• Atheist assaulted by Muslim, case dropped, victim criticized by judge for offending religious belief
    337 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Strongbad;34912339]However, walking around in a costume specifically designed to piss people off? The atheist deserved what he got, regardless of the ruling being fair or not.[/QUOTE] Well he certainly is a shitstain on the face of humanity and gives atheists a bad rep, but he still doesn't deserve to be assaulted because of it. (nobody deserves that. I got in a fight two weeks ago and fixing my nose was the worst, most painful thing to ever happen to me. Plus it was expensive) Still, I'm not trying to excuse him, he was being a dick and deliberately challenging another person's beliefs (I will never get why atheists do this. They bitch and moan about people trying to "convert" them and then they immediately turn around and do shit like this to religious people. It's not showing that they're the better man by playing live and let live.) I wouldn't be surprised if AtheistPunch rates me dumb for this post though. (And yes, I am an atheist) They defend any atheist to "hell and back" just because, but when a religious man is mistreated or insulted by an atheist they go "Hurr Durr he got what he deserved because he believes in god". This country is supposed to be about [B]equality[/B] and [B]tolerance[/B], but nobody else seems to think that and they just go in all biased and shit.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;34921191]Well he certainly is a shitstain on the face of humanity and gives atheists a bad rep, but he still doesn't deserve to be assaulted because of it. (nobody deserves that. I got in a fight two weeks ago and fixing my nose was the worst, most painful thing to ever happen to me. Plus it was expensive)[/QUOTE] Oh yeah, pulling out that shit they put in your nose after the blood clots around it.
[QUOTE=BananaFoam;34921191]... I wouldn't be surprised if AtheistPunch rates me dumb for this post though. (And yes, I am an atheist) They defend any atheist to "hell and back" just because, but when a religious man is mistreated or insulted by an atheist they go "Hurr Durr he got what he deserved because he believes in god". This country is supposed to be about [B]equality[/B] and [B]tolerance[/B], but nobody else seems to think that and they just go in all biased and shit.[/QUOTE] You were going well up until this part, maybe leave out the hyperbole and strawman arguments next time. Also, "AtheistPunch", really?
Guys you know what this means right It means we can actually [I]attack[/I] westboro when they protest now, and if they put us to court there's no way they'll win as we'll just point to this case!!
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34921091']I'm not saying this is right, but I could see it as an issue if the judge followed Shariah over American law. It'd be like having a Chinese citizen as a judge, biased towards Chinese law. Not that that's the case, likely.[/QUOTE]No the problem with him being a convert is that it deals specifically with a clash of religious ideals, and the judge held similar ideals as the accused. If it were a prospective juror and this had come to light in jury screening, they would have almost certainly been removed from the process.
[QUOTE=MIPS;34912624]I can't say I'm religious because I'm not. I can't also say I'm Athiest because I'm not [i]that[/i] retarded. [/QUOTE] [img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lafqxfN3HK1qc9dv3.gif[/img] [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Ownederd;34912969]please explain how he is 'retarded' if he doesn't have an opinion on something like this[/QUOTE] ...but he does? he just called every single atheist a retard, idiot. that's pretty fucking opinionated.
[QUOTE=Jacam12SUX;34923569] ...but he does? he just called every single atheist a retard, idiot. that's pretty fucking opinionated.[/QUOTE] He implied it. Slight difference. [editline]1[/editline] I'm curious, though. How does a judge expect people to "speak our mind" if we're to be worried about 'pissing off' other people? How is it an abuse of free speech to take part in an event which satirizes a very old law that gets people killed for trivial and nonharmful violations?
No, what he basically said was, "I'm not religious but I'm not an atheist either because atheists are idiots."
[QUOTE=Jacam12SUX;34923685]No, what he basically said was, "I'm not religious but I'm not an atheist either because atheists are idiots."[/QUOTE] That's what he basically said, but the actual wording was closer to "I am not retarded enough to claim myself Atheist."
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;34923694]That's what he basically said, but the actual wording was closer to "I am not retarded enough to claim myself Atheist."[/QUOTE] Which I'm about 99% certain wasn't what he was trying to say, regardless, it's still an absurdly idiotic thing to say.
Not to mention religiousness has nothing to do with atheism. You could very well be a religious atheist.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;34923694]That's what he basically said, but the actual wording was closer to "I am not retarded enough to claim myself Atheist."[/QUOTE] Which means he just called atheists retarded. What the fuck aren't you getting?
[QUOTE=Swebonny;34912456]So if I hit you because I get offended, perhaps breaking your nose. You wouldn't care?[/QUOTE] Hey, try watching the video maybe? It was hardly even a scuffle.
The guy in the costume was a dick. The jury was a fucking asshole. And the muslim guy was just a retard for attacking someone for insulting their imaginary friend.
[QUOTE=Sunday_Roast;34924040]The jury was a fucking asshole.[/QUOTE] Actually it seems he dismissed the case on lack of evidence. I myself didn't watch the video as my speakers aren't working, but judging from what everyone's saying it was as not-a-fight as fights get.
[QUOTE=Sickle;34923905]Which means he just called atheists retarded. What the fuck aren't you getting?[/QUOTE] The point that he was claiming superiority (as being less retarded than people who claim to be atheists) to atheists. He didn't call atheists retarded, he said that he was 'less retarded' than atheists, thereby [B]implying[/B] that atheists are retarded. I was clarifying that his statements were more opinionated than simply saying that all atheists are retarded, I'm not 'not getting' anything.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;34916226]that's like saying a rape victim had it coming for wearing slutty clothing[/QUOTE] It's more like going naked in the street at night wearing nothing and holding a "RAPE ME" sign. The guy in the suit obviously aimed at pissing people off. If he aimed at actually making them think about their religion he is a moron who need to rethink his strategies because downright insulting everything one believes into is never going to make them think again about their faith, it's just going to infuriate them or make them laugh at you for being such an idiot.
People mix up "atheist" and "anti-theist" a lot. They aren't interchangeable terms, but a lot of people seem to think they are.
[QUOTE=Starpluck;34923948]Hey, try watching the video maybe? It was hardly even a scuffle.[/QUOTE] I did, and saw not a single moment of any fight. And then I read the article that claimed that the judge was a muslim convert. This has bullshit written all over it. I think the plaintiff is just pissed he got lecture he should've got as a small child about responsibly using his freedom of speech :v: Because beyond the religious subtext, we do take our rights for granted.
[QUOTE=VengfulSoldier;34925345]And then I read the article that claimed that the judge[/QUOTE] Which article? There's CNN and "hotair" From CNN: [quote] "The commonwealth didn't present enough evidence to show me that this person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," Martin said. "That's why I dismissed the case. Nothing as nefarious as what everyone's thinking, that I'm a Muslim or I'm biased. [B]I'm actually a Lutheran[/B][/quote] It's either CNN has the latest story that included feedback from both or hotair is making it up, either way I'd rather trust CNN over "hotair" [editline]29th February 2012[/editline] Yeah I was right: [url]http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981141131[/url]
[QUOTE=waxrock;34923867]religious atheist.[/QUOTE] that...doesn't work... Athiest = Doesn't believe in any sort of God whatsoever Religious = Believes in some sort of God perhaps [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist]agnostic theist[/url] was what you were thinking of?
I never understood religious prejudice. In fact I don't understand any kind of prejudice at all. How can anyone hate someone just because they have different beliefs or because they happen to look funny to them? It's one of the few things in this world I cannot understand at all no matter how hard I try. I have always said that the only reason you should treat someone less than a human being, is when they prove to be such. If I don't know you, I don't call you a terrible person until you prove to me you are one, and even then I always retain the belief that anybody can change. So any kind of biased hate makes no sense to me, just what makes people act in such ways?
[QUOTE=lavacano;34925922]that...doesn't work... Athiest = Doesn't believe in any sort of God whatsoever Religious = Believes in some sort of God perhaps [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist]agnostic theist[/url] was what you were thinking of?[/QUOTE]Quick note, being religious does not inherently imply belief in any deity. That would be theism. Second, while Atheism as a term classically means a lack of belief in any deities, the term has expanded greatly over the years to typically mean a lack of any religious belief.
[QUOTE=lavacano;34925922]that...doesn't work... Athiest = Doesn't believe in any sort of God whatsoever Religious = Believes in some sort of God perhaps [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theist"]agnostic theist[/URL] was what you were thinking of?[/QUOTE] Those forms of Buddhism that don't have any gods or godlike figures are atheistic, and Buddhism isn't the only religion that fits this (as always, there are also some in the grey area). The definition of atheism is a lack of[B][/B] belief in deities. It has taken a bit of a spin from that in the common vocabulary, but its traditional definition is simply a lack of belief, as opposed to active disbelief in deities and/or religion(anti-theism). This is why it is possible to be a "gnostic" or "agnostic" atheist; the word is quite flexible. Edit: I got ninja'd hard... as if it didn't show Doctor Zedacon's post earlier :(
[QUOTE=lavacano;34925922] Religious = Believes in some sort of God [/QUOTE] That's only one definition of religious. You could categorise Buddhists and even religiously anti-theistic people as religious atheists.
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;34926895]You could categorise ..... even religiously anti-theistic people as religious atheists.[/QUOTE] What? Ok, pretty sure you got something mixed up. Though atheism and religion are not opposites, Anti-theism and religion ARE. Though it looks like you're playing on "[I]religiously[/I] anti-theistic" which is dumb, because doing something "religiously" is not the same as being "religious".
The Atheist is giving all the atheist a bad name. Insulting religion openly isn't a very good impression. Just because you have the freedom of speech does not mean it entitles you to insult someone in the face. The Muslims who assaulted him are also giving Islam a bad name. I know it is wrong to be mocking our prophet but they could have just ignore the bully/troll. If only everyone would just learn to live peacefully and harmony among people with different race and religion, we would not be seeing this nonsense.
[QUOTE=BCell;34926962]This Atheist is giving all the atheist a bad name. The Muslims who assaulted him are also giving Islam a bad name. If only everyone would just learn to live peacefully and harmony among people with different race and religion, we would not be seeing this nonsense.[/QUOTE] Many argue "living peacefully and in harmony" with regards to religion is impossible. My question to you is: how do you propose we manage it? I haven't been able to come up to a solution myself. I know in my heart removing religion from the world won't fix anything on it's own... but it will remove one of the biggest excuses for violence, and without it, they will have a hell of a time finding a credible defense for their actions.
Both sides are really stupid but the Atheist rose it up a level with the whole accusation of being attacked.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;34926998]Many argue "living peacefully and in harmony" with regards to religion is impossible. My question to you is: how do you propose we manage it? I haven't been able to come up to a solution myself. I know in my heart removing religion from the world won't fix anything on it's own... but it will remove one of the biggest excuses for violence, and without it, they will have a hell of a time finding a credible defense for their actions.[/QUOTE] They would use the "it belongs to us" excuse. It was notably used by Hitler, most of the wars in Africa were triggered by that excuse and right now Israel is abusing the fuck out of this to expand and make colonies all around.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.