'Xian' - what's all that about then?

[onewheeldave]

Because my response to your alter ego was meant to be a wildcat/onewheeldave type post that appears to say one thing but if you read it carefully, and what it responds to, can mean something different.

Touche.

 

I'm pretty confused on this as well.

 

 

Sorry but you've been your usual trolling, disingenuous, dual username (yes I noticed that in a response to onewheeldave's post you put 'my post' and then edited it a few minutes later to read 'onewheeldave's post' hoping that nobody would notice), pretentious self so I'm afraid I have little reason to believe the above statement.

 

I missed this quote earlier.

 

If you've made a mistake, then fair enough- admit it & move on, it's no big deal. If you really believe there's a dual account thing going on, then we can contact admin, who, i expect, can easily show that it's not the case.

[JFKvsNixon]

I think "Intolerant Atheism" sums up their attitude pretty well.

 

 

a. Unwilling to tolerate differences in opinions, practices, or beliefs, especially religious beliefs.

 

b. Opposed to the inclusion or participation of those different from oneself, especially those of a different racial, ethnic, or social background.

 

c. Lacking respect for practices and beliefs other than one's own.

 

You have just described how you express your thoughts and feelings about Muslims here on SF.

[sccsux]

You have just described how you express your thoughts and feelings about Muslims here on SF.

 

Are you suggesting that Grahame is guilty of "Religious Intolerance"?

[onewheeldave]

I think "Intolerant Atheism" sums up their attitude pretty well.

 

That is actually a decent term. I'll stick with anti-theist for now, but it's good to have a back-up.

[sccsux]

That is actually a decent term. I'll stick with anti-theist for now, but it's good to have a back-up.

 

I prefer Atheist; with anti-religious tendancies when provoked by bigots:D.

[Grahame]

You have just described how you express your thoughts and feelings about Muslims here on SF.

 

I agree. But you tell me why you or I should be tolerant of the things we read about in the papers whatever the perpetrators religious or political views?

 

 

[Grahame]

I've never actually used it, but if i did no offence would be meant, and if you take offence at it it is your problem not mine. It clearly isn't offensive in and of itself.

 

I think it depends to a large extent on what you say and how you say it. If you said I like Xians I wouldn't be offended, but I would prefer it if you said I like Christians. It is so much nicer.

 

Not that you ever would of course.

[sccsux]

I agree.

 

So you (as a prcaticing christian) are agreeing that you are as intollerant as the atheists?

 

But you tell me why you or I should be tolerant of the things we read about in the papers whatever the perpetrators religious or political views?

 

Nothing, providing you're fine with what is thrown back at your religion by others who find it all a bit silly. You, however, think that your flavour of christianity should be "protected" and don't like it when the holes in your religion are exposed.

[sccsux]

If you said I like Xians I wouldn't be offended

 

And if somebody wrote "I dislike Xians", you wouldn't be offended either? Or are you trying to dictate how and when people can use the ebreviations (to protect people's sensibilitites)?

[Grahame]

So you (as a prcaticing christian) are agreeing that you are as intollerant as the atheists?

 

Nothing, providing you're fine with what is thrown back at your religion by others who find it all a bit silly. You, however, think that your flavour of christianity should be "protected" and don't like it when the holes in your religion are exposed.

 

I am actually a very tolerant person and happen to like atheists and prefer them and their common sense and level-headedness to some of the weird religious people I interact with on various forums.

 

What I don't like is the persistent attacks on me and Christianity and that is what I react to.

 

Neither do I think Christianity should be protected, I think if people understand Christianity properly it does not need protection and in fact the message sells itself.