Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.
I can only infer from your statement that “Muscovy ducks aren’t technically ducks” which you’ve followed up by stating “anyone who says technically not a duck isn’t saying anything worthwhile”, means you’re telling me what you’re saying isn’t anything of worth.
My man, it’s a stance on a theological issue. You don’t want to admit that, and I’m not going to force you. What does going “Yah-huh / Nuh-uh” back and forth forever do for anyone?
Wrong. Atheism is the rejection of religion.
Almost every religion has a tenant of the rejection of every other religion, and then goes on to persecute the other ones believers.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it might be a duck.
That doesn’t make atheism a religion, nor does atheism call for the persecution of anyone. Your logic is flawed and your argument is factually incorrect.
All ducks have legs, but not all birds with legs are ducks.
A muscovy duck isn’t a duck. Technically.
But if someone complains about all the misbehaving ducks in the pond and your defense for your duck’s musbehaviour is “technically not a duck!” you’re not really saying anything of worth.
I can only infer from your statement that “Muscovy ducks aren’t technically ducks” which you’ve followed up by stating “anyone who says technically not a duck isn’t saying anything worthwhile”, means you’re telling me what you’re saying isn’t anything of worth.
Well, thanks, we already established that.
Why would I think this was worthwhile? You “Um Actually”-ed my post about the moral behavior of atheists who get religious about atheism.
This was only ever a long shot at best.
Ah, but that wasn’t what you originally said:
Don’t try to change your argument when it gets proven wrong.
My man, it’s a stance on a theological issue. You don’t want to admit that, and I’m not going to force you. What does going “Yah-huh / Nuh-uh” back and forth forever do for anyone?