any religious people that didn't pull the high-n-mighty when they found that so-and-so isn't religious, or doesn't belong to their particular religion. They're taught since birth. (You're not Catholic? YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!!!!!) It's a control mechanism. Works admirably well too, I see.

Give me a break, Testi. If this is the way you see those who have religious faith, you have your head stuck in the sand somewhere. I myself am Catholic, and I do not have this opinion in any way, shape, or form, nor have I ever heard this sentiment over twelve years of Catholic education. Get your facts straight before making unintelligent generalizations. I could just as easily say that all atheists are ignorant egoists who are too blind to see the wonder of the universe around them, but I don't go around spewing crap like that. I find it funny that, even though the vast majority of the world's population has religious beliefs, a disproportionately large number of atheists seem to hang out on Internet bulletin boards. Makes you think.

As for the topic at hand, while I do not approve of Stress's avatar, I do recognize his right to have it. However, for the sake of keeping public order and a civil tone in this forum, I think it unwise of him to use it. I did enjoy Top Wop's response, though .

I don't think there was really anything too flame-war-like about this thread until Duper pulled the Pikachu card. Very low, very low indeed.

In the interim, though, I guess it's now only a matter of time before the board's posting function is abused and we're not allowed to use that either. It would provide some humerous results, though, like conversations made entirely of post edits, or perhaps tight-knit PM communities or clans.

Religion is a form of government, and any form of government is in the business of being in control. I'm not saying it's the fault of the masses or anything. But that's what's taught. [your religion here] is the correct one, and all others are false and damnable. It's present in the major religions. Some to worse degree than others, of course. Those start Holy Wars.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't think there was really anything too flame-war-like about this thread until Duper pulled the Pikachu card. Very low, very low indeed.

Just be glad I didn't pull out a Smurf or a treasure troll.

is my avatar offensive to atheists?

and don't you think giving me a 24 month window to decide on something as major as this is rushing me and my agnostic peers a tad?

i'm agnostic.. so no it's not offensive meat

Testiculese wrote:

He isn't giving thoughtful support for atheism or even reasoned public argument against Christianity. He's reduced to simply saing "it's all lies!" And not even in main discussion, in his avatar. Indirectly. In tiny print. That's an insane level of defensiveness

The same rationale applies to Praise Jesus signatures:
No thoughtful support of Christianity, one reduces themselves to simply and mindlessly quoting from some book [insert quote here], and not even in main discussion, in their sig. Indirectly. In tiny print. That's an insane level of defensiveness.

eh? It's all relative.

Mmm, the difference is the destructiveness. And the fact that you give people credit for the best they can do, not the worst. It's the difference between an icon that said "Build Global Society" and one that said "BUSH LIES!" It's also the difference between a frequent, thoughtful writer who had a provocative icon, and a troll or lurker who had a provocative icon. The Christian equivalent wouldn't be the constructive and relatively less offensive "Jesus saves!" but rather the logically destructive, abrasive, "GOD HATES FAGS."

Destructiveness is a sign that someone bases their intellectual identity on a destructive idea. I.e., "I hate creationism" rather than "I believe in evolution." They go together, but a destructive emphasis is never a healthy pattern of thought, and almost always accompanies emotional--rather than rational--belief. The abrasiveness is a further sign of the same thing--that you make it your mission to oppose and anger a particular group. Overall, this means your emotional relationship with your belief is angry and angsty rather than peaceful and confident. Not terribly healthy.

The lack of accompanying argument (or a history of such) can indicate that you don't have good support for it that you think will hold up to public scrutiny. That's not really intellectually healthy--it means you don't have much faith in your own ideas. Putting a belief in an avatar or sig emphasizes that point.

Whatever the ideology, those are signs of an intellectually malnourished, emotionally defensive position. I have seen it on many topics--everything from hatred of a particular bible translation, to hatred for evolution, to hatred of a certain president. It isn't usually a good thing.

if we were to take religion and POLITICS outof our icons, we couldn't have any of the "yay america" usa flag icons anymore, for that matter, you probabaly couldn't have an eagle either.
satan loves you all. come here and give satan a hug.

what would happen if i were to have an upside-down american flag, on fire, as my icon.
one could take offence to many icons on this board, if one had the motivation to.

the crux (haha) of it is that someone's icon can be used some to understand the person.
Herculosis, you should make yourself an icon. jump on board.

Shouldn't this all boil down to that it is an opinion? If it is an opinion and just an opinion that fine, unless it is forced down your [insert religion here] throats - which it hasn't been. Surely if you were a true [insert religion here] you would leave him alone?

Also, would you care the same if I made the star of David out of the word "cheese", or the symbol of the muslim faith out of the word "testicle"? I somehow think not.

It's just an opinion, if you can live with that, okay. If not, you'll have to live with it anyway

This thread is teh stupid...

and yet it's not closed....

Haha of course its not closed. The mod is busy closing threads with potential discussion

Why do you people read so much into this? Stress isn't out to make a deep statement or "back up his claims for atheism" you fools. Its just an opinion. Why does he have to justify his opinion to you people?

What if it was a Islamic crescent moon and star symbol? Or a star of David? Would you be up in arms then? I doubt it. Hypocrites.

People are still discussing whether or not Stress's icon (or similar icons) are appropriate. There's no need to close this.

I could post a picture of my left foot and that wouldn't be appropriate, but does it deserve a topic?

And once again, the people who "care the least" end up posting the most.

Back on topic:

I'm not offended in the slightest by Stress's icon, and I don't think he should remove it unless a lot of people are offended, or if he specifically put it up in order to attack someone on this board. Knowing Stress, that was certainly a possibility when he first posted it, but since he's said he didn't mean to be malicious, I don't have a problem with it.

I know better than to let anything he does offend me. Really, I find his avatar amusing, anyway. Like Drak said in her initial post, look at the nature of the attack. He's not coming on here rationally discussing why he thinks Christianity is full of lies, or posting in the calling someone a fool thread (which is filled with quite a substantial amount of Christian theology) -- he's just posted an avatar with tiny print which symbolizes his feelings that Christianity is full of lies, and he did it because he "had one of those days". He was upset, so he made an avatar that reflected that. It's perfectly reasonable coming from him.

He has every right to have such an avatar, as long as he's not being malicious and it's not causing problems. We lost sigs because some users were being malicious and it did cause some problems (and in response to complaints, a lot MORE users started being malicious), and a few individual users have lost avatars because they've been malicious with them, but Stress's avatar certainly isn't in that category. He has a cross that says "lies"; I have Arabic text that says "YHVH Akbar". My avatar is at least as offensive as his, to the right crowd. Others have had religious or political avatars in the past, and nobody has ever had a problem with it. So unless there are a lot more complaints, keep the avatars.

So, what would I do if someone had an avatar that said "praise Jesus" or a star of david that said "cheese" or a crescent moon that said "your mom is so ugly she needs to wear a burqa"? If they were being malicious, I'd probably ask them to remove it (though to return to Testi's point from earlier: I doubt most people with "praise Jesus" sigs or avatars intend them to be malicious.) But if they weren't, I'd probably just smile or laugh and move on.

P.S. THREAD CLOSED. Oh, wait, uh....

I'm closing this thread because you people whine too much.