Options

Athiests and Offensiveness

1235722

Posts

  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    People are going to be offended by any Atheist message since it is by its nature rejecting claims made by religious people. You can't state an intention to pull the consensus back towards center without offending the people who work hard keeping it out there.

    Clearly, that sign could have made its point in a more respectful manner.

    Would have helped its cause, yes.

    Yeah, though I thought the language had sort of a holiday theme. When you boil it down, it's going to be saying "Your god does not exist and you should not hold beliefs without evidence"

    Find a cheerful way to say that.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2008
    Public or private, they're certainly making excluvistic statements. I got annoyed with this thread because people are acting like an exclusivistic statement from atheists is somehow worse than one from Christians just for being more direct, and then acted like Christianity isn't exclusive.

    A public, enfranchised expression is going to be offensive because we have laws against that kind of thing. A private one is just private, and I don't actually care.

    No, we are saying that it's asinine to claim that any display of a nativity scene is implicitly telling non-Christians to fuck off and then equate it to a display by atheists that explicitly tells Christians to fuck off.

    It's like interpreting some guy scratching his nose as an insult about the size of your honker, and feeling justified in telling him that his mother fucks goats.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Difference? Making exclusivistic claims based on evidence, not just talking out of your ass and throwing god in the gaps.

    So if you implicitly tell 90% of the planet to fuck off and stop being retarded, it's okay, because you strongly feel that you're right.

    Gotcha.

    What's the logical fallacy here? I forgot what it's called, but you're spectacular at it because I see you doing it every time you disagree with somebody.

    Either way, no, it's not because I "strongly feel I'm right." It's because I can point at evidence in reality. You people like to act as if there's no difference between religious belief and naturalism, but you're incredibly incorrect.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Korlash wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    That kind of exchange between intellectuals is to be encouraged, but I doubt the general population can face reality. I know that I don't want to let myself be entertained by illusions, and it seems like other intellectuals think the same, but if you ask around, you're likely to have a lot of people tell you that they wouldn't mind living in the Matrix.
    I wouldn't mind living in the Matrix. I also think we should try to engage the "plebs" in intellectual debates. I'm not that much of an elitist.
    Let them have their god. I'd rather them believe than be depressed. I think depression is enough of an issue in modern society, we don't need to make matters worse.
    Here's where I think you're unreasonable: the atheistic worldview is not actually depressing. It certainly doesn't need to be.

    Yeah, the idea of the afterlife is sort of a booster, but I wouldn't want to sit around in heaven eternally praising the Creator. Some people claim that the evolution origin story is depressing. But I think the gradual evolution of intelligence from inert matter, culminating in our technology and ideas in morals—we are the universe becoming aware of itself—is a much more beautiful and uplifting story than the story of a Mesopotamian deity creating us out of clay as slave-workers for his garden and then threatening us with eternal torture if we don't completely obey his whims.

    Atheism only seems depressing because so many religious people define their happiness in terms of their cult. Plenty of religious people are also depressed, often directly because of their religion.

    I may come off as elitist, but that's what college level philosophy classes do to you (majoring in physics, but it's required here). Some people are just completely incapable of a rational debate. These people vastly outnumber those who can reason.

    But yes, I'd rather prefer if there existed a god, to be honest. Mostly because I find the thought of ceasing to exist to be pretty terrifying. Also because it makes our existences quite pointless. I've given myself a purpose (the study of the universe, which is all the more important since we're the only civilization that exists, as far as we know), but people need some direction. It's comforting to think that someone cares about the pain you must endure in your daily life, and that's why I think religion has a mostly positive influence.

    Well, I personally don't believe a lack of belief in a particular middle eastern deity is a denial of all afterlife, nor do I think that taking a "wait and see" approach to dying does the same. I think there may be something beyond death, but there's nothing really to concretely link that state, if it should exist, to any of our current religious systems. If there is a state of afterlife, it's an undiscovered part of our physical reality, in my mind, and I highly doubt it's governed by our worship, or moral, or masturbatory, or marriage practices in this existence.

    But taken for a moment as granted that we merely cease, I don't think a limited existence makes us "pointless" at all, dude, I think scarcity enriches. I kind of cleave to this:


    Penn Jillette Wrote:

    "This I believe: I believe there is no God." Having taken that step, it informs every moment of my life. I'm not greedy. I have love, blue skies, rainbows and Hallmark cards, and that has to be enough. It has to be enough, but it's everything in the world and everything in the world is plenty for me. It seems just rude to beg the invisible for more. Just the love of my family that raised me and the family I'm raising now is enough that I don't need heaven. I won the huge genetic lottery and I get joy every day.

    Believing there's no God means I can't really be forgiven except by kindness and faulty memories. That's good; it makes me want to be more thoughtful. I have to try to treat people right the first time around.
    Believing there's no God stops me from being solipsistic. I can read ideas from all different people from all different cultures.

    Without God, we can agree on reality, and I can keep learning where I'm wrong. We can all keep adjusting, so we can really communicate. I don't travel in circles where people say, "I have faith, I believe this in my heart and nothing you can say or do can shake my faith." That's just a long-winded religious way to say, "shut up," or another two words that the FCC likes less. But all obscenity is less insulting than, "How I was brought up and my imaginary friend means more to me than anything you can ever say or do." So, believing there is no God lets me be proven wrong and that's always fun. It means I'm learning something.

    Believing there is no God means the suffering I've seen in my family, and indeed all the suffering in the world, isn't caused by an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent force that isn't bothered to help or is just testing us, but rather something we all may be able to help others with in the future. No God means the possibility of less suffering in the future.

    Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-O and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have.

    And that, by the way, is as close to a statement of "positive atheism" as I've recently encountered. Guy's a magician, you should see what he does with scarves.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Korlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    no, but Christianity has several core beliefs, including "If you don't believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior, then you are damned to Hell." Any expression of Christian belief is implicitly saying "believe, or go to hell." If you say "I am Christian," you are also saying, "and if you're not, you're going to hell."

    Basically, I know that if I am talking to someone who is actually Christian, who really believes, then I know I'm talking to someone who believes I am damned to an eternity of torment because of my beliefs, or lack thereof. The very nature of their beliefs is offensive to me, and to anyone non-Christian. Thus, any expression of that belief is going to be offensive.

    Now, of course, pragmatically, I don't really mind that much when the person in question is not expressing those beliefs, and is not pushing them on me. But putting up a nativity scene in a public place is an expression of beliefs that are offensive to many, many people, because those beliefs come as a unit.

    Except every religious belief outside of blase agnosticism is saying similarly offensive things. You're an atheist? Oh, well, you're implicitly saying that 90% of the earth is a bunch of dumbasses praying to fairy tales because they're not as smart as you. Isn't that offensive, as well?

    Instead of being offended by the implicit declarations of almost everyone on the planet, maybe you could just not worry about it, and realize that probably every person on the planet has at least one belief that would totally piss you off.

    My beliefs are offensive for exactly the reasons you describe, yes. That is why I would not put them up, in that form, in front of a legislative building, unless everyone else were allowed to do so as well. I lean towards nobody being allowed, because there are far too many beliefs and it would make it difficult to get to the door.

    If Christians put up a sign that said "Love thy neighbour," etc, and other universally positive messages from their religion, I would have much less of a problem, because they would be reaching out beyond their religion to other people, even with the implications present in a line from the King James bible. They could even put a cross on it, and it would be fine by me, because it would seem to be saying "God says, be nice to people."

    A nativity scene, though, is basically a Christian ritual or symbol, and that's it. If you're just re-enacting your mythology on public property, you can fuck off. That's not cool.

    But religion is part of your history. You can't just dismiss centuries of faith, even if you're an atheist. It would be like changing your flag for no reason.

    As has been stated previously: people in the past did all sorts of shit, both good and bad. We keep up the good things, and learn about the bad ones in books.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Difference? Making exclusivistic claims based on evidence, not just talking out of your ass and throwing god in the gaps.

    So if you implicitly tell 90% of the planet to fuck off and stop being retarded, it's okay, because you strongly feel that you're right.

    Gotcha.

    What's the logical fallacy here? I forgot what it's called, but you're spectacular at it because I see you doing it every time you disagree with somebody.

    Either way, no, it's not because I "strongly feel I'm right." It's because I can point at evidence in reality. You people like to act as if there's no difference between religious belief and naturalism, but you're incredibly incorrect.

    you really need to cut back on the generalizations and accept that people don't all fall into neat little categories.

    Dunadan019 on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Korlash wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    no, but Christianity has several core beliefs, including "If you don't believe in Jesus and accept him as your savior, then you are damned to Hell." Any expression of Christian belief is implicitly saying "believe, or go to hell." If you say "I am Christian," you are also saying, "and if you're not, you're going to hell."

    Basically, I know that if I am talking to someone who is actually Christian, who really believes, then I know I'm talking to someone who believes I am damned to an eternity of torment because of my beliefs, or lack thereof. The very nature of their beliefs is offensive to me, and to anyone non-Christian. Thus, any expression of that belief is going to be offensive.

    Now, of course, pragmatically, I don't really mind that much when the person in question is not expressing those beliefs, and is not pushing them on me. But putting up a nativity scene in a public place is an expression of beliefs that are offensive to many, many people, because those beliefs come as a unit.

    Except every religious belief outside of blase agnosticism is saying similarly offensive things. You're an atheist? Oh, well, you're implicitly saying that 90% of the earth is a bunch of dumbasses praying to fairy tales because they're not as smart as you. Isn't that offensive, as well?

    Instead of being offended by the implicit declarations of almost everyone on the planet, maybe you could just not worry about it, and realize that probably every person on the planet has at least one belief that would totally piss you off.

    My beliefs are offensive for exactly the reasons you describe, yes. That is why I would not put them up, in that form, in front of a legislative building, unless everyone else were allowed to do so as well. I lean towards nobody being allowed, because there are far too many beliefs and it would make it difficult to get to the door.

    If Christians put up a sign that said "Love thy neighbour," etc, and other universally positive messages from their religion, I would have much less of a problem, because they would be reaching out beyond their religion to other people, even with the implications present in a line from the King James bible. They could even put a cross on it, and it would be fine by me, because it would seem to be saying "God says, be nice to people."

    A nativity scene, though, is basically a Christian ritual or symbol, and that's it. If you're just re-enacting your mythology on public property, you can fuck off. That's not cool.

    But religion is part of your history. You can't just dismiss centuries of faith, even if you're an atheist. It would be like changing your flag for no reason.

    Why does this matter at all?

    Christianity does not represent me, nor many others.

    I could Godwin the whole thing with Nazi symbols and German history, but I will only imply it.

    Why should historical importance make the expression of exclusive beliefs any more acceptable?

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Qingu wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Can I point out that I know a lot of pretty secular people who stick up nativity scenes because they're pretty?

    Also, I'm one of these people. My family is christian, I'm atheist, but I don't really give a crap. It's a nice story in my opinion...one of the few nice stories in Bible, actually. Jesus was a pretty cool guy.
    It's a bullshit story added by Luke to tie in the myth of Christianity to the paganism of the time (the magi).

    And Jesus was an asshole. "You're either with me or against me." "Ditch your families to follow me—let the dead bury the dead." The constant threats of hellfire. Have you actually read the man's parables? They are bare-toothed threats against unbelievers: "The master is going to come home and totally kill all the bad slaves!"

    He was a doomsday cult leader. Fuck Jesus and the donkey he rode in on.

    I know, but it's still a nice story. Like fairy tales (the non-Grimm versions).

    And Jesus was a cool guy when you take on account the time he lived in. I mean shit, there are still places in the world where they stone prostitutes and actively shun sick people and beat up children - I think I can forgive few fanatic quotes when you consider that two thousand years ago, this...

    eakins_crucifixion335x600.jpg

    ...was an entirely acceptable form of capital punishment. And you could end up like that from, I don't know, saving people from being stoned. :|

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    People are going to be offended by any Atheist message since it is by its nature rejecting claims made by religious people. You can't state an intention to pull the consensus back towards center without offending the people who work hard keeping it out there.

    Clearly, that sign could have made its point in a more respectful manner.

    Would have helped its cause, yes.

    Not if its cause is the one I think it is.

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    People are going to be offended by any Atheist message since it is by its nature rejecting claims made by religious people. You can't state an intention to pull the consensus back towards center without offending the people who work hard keeping it out there.

    Clearly, that sign could have made its point in a more respectful manner.

    Would have helped its cause, yes.

    Yeah, though I thought the language had sort of a holiday theme. When you boil it down, it's going to be saying "Your god does not exist and you should not hold beliefs without evidence"

    Find a cheerful way to say that.

    "During this Christmas Season, we would encourage that everyone stop, think, and consider the way in which they treat their friends, family, and most especially those whom they have never met and that regardless of our differences, beliefs, or ideologies we are all human."

    :?:

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Emanon wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    I find the sign offensive and I'm an atheist. I'm not saying it should be censored, but it seems designed specifically to offend and anger particular people. I don't think Christmas trees or menorahs are meant to be offensive.

    Should the Washington State government take it down at the price of free speech or take the controversial hits till New Year's? Either way I'll bet heavily that they'll review any future sign or display.

    Did you even read your own link? Some dickhead in the private sector took it down for them already.

    Haha, it's the same link but CNN updated it about 11 minutes ago. This must of just happened, crazy.

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I feel like Atheism is morphing into just another religion. If you put a black box over everything they actually believe and look at how they act, it is just like any other religion. There are normal ones who get along with other people and there are zealots who think the world is doomed unless everyone is either converted to their world view or taught their place.

    Smurph on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    People are going to be offended by any Atheist message since it is by its nature rejecting claims made by religious people. You can't state an intention to pull the consensus back towards center without offending the people who work hard keeping it out there.

    Clearly, that sign could have made its point in a more respectful manner.

    Would have helped its cause, yes.

    Not if its cause is the one I think it is.

    I tend to be generous in attributing the intent behind the owner.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Not actually a mod. Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2008
    My beliefs are offensive for exactly the reasons you describe, yes. That is why I would not put them up, in that form, in front of a legislative building, unless everyone else were allowed to do so as well. I lean towards nobody being allowed, because there are far too many beliefs and it would make it difficult to get to the door.

    How do you feel about Jack O'Lanterns displayed on public property?

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • Options
    KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Athiesm needs a PR department or something.

    KalTorak on
  • Options
    AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Difference? Making exclusivistic claims based on evidence, not just talking out of your ass and throwing god in the gaps.

    So if you implicitly tell 90% of the planet to fuck off and stop being retarded, it's okay, because you strongly feel that you're right.

    Gotcha.

    What's the logical fallacy here? I forgot what it's called, but you're spectacular at it because I see you doing it every time you disagree with somebody.

    Either way, no, it's not because I "strongly feel I'm right." It's because I can point at evidence in reality. You people like to act as if there's no difference between religious belief and naturalism, but you're incredibly incorrect.

    When it comes to religion or belief systems, myself personally, no I don't see what it matters that one belief system uses facts to explain their worldview and the other uses non-facts.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • Options
    KorlashKorlash Québécois TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Korlash wrote: »
    Qingu wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    That kind of exchange between intellectuals is to be encouraged, but I doubt the general population can face reality. I know that I don't want to let myself be entertained by illusions, and it seems like other intellectuals think the same, but if you ask around, you're likely to have a lot of people tell you that they wouldn't mind living in the Matrix.
    I wouldn't mind living in the Matrix. I also think we should try to engage the "plebs" in intellectual debates. I'm not that much of an elitist.
    Let them have their god. I'd rather them believe than be depressed. I think depression is enough of an issue in modern society, we don't need to make matters worse.
    Here's where I think you're unreasonable: the atheistic worldview is not actually depressing. It certainly doesn't need to be.

    Yeah, the idea of the afterlife is sort of a booster, but I wouldn't want to sit around in heaven eternally praising the Creator. Some people claim that the evolution origin story is depressing. But I think the gradual evolution of intelligence from inert matter, culminating in our technology and ideas in morals—we are the universe becoming aware of itself—is a much more beautiful and uplifting story than the story of a Mesopotamian deity creating us out of clay as slave-workers for his garden and then threatening us with eternal torture if we don't completely obey his whims.

    Atheism only seems depressing because so many religious people define their happiness in terms of their cult. Plenty of religious people are also depressed, often directly because of their religion.

    I may come off as elitist, but that's what college level philosophy classes do to you (majoring in physics, but it's required here). Some people are just completely incapable of a rational debate. These people vastly outnumber those who can reason.

    But yes, I'd rather prefer if there existed a god, to be honest. Mostly because I find the thought of ceasing to exist to be pretty terrifying. Also because it makes our existences quite pointless. I've given myself a purpose (the study of the universe, which is all the more important since we're the only civilization that exists, as far as we know), but people need some direction. It's comforting to think that someone cares about the pain you must endure in your daily life, and that's why I think religion has a mostly positive influence.

    Well, I personally don't believe a lack of belief in a particular middle eastern deity is a denial of all afterlife, nor do I think that taking a "wait and see" approach to dying does the same. I think there may be something beyond death, but there's nothing really to concretely link that state, if it should exist, to any of our current religious systems. If there is a state of afterlife, it's an undiscovered part of our physical reality, in my mind, and I highly doubt it's governed by our worship, or moral, or masturbatory, or marriage practices in this existence.

    But taken for a moment as granted that we merely cease, I don't think a limited existence makes us "pointless" at all, dude, I think scarcity enriches. I kind of cleave to this:


    And that, by the way, is as close to a statement of "positive atheism" as I've recently encountered. Guy's a magician, you should see what he does with scarves.

    I doubt that an afterlife could exist without a deity to create it.

    The person you quoted is optimistic. But I'm by nature a cynic. I don't think we're heading in the right direction to be honest. The notion that we are not special in any way only convinces me further that there is nothing we will ever be able to do about wars and hatred. We're animals, and we'll never be able to escape our true nature.

    So that's what I find depressing in atheism.

    Korlash on
    396796-1.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Athiesm needs a PR department or something.

    It should start with an "Atheism is spell with an 'ei,' not 'ie.'" campaign.

    Couscous on
  • Options
    TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    People are going to be offended by any Atheist message since it is by its nature rejecting claims made by religious people. You can't state an intention to pull the consensus back towards center without offending the people who work hard keeping it out there.

    Clearly, that sign could have made its point in a more respectful manner.

    Would have helped its cause, yes.

    Probably not, I think its just as much to make the government go "For fuck's sake, no more religious decorations at all if this is the sort of decoration and reactions we get" than as to promote atheism.

    Which makes sense as far as changing people's perception of religion goes, atheism is hard to promote because your up against a lot of social inertia and history. However just like cracking down on casual racism or sexism plays a big role in changing people's minds without necessarily accusing them of being the sort of people to lynch darkies. How often does the idea that 'This is a Christian Country' come up? It's still something that promotes the same sort of response as 'mexicans taking your job' or welfare queens.

    Tastyfish on
  • Options
    EmanonEmanon __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Great, the fact the sign was stolen makes the atheists look like victims. GG atheists, GG.

    Atheist sign disappears from Washington state Capitol

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

    Emanon on
    Treats Animals Right!
  • Options
    NartwakNartwak Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Damn atheists, always playing the victims!!

    Nartwak on
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I'm also sick of the "Atheism wins cus of Science" arguments. Nobody says that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and if you do then I believe almost every great scientific mind the world has ever seen would like to have a word with you.

    Smurph on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Korlash wrote: »
    People are going to be offended by any Atheist message since it is by its nature rejecting claims made by religious people. You can't state an intention to pull the consensus back towards center without offending the people who work hard keeping it out there.

    Clearly, that sign could have made its point in a more respectful manner.

    Would have helped its cause, yes.

    Yeah, though I thought the language had sort of a holiday theme. When you boil it down, it's going to be saying "Your god does not exist and you should not hold beliefs without evidence"

    Find a cheerful way to say that.

    "During this Christmas Season, we would encourage that everyone stop, think, and consider the way in which they treat their friends, family, and most especially those whom they have never met and that regardless of our differences, beliefs, or ideologies we are all human."

    :?:

    That certainly has a nice message, but it's not really atheist. I think that would be acceptable for a decorative theme for a government building.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My beliefs are offensive for exactly the reasons you describe, yes. That is why I would not put them up, in that form, in front of a legislative building, unless everyone else were allowed to do so as well. I lean towards nobody being allowed, because there are far too many beliefs and it would make it difficult to get to the door.

    How do you feel about Jack O'Lanterns displayed on public property?

    That's kind of tricky one. ALl this is tricky, because what I honestly believe about the really petty shit, is "Let the school kids have a fucking Christmas tree cookie, let people hang up a scary ghost, fuck it."

    I'm not nearly the prick in real life that I am on here, in the anonymous persuit of consistaint logic.

    Halloween is tricky because most people are unacquainted with the actual origins of the holiday and see it as a fall thing. That said, what I think is that symbols and holliday signs from all relgious hollidays should be put out. I think schools should detail and participate in most holidays not as endorsement but as part of equal time education about every holiday.

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Difference? Making exclusivistic claims based on evidence, not just talking out of your ass and throwing god in the gaps.

    So if you implicitly tell 90% of the planet to fuck off and stop being retarded, it's okay, because you strongly feel that you're right.

    Gotcha.

    What's the logical fallacy here? I forgot what it's called, but you're spectacular at it because I see you doing it every time you disagree with somebody.

    Either way, no, it's not because I "strongly feel I'm right." It's because I can point at evidence in reality. You people like to act as if there's no difference between religious belief and naturalism, but you're incredibly incorrect.

    you really need to cut back on the generalizations and accept that people don't all fall into neat little categories.

    Oh my god. You really don't understand what a generalization is, do you? I didn't even specify any group and attribute a quality to them. I just said "you people," while referring to people that act like there's no difference between naturalism and religious belief.

    So, in saying, "When you people post I get this immense urge to start headbutting things," I'm talking about people that come in and post stupid things in an effort to win points or something instead of addressing the content of a post.

    And actually, "you people" in the context of these forums is an incredibly specific group of people with a long history of butting heads of this very topic. So yeah, you need to go back in your hole or say something that adds to the discourse.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    EmperorSethEmperorSeth Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Emanon wrote: »
    Great, the fact the sign was stolen makes the atheists look like victims. GG atheists, GG.

    Atheist sign disappears from Washington state Capitol

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

    Well, they are. Damn reality!

    EmperorSeth on
    You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    See.

    A higher prevelance of indivduals who belong to, well I don't want to describe all the variables so lets just say "bigoted" or "prejudiced" orientations with regards to other people? They tend to have religious backgrounds.

    I'm reaaaaaally sorry if that makes you angry.

    But this is what has been observed.

    So I can't object to that last line.

    It would have helped if he'd put some reference or evidence backing up his factual claim.

    I'm perfectly fine with the idea that this is going to be an unpopular claim for me to be making and will produce evidence on demand.

    But I will say, people who claim they are religious but not bigoted aren't actually holding to the spirit of their religion. Religions are bigoted. All of them, without fail, clearly define an ingroup to belong to and an outgroup to put others in. Most of them have clear implications that the outgroup has a negative set of attitudes attached to them, while the ingroup has extremely clear positive attitudes.
    This is the bedrock of prejudice, packaged and taught wholesale as a guide book of how to stereotype people.


    So if you want to believe in a god or something but decide any one religions tenants aren't what you believe in, I don't consider you religious. Spiritual maybe. But if you don't subscribe to the tenants of the religion, that is you don't put people in these groupings, this sign doesn't apply to you.

    So I don't buy the "not all religion is like this". Religion is like this. People are different though.

    Sign definitely didn't say "All people who believe in religion have hardened hearts and closed minds."

    It said "Religion causes these things"

    And if you believe it, and follow it's tenants? It does.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Emanon wrote: »
    Great, the fact the sign was stolen makes the atheists look like victims. GG atheists, GG.

    Atheist sign disappears from Washington state Capitol

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/index.html

    hehe, not that i actually would take it... but if i lived there and saw someone making off with it, i would think of a good reason to study my shoes.

    im surprised qingu only came in for a second, maybe he's busy and well get the full dose later on.

    Dunadan019 on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Smurph wrote: »
    I'm also sick of the "Atheism wins cus of Science" arguments. Nobody says that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and if you do then I believe almost every great scientific mind the world has ever seen would like to have a word with you.

    I suppose there is no conflict as long as the religion doesn't make unsubstantiated claims. However, once you start saying things like "There is a god", then you're undermining the methods we use to advance our understanding, to the detriment of future progress.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My beliefs are offensive for exactly the reasons you describe, yes. That is why I would not put them up, in that form, in front of a legislative building, unless everyone else were allowed to do so as well. I lean towards nobody being allowed, because there are far too many beliefs and it would make it difficult to get to the door.

    How do you feel about Jack O'Lanterns displayed on public property?
    What sincerely held religious beliefs do Jack O'Lanterns represent?

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    KorlashKorlash Québécois TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Smurph wrote: »
    I'm also sick of the "Atheism wins cus of Science" arguments. Nobody says that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and if you do then I believe almost every great scientific mind the world has ever seen would like to have a word with you.

    I don't know, this is one thing that I have a problem with.

    If you follow the scientific method to its conclusion, then the rational position on issues on which there is no evidence yet is to consider that it doesn't exist, by default.

    Now that doesn't mean that scientists are always perfectly rational. But you can't deny that if you use nothing but pure logic, it is more convenient to consider everything to be wrong by default.

    Korlash on
    396796-1.png
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Difference? Making exclusivistic claims based on evidence, not just talking out of your ass and throwing god in the gaps.

    So if you implicitly tell 90% of the planet to fuck off and stop being retarded, it's okay, because you strongly feel that you're right.

    Gotcha.

    What's the logical fallacy here? I forgot what it's called, but you're spectacular at it because I see you doing it every time you disagree with somebody.

    Either way, no, it's not because I "strongly feel I'm right." It's because I can point at evidence in reality. You people like to act as if there's no difference between religious belief and naturalism, but you're incredibly incorrect.

    When it comes to religion or belief systems, myself personally, no I don't see what it matters that one belief system uses facts to explain their worldview and the other uses non-facts.

    It's not just a world view, it's a statement about objective reality that affects me, you, and everybody else. People can attribute whatever they want to fanciful deities, thusly we have Mormons and prop 8 and 9/11 and religious wars and genocide. It makes a huge difference.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Someone asked about how the sign was offensive. I'll reproduce the text here in case anyone else wants to comment.
    At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail.

    There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

    For me, the last sentence is what really does it. Whether or not I agree with that statement, I find it deliberately inflammatory. Religion is not exclusively myth and superstition, and it does not merely harden hearts and enslave minds. To reduce it to that is disingenuous and insulting.

    Moreover, the second sentence is inflammatory because it directly attacks the religious beliefs of others. Again, a Christmas tree does not by its nature tell everyone "believe in Jesus or burn in hell for eternity." It does not send a message that insinuates that anyone who believes in angels, demons, etc. is fundamentally misguided.

    The first sentence, finally, insinuates that people who don't agree with the sign are not reasonable or rational. Again, I think that is insulting.

    Quoth on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thank you Morninglord. Thank you.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Honestly, I can't work out which one people are outraged over. To me, skimming through the thread, a lot of people just seem to be outraged.

    I'd like a coherent summary.

    The only reason I can think of is people view atheism as inherently offensive in its beliefs. I see the statement as no more offensive than what is said even in the most tolerant/open Christian churches. Hell, its pretty much an atheist version of the First Commandment.
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    if you can define christmas as a secular holiday than i can define the nativity as a secular holiday decoration.

    i find both fairly rediculous.

    Christmas is a secular holiday. Legally its secular. Otherwise, it could not be officially celebrated.
    To most people it is secular - unless your religion is materialism, nutmeg worship or you follow the Church of the Santa.

    Hell, a majority of the traditions are pagan in origin - the tree, the mistletoe, stockings, yule logs , leaving Santa and his reindeer treats- or at the very least have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus - Santa Claus, gift giving, etc. The celebration of the Winter Solstice predates Christianity in Europe by thousands of years. Hell, Christmas as a major holiday exists entirely so one of the early Popes could co-opt Winter Solstice celebrations.


    The moral is the government shouldn't display religious displays.

    ed
    Korlash wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    I'm also sick of the "Atheism wins cus of Science" arguments. Nobody says that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and if you do then I believe almost every great scientific mind the world has ever seen would like to have a word with you.

    I don't know, this is one thing that I have a problem with.

    If you follow the scientific method to its conclusion, then the rational position on issues on which there is no evidence yet is to consider that it doesn't exist, by default.
    I disagree. Without evidence of existence or non-existence the scientific method takes neither side. As a logical examination of a god indicates that it exists outside the observable universe and/or in all observations there is a strong argument that no such evidence could exist. Therefore, science is neutral /agnostic

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    See.

    A higher prevelance of indivduals who belong to, well I don't want to describe all the variables so lets just say "bigoted" or "prejudiced" orientations with regards to other people? They tend to have religious backgrounds.

    I'm reaaaaaally sorry if that makes you angry.

    But this is what has been observed.

    So I can't object to that last line.

    It would have helped if he'd put some reference or evidence backing up his factual claim.

    I'm perfectly fine with the idea that this is going to be an unpopular claim for me to be making and will produce evidence on demand.

    But I will say, people who claim they are religious but not bigoted aren't actually holding to the spirit of their religion. Religions are bigoted. All of them, without fail, clearly define an ingroup to belong to and an outgroup to put others in. Most of them have clear implications that the outgroup has a negative set of attitudes attached to them, while the ingroup has extremely clear positive attitudes.
    This is the bedrock of prejudice, packaged and taught wholesale as a guide book of how to stereotype people.


    So if you want to believe in a god or something but decide any one religions tenants aren't what you believe in, I don't consider you religious. Spiritual maybe. But if you don't subscribe to the tenants of the religion, that is you don't put people in these groupings, this sign doesn't apply to you.

    So I don't buy the "not all religion is like this". Religion is like this. People are different though.

    Sign definitely didn't say "All people who believe in religion have hardened hearts and closed minds."

    It said "Religion causes these things"

    And if you believe it, and follow it's tenants? It does.

    So religion promotes undesirable effects on those who believe in it, but Atheists are spared from those effect because their beliefs are different, some would say better?

    I'm just wondering.

    Smurph on
  • Options
    TL DRTL DR Not at all confident in his reflexive opinions of thingsRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    A lot of people are using Christmas trees in their analogies. A Christmas tree is fairly secular, and does not draw on any direct Christian imagery that I know of. It is not the same as a nativity scene at all.

    TL DR on
  • Options
    JohnnyCacheJohnnyCache Starting Defense Place at the tableRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Smurph wrote: »
    I'm also sick of the "Atheism wins cus of Science" arguments. Nobody says that religion and science are mutually exclusive, and if you do then I believe almost every great scientific mind the world has ever seen would like to have a word with you.

    Who actually says this? Besides people commenting on youtube?

    To me, this post is expressing insecurity with the fact that there is no proof god by spite towards science.

    Yes, you can believe in science and religion, if you compartmentalize them and choose to believe without proof, and that's got a certain beauty, but by doing so, by saying "Well, they aren't mutual exclusive" you are just admitting the atheist point - there's no proof - and then saying, "But I'm gonna keep on keepin' on"

    Fine, good for you I guess, but how can you then reserve such spite for someone when you fundamentally agree with their logic?

    JohnnyCache on
  • Options
    Evil MultifariousEvil Multifarious Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    My beliefs are offensive for exactly the reasons you describe, yes. That is why I would not put them up, in that form, in front of a legislative building, unless everyone else were allowed to do so as well. I lean towards nobody being allowed, because there are far too many beliefs and it would make it difficult to get to the door.

    How do you feel about Jack O'Lanterns displayed on public property?

    I feel that Jack O'Lanterns have been emptied of most of their specific cultural/religious meaning, as have the stars on Christmas trees, Christmas trees themselves, Kris Kringle/Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and his menagerie of chocolate, and the tradition of wearing masks on Halloween.

    The nativity scene is still explicitly Christian, though, because it's got Jesus right there.

    Evil Multifarious on
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Basically, I know that if I am talking to someone who is actually Christian, who really believes, then I know I'm talking to someone who believes I am damned to an eternity of torment because of my beliefs, or lack thereof.
    Yeah the official position of the Holy See is that that ain't the case

    Roman Catholics comprise a plurality of Christians

    Just sayin'

    Salvation122 on
This discussion has been closed.