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.
...but if you were religious (are you? I didn't get that, thread moves too fast) you wouldn't find any of that stuff depressing?
And why do you believe that, anyway? Look at world 2000 years ago and look at it now. Hell, look at it a hundred years ago.
You seriously believe that nothing has changed for the better?
The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."
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.
Pretty much everything has been a symbol of religion at one point. You can't equate Halloween with a religion, pretty much nobody knows that it is a religous thing at all (I didn't, thought that it just happens to be on the same day as the Day of All Saints).
Comparing the two is kind of redundant. I really don't think it's tricky at all.
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'
so what, exactly, are you suggesting is the Roman Catholic attitude? Good works, etc, can get you into heaven regardless of your beliefs? this may very well be the case, if I recall correctly from my Catholic high school education.
Would not an atheist who actively spreads skepticism and criticism of religion and religious thought be considered actively not doing good works?
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
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'
When your argument is, "yes, but the pope has countermanded that part of the bible" you're pretty much arguing FOR the erosion of your own religion into secularity
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.
Except we're not talking about who's right. We're not talking about intellectual dick-waving. We're talking about appropriate ways to treat people. If someone reveals to me that he believes a talking crow leaves magic cupcakes under his pillow every morning, I'm not going to berate him for being an idiot. Because that would make me a total dick.
Now, you think you're right. Clearly. Because everyone always thinks he's right. And you certainly have better reason to believe that you're right than the guy who picks Christianity out of a catalog. But you don't have better reason to trumpet your beliefs to unwitting audiences than anyone else.
In the original context of my argument that any expression of belief is going to be inherently "offensive" by the standards to which I was responding, you said that it's okay if your expression is offensive because you're right. It's that sentiment which I find toxic as all fuck.
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.
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
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.
Dunno.
What's an atheist. I guess I'm an atheist, but I have no creed other than not religious. I have no outgroups or ingroups to put people in, being an individualist, and I don't judge religious people. I pity them, and wish they hadn't learnt what they did, but I don't discriminate against them for belonging to a group. I treat people by their individual characteristics, not what group they belong to.
Atheism is what people are calling this sign. It's derived from "not religious".
I guess there are some people for whom atheism has become a set of ingroup/outgroup values in reverse of religion.
In which case fuck those atheists (on an individual level), they're morons and don't get it.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
jeffe, again, here people are free to speak exactly as they believe. Hippe's probably if not nicer, at least more restrained in person. And this isn't an unwitting audience, everybody who clicked on this thread was salivating for a good ole fashioned clusterfuck.
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.
Except we're not talking about who's right. We're not talking about intellectual dick-waving. We're talking about appropriate ways to treat people. If someone reveals to me that he believes a talking crow leaves magic cupcakes under his pillow every morning, I'm not going to berate him for being an idiot. Because that would make me a total dick.
Now, you think you're right. Clearly. Because everyone always thinks he's right. And you certainly have better reason to believe that you're right than the guy who picks Christianity out of a catalog. But you don't have better reason to trumpet your beliefs to unwitting audiences than anyone else.
In the original context of my argument that any expression of belief is going to be inherently "offensive" by the standards to which I was responding, you said that it's okay if your expression is offensive because you're right. It's that sentiment which I find toxic as all fuck.
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
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?
You're looking at religion fro a scientific perspective, which makes no sense. Of course there is no proof that a god exists, if there were then religion would BE science and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I'm having a hard time believing that a nativity scene is just a bunch of people and a baby, instead of a statement about the only way to true peace being via a child born of immaculate conception. Maybe it's that way for some people, but it's pretty dickish to erect such a monument on public property, when there are all sorts of generic 'seasons greetings' messages that would be more considerate of the diverse beliefs of people who may have to use these public facilities.
thats because you already know the meaning behind the scene.
when you guys (who see all this symbology in a nativity scene) look at the back of a one dollar bill do you get all offended about the word under god? or the free mason symbology? does the sun rising every day state that the ever powerful RA is watching over you?
Offended? No. But "under god" shouldn't be on money, and the freemason symbology shouldn't be on money. I'd be glad if they were removed and would vote that way if I ever got the chance, but it probably won't happen.
Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his "King Bonehead" crown, I see we have an heir to the throne! I'm sure the word you were looking for was "symbolism." What is the ssss-himbolism there?
Are you talking to me? Because yeah, I used the wrong word responding to Dunadan. As for symbols, you know that freaky eye on a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is a Freemason symbol, right? It shouldn't be on money any more than a cross or a pentagram should.
Trowizilla on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited December 2008
Not me Johnny.
I was like "Ok, how do I explain this concept in this thread. I have to be extremely careful here."
Took me a while to write. Was very interesting.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I'm having a hard time believing that a nativity scene is just a bunch of people and a baby, instead of a statement about the only way to true peace being via a child born of immaculate conception. Maybe it's that way for some people, but it's pretty dickish to erect such a monument on public property, when there are all sorts of generic 'seasons greetings' messages that would be more considerate of the diverse beliefs of people who may have to use these public facilities.
thats because you already know the meaning behind the scene.
when you guys (who see all this symbology in a nativity scene) look at the back of a one dollar bill do you get all offended about the word under god? or the free mason symbology? does the sun rising every day state that the ever powerful RA is watching over you?
Offended? No. But "under god" shouldn't be on money, and the freemason symbology shouldn't be on money. I'd be glad if they were removed and would vote that way if I ever got the chance, but it probably won't happen.
Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his "King Bonehead" crown, I see we have an heir to the throne! I'm sure the word you were looking for was "symbolism." What is the ssss-himbolism there?
Are you talking to me? Because yeah, I used the wrong word responding to Dunadan. As for symbols, you know that freaky eye on a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is a Freemason symbol, right? It shouldn't be on money any more than a cross or a pentagram should.
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.
Sure, it's objective for that one person who believes in it. Doesn't mean it applies to what I believe, notwithstanding whether they want it to or not.
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.
Which one makes unsubstantiated claims that fly in the face of reality?
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.
thats not right. the fact that it is a federal holiday doesnt mean that it is actually secular... the gorvernment can be (and often is) wrong.
if christmas is defined as a secular holliday than i see no reason defining the nativity as a secular christmas decoration.
heck it is associated with a certain religion but its only brought out for that religion during the specific religious holliday that the now secular federal holliday is based off of. so its a traditional decoration.
i find both absurd.
ill pick this thread up again on monday, im heading home.
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.
...but if you were religious (are you? I didn't get that, thread moves too fast) you wouldn't find any of that stuff depressing?
And why do you believe that, anyway? Look at world 2000 years ago and look at it now. Hell, look at it a hundred years ago.
You seriously believe that nothing has changed for the better?
I'm what you could call an unwilling atheist. I don't believe, but I'd love to.
If I believed, then I might think that all this suffering has purpose, or that your deity would one day elevate us to a new level, to do greater things.
I don't think we've gotten all that better in the last few millenniums, we're more sophisticated about how we kill each other, but aside from that, I don't see much progress. We're more concerned about the appearance of progress than actually progressing.
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.
I think there are two different tangents being intermingled, here. On the one hand, we have the argument that nativity scenes shouldn't be displayed on public property. Because hello, fucking Jesus. I agree with that.
On the other hand, there's the argument that symbols shouldn't be displayed because of their origins or connotations, regardless of intent. That even if someone sticks out a nativity scene because he sees it as a way of saying "Goodwill towards men" or because it's pretty or whatever, that doesn't matter, because the implicit message according to someone is that people are going to burn in hell. And if that's the case, it would apply to all symbols for all holidays. If displaying a Christian symbol, regardless of intent, is bad at Christmas, then it seems displaying a carved pumpkin (ie, a pagan symbol) is bad at Halloween.
I buy the former argument for disallowing nativity scenes. I don't buy the latter. That's what I'm trying to get at.
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.
How is the sign 'preaching hatred' as opposed to 'protesting the intermarriage of state and religion' or 'discouraging contradictory belief systems'
Saying that all religion "hardens hearts and enslaves minds" is pretty fucking hateful, dude, and if you can't see that you're willfully blinding yourself.
Just like religious fanatics do!
Atheists are just following in the vein of Jefferson, who called organized religion attempting to encroach on the public a "form of tyranny over the mind of man."
(and before anyone gets on me for taking the quote out of context, I suggest you read the whole quote from the letter it was taken from, it is explicitly directed towards the leaders of religious groups that opposed his presidency for his opposition to public acknowledgement and funding of churches)
But basically, if the nativity scene gets to go up, I think the sign should get to go up too. And the animated volcano that the scientologists will put up. And the altar covered in goat blood that the satanists want to put up.
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
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.
Dunno.
What's an atheist. I guess I'm an atheist, but I have no creed other than not religious. I have no outgroups or ingroups to put people in, being an individualist, and I don't judge religious people. I pity them, and wish they hadn't learnt what they did, but I don't discriminate against them for belonging to a group. I treat people by their individual characteristics, not what group they belong to.
Atheism is what people are calling this sign. It's derived from "not religious".
I guess there are some people for whom atheism has become a set of ingroup/outgroup values in reverse of religion.
In which case fuck those atheists (on an individual level), they're morons and don't get it.
I realize that you totally understand the point I was trying to make, but you do still come off as someone who is in a group they consider better than others. Why do you need to pity religious people? It's not like they are cavemen who just haven't seen the light yet. A lot of religious people probably pity you too. There is nothing really different about the way Atheists act compared to members of religions.
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
Because if it was considered appropriate to yell at people in public when they believed something crazy, everyone would have carte blanche to yell at everyone else. Because everyone believes in something that other people are going to deem crazy.
Seriously, were you raised by wolves? You seem very confused by matters of basic etiquette, such as "don't randomly insult people who believe different things than you."
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.
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
Just because Jefferson said something doesn't mean it automatically gains validity. Just sayin'.
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.
Dunno.
What's an atheist. I guess I'm an atheist, but I have no creed other than not religious. I have no outgroups or ingroups to put people in, being an individualist, and I don't judge religious people. I pity them, and wish they hadn't learnt what they did, but I don't discriminate against them for belonging to a group. I treat people by their individual characteristics, not what group they belong to.
Atheism is what people are calling this sign. It's derived from "not religious".
I guess there are some people for whom atheism has become a set of ingroup/outgroup values in reverse of religion.
In which case fuck those atheists (on an individual level), they're morons and don't get it.
I think we all choose our own ethics. People say their derive their ethics from the bible, but they really get them from parents and community - witness, as proof, the thousands of communities that have justified totally different moral systems with the same sets of books.
I choose ethics based on safety, mutualism, logic, and a desire to see our species learn more. I hope everyone around me does the same, and that fear of Space Dad and the .357 in my nightstand aren't all that lies between me and anarchy. I suppose some people could try to use atheism to justify a very sociopathic existence, but I have come to the conclusion those people are logically as well as ethically incorrect.
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
You find it toxic to tolerate opposing beliefs?
I think he's referring to the "silent" part, not the toleration part.
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
I'm having a hard time believing that a nativity scene is just a bunch of people and a baby, instead of a statement about the only way to true peace being via a child born of immaculate conception. Maybe it's that way for some people, but it's pretty dickish to erect such a monument on public property, when there are all sorts of generic 'seasons greetings' messages that would be more considerate of the diverse beliefs of people who may have to use these public facilities.
thats because you already know the meaning behind the scene.
when you guys (who see all this symbology in a nativity scene) look at the back of a one dollar bill do you get all offended about the word under god? or the free mason symbology? does the sun rising every day state that the ever powerful RA is watching over you?
Offended? No. But "under god" shouldn't be on money, and the freemason symbology shouldn't be on money. I'd be glad if they were removed and would vote that way if I ever got the chance, but it probably won't happen.
Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his "King Bonehead" crown, I see we have an heir to the throne! I'm sure the word you were looking for was "symbolism." What is the ssss-himbolism there?
Are you talking to me? Because yeah, I used the wrong word responding to Dunadan. As for symbols, you know that freaky eye on a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is a Freemason symbol, right? It shouldn't be on money any more than a cross or a pentagram should.
yeah and i habitually mutilate the english language, spelling and grammar in general... so i hope he wasn't talking to me.
I'm having a hard time believing that a nativity scene is just a bunch of people and a baby, instead of a statement about the only way to true peace being via a child born of immaculate conception. Maybe it's that way for some people, but it's pretty dickish to erect such a monument on public property, when there are all sorts of generic 'seasons greetings' messages that would be more considerate of the diverse beliefs of people who may have to use these public facilities.
thats because you already know the meaning behind the scene.
when you guys (who see all this symbology in a nativity scene) look at the back of a one dollar bill do you get all offended about the word under god? or the free mason symbology? does the sun rising every day state that the ever powerful RA is watching over you?
Offended? No. But "under god" shouldn't be on money, and the freemason symbology shouldn't be on money. I'd be glad if they were removed and would vote that way if I ever got the chance, but it probably won't happen.
Symbology? Now that Duffy has relinquished his "King Bonehead" crown, I see we have an heir to the throne! I'm sure the word you were looking for was "symbolism." What is the ssss-himbolism there?
Are you talking to me? Because yeah, I used the wrong word responding to Dunadan. As for symbols, you know that freaky eye on a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is a Freemason symbol, right? It shouldn't be on money any more than a cross or a pentagram should.
It's a reference to a scene in a movie. Namely, Boondock Saints.
The incident will not stifle the group's message, Gaylor said. Before reports of the placard's recovery, she said a temporary sign with the same message would be placed in the building's Rotunda. Gaylor said a note would be attached saying, "Thou shalt not steal."
Hahaha oh man. At first I was like well, there shouldn't be a nativity scene on government property, but on the other hand, that is a dickheaded sign. Now though? That is too awesome. Fight on you angry atheists.
Arkady on
LoL: failboattootoot
0
Options
Quoththe RavenMiami, FL FOR REALRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
So how about instead of a nativity, the Christians put up a sign that says "all nonbelievers will burn in the fires of hell for eternity"? Everyone would be offended, right?
Just because Jefferson said something doesn't mean it automatically gains validity. Just sayin'.
Perhaps, but the fact that we carved it onto his monument and that his philosophies (especially regarding religion) inform our understanding of the first amendment's interpretation, means that it has at least a little validity concerning public display of that sentiment.
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
You find it toxic to tolerate opposing beliefs?
I think he's referring to the "silent" part, not the toleration part.
I suppose I view toleration as being inherently silent then *shrug*.
So how about instead of a nativity, the Christians put up a sign that says "all nonbelievers will burn in the fires of hell for eternity"? Everyone would be offended, right?
Yeah, if they explicitly made it clear that they think atheists and the followers of other religions will burn in hell for not believing in their God then I would be offended.
In the original context of my argument that any expression of belief is going to be inherently "offensive" by the standards to which I was responding, you said that it's okay if your expression is offensive because you're right. It's that sentiment which I find toxic as all fuck.
I want to make it clear that my position is that expression of these kinds of beliefs is inherently offensive to somebody, and inherently exclusive, so it has no place on a legislative building, whether it's atheist or religious.
Evil Multifarious on
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
edited December 2008
Wait, I'm confused.
Why would a sign hung by a Christian stating "all non-Christians will burn in hell" be offensive?
If you don't believe it, why should you pay attention to it? Sure, both are mean-spirited, but you gotta just follow the golden rule of the internet:
Just because Jefferson said something doesn't mean it automatically gains validity. Just sayin'.
Perhaps, but the fact that we carved it onto his monument and that his philosophies (especially regarding religion) inform our understanding of the first amendment's interpretation, means that it has at least a little validity concerning public display of that sentiment.
Well, we put "in God we trust" on our money, so does that have validity too? Should that inform our interpretation of the first amendment?
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
You find it toxic to tolerate opposing beliefs?
In the free market place of ideas, it's kind of like the difference between the guy selling those awesome Shammy Wow! things, and a used car salesman trying to talk you into a lemon.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
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.
Atheists are not members of a religion. Spiritual people who believe in god are not members of a religion. People who fall into these two are spared these effects.
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'
so what, exactly, are you suggesting is the Roman Catholic attitude? Good works, etc, can get you into heaven regardless of your beliefs? this may very well be the case, if I recall correctly from my Catholic high school education.
The Roman Catholic position is that, ultimately, the mind (and, accordingly, judgement) of God is not comprehensible to human minds, and that no mortal can know of any other's specific judgement. The Catechism explicitly says that salvation is open to all believers, regardless of their exact path (not a direct quote, my work computer won't pull up the Catechism for some reason.)
Would not an atheist who actively spreads skepticism and criticism of religion and religious thought be considered actively not doing good works?
Atheists are probably more or less screwed, but no one's really certain. Actively stating that God is either nonexistant or a horrific blight upon humanity probably isn't doing you any favors, though.
Salvation122 on
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
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.
Dunno.
What's an atheist. I guess I'm an atheist, but I have no creed other than not religious. I have no outgroups or ingroups to put people in, being an individualist, and I don't judge religious people. I pity them, and wish they hadn't learnt what they did, but I don't discriminate against them for belonging to a group. I treat people by their individual characteristics, not what group they belong to.
Atheism is what people are calling this sign. It's derived from "not religious".
I guess there are some people for whom atheism has become a set of ingroup/outgroup values in reverse of religion.
In which case fuck those atheists (on an individual level), they're morons and don't get it.
I realize that you totally understand the point I was trying to make, but you do still come off as someone who is in a group they consider better than others. Why do you need to pity religious people? It's not like they are cavemen who just haven't seen the light yet. A lot of religious people probably pity you too. There is nothing really different about the way Atheists act compared to members of religions.
Not better. Just more knowledgeable.
Any of them could become as knowledgeable if they tried. They chose to be knowledgeable in other things, which is fine. But, knowing as much as I do about people think, I kind of find it pitiable that people will jump into the worst, least useful ways of doing so.
I know it sounds like I think I'm better, but man I'm not. I have to watch myself all the time to make sure I'm not doing something like this. Do you have any idea of what it's like to know, explicitly, that our memory cannot be trusted, that 90% of our thoughts are lazy approximations, that we make extremely poor judgements base on extremely poor processes, and that the emotional distress I feel at most of the things in my life are a result of being an animal with a slap together job of "thinking".
And that all of the normal justifications we use to gather together our self identity and self esteem, most of them are at the cost of someone or something else?
Fuck me I'm glad I make it through a day.
So I pity myself too mate. Because of this, I think I regard pity as a neutral emotion, since you know it's applied to me as well.
But I can see that's probably the wrong choice of word to another person, so I'll take it back.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Posts
...but if you were religious (are you? I didn't get that, thread moves too fast) you wouldn't find any of that stuff depressing?
And why do you believe that, anyway? Look at world 2000 years ago and look at it now. Hell, look at it a hundred years ago.
You seriously believe that nothing has changed for the better?
Read the rest of it:
Pretty much everything has been a symbol of religion at one point. You can't equate Halloween with a religion, pretty much nobody knows that it is a religous thing at all (I didn't, thought that it just happens to be on the same day as the Day of All Saints).
Comparing the two is kind of redundant. I really don't think it's tricky at all.
so what, exactly, are you suggesting is the Roman Catholic attitude? Good works, etc, can get you into heaven regardless of your beliefs? this may very well be the case, if I recall correctly from my Catholic high school education.
Would not an atheist who actively spreads skepticism and criticism of religion and religious thought be considered actively not doing good works?
When your argument is, "yes, but the pope has countermanded that part of the bible" you're pretty much arguing FOR the erosion of your own religion into secularity
I host a podcast about movies.
Except we're not talking about who's right. We're not talking about intellectual dick-waving. We're talking about appropriate ways to treat people. If someone reveals to me that he believes a talking crow leaves magic cupcakes under his pillow every morning, I'm not going to berate him for being an idiot. Because that would make me a total dick.
Now, you think you're right. Clearly. Because everyone always thinks he's right. And you certainly have better reason to believe that you're right than the guy who picks Christianity out of a catalog. But you don't have better reason to trumpet your beliefs to unwitting audiences than anyone else.
In the original context of my argument that any expression of belief is going to be inherently "offensive" by the standards to which I was responding, you said that it's okay if your expression is offensive because you're right. It's that sentiment which I find toxic as all fuck.
Dunno.
What's an atheist. I guess I'm an atheist, but I have no creed other than not religious. I have no outgroups or ingroups to put people in, being an individualist, and I don't judge religious people. I pity them, and wish they hadn't learnt what they did, but I don't discriminate against them for belonging to a group. I treat people by their individual characteristics, not what group they belong to.
Atheism is what people are calling this sign. It's derived from "not religious".
I guess there are some people for whom atheism has become a set of ingroup/outgroup values in reverse of religion.
In which case fuck those atheists (on an individual level), they're morons and don't get it.
I host a podcast about movies.
For what reason do we have to silently tolerate opinions and beliefs regardless of the evidence they're based on? I find that behavior toxic, because it's tantamount to tacit approval of all sorts of crazy, harmful beliefs.
You're looking at religion fro a scientific perspective, which makes no sense. Of course there is no proof that a god exists, if there were then religion would BE science and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Are you talking to me? Because yeah, I used the wrong word responding to Dunadan. As for symbols, you know that freaky eye on a pyramid on the back of the dollar bill is a Freemason symbol, right? It shouldn't be on money any more than a cross or a pentagram should.
I was like "Ok, how do I explain this concept in this thread. I have to be extremely careful here."
Took me a while to write. Was very interesting.
I might be wantin' a bagel with my coffee.
I host a podcast about movies.
Sure, it's objective for that one person who believes in it. Doesn't mean it applies to what I believe, notwithstanding whether they want it to or not.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
thats not right. the fact that it is a federal holiday doesnt mean that it is actually secular... the gorvernment can be (and often is) wrong.
if christmas is defined as a secular holliday than i see no reason defining the nativity as a secular christmas decoration.
heck it is associated with a certain religion but its only brought out for that religion during the specific religious holliday that the now secular federal holliday is based off of. so its a traditional decoration.
i find both absurd.
ill pick this thread up again on monday, im heading home.
I'm what you could call an unwilling atheist. I don't believe, but I'd love to.
If I believed, then I might think that all this suffering has purpose, or that your deity would one day elevate us to a new level, to do greater things.
I don't think we've gotten all that better in the last few millenniums, we're more sophisticated about how we kill each other, but aside from that, I don't see much progress. We're more concerned about the appearance of progress than actually progressing.
I think there are two different tangents being intermingled, here. On the one hand, we have the argument that nativity scenes shouldn't be displayed on public property. Because hello, fucking Jesus. I agree with that.
On the other hand, there's the argument that symbols shouldn't be displayed because of their origins or connotations, regardless of intent. That even if someone sticks out a nativity scene because he sees it as a way of saying "Goodwill towards men" or because it's pretty or whatever, that doesn't matter, because the implicit message according to someone is that people are going to burn in hell. And if that's the case, it would apply to all symbols for all holidays. If displaying a Christian symbol, regardless of intent, is bad at Christmas, then it seems displaying a carved pumpkin (ie, a pagan symbol) is bad at Halloween.
I buy the former argument for disallowing nativity scenes. I don't buy the latter. That's what I'm trying to get at.
Atheists are just following in the vein of Jefferson, who called organized religion attempting to encroach on the public a "form of tyranny over the mind of man."
(and before anyone gets on me for taking the quote out of context, I suggest you read the whole quote from the letter it was taken from, it is explicitly directed towards the leaders of religious groups that opposed his presidency for his opposition to public acknowledgement and funding of churches)
But basically, if the nativity scene gets to go up, I think the sign should get to go up too. And the animated volcano that the scientologists will put up. And the altar covered in goat blood that the satanists want to put up.
You find it toxic to tolerate opposing beliefs?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I realize that you totally understand the point I was trying to make, but you do still come off as someone who is in a group they consider better than others. Why do you need to pity religious people? It's not like they are cavemen who just haven't seen the light yet. A lot of religious people probably pity you too. There is nothing really different about the way Atheists act compared to members of religions.
Because if it was considered appropriate to yell at people in public when they believed something crazy, everyone would have carte blanche to yell at everyone else. Because everyone believes in something that other people are going to deem crazy.
Seriously, were you raised by wolves? You seem very confused by matters of basic etiquette, such as "don't randomly insult people who believe different things than you."
I think we all choose our own ethics. People say their derive their ethics from the bible, but they really get them from parents and community - witness, as proof, the thousands of communities that have justified totally different moral systems with the same sets of books.
I choose ethics based on safety, mutualism, logic, and a desire to see our species learn more. I hope everyone around me does the same, and that fear of Space Dad and the .357 in my nightstand aren't all that lies between me and anarchy. I suppose some people could try to use atheism to justify a very sociopathic existence, but I have come to the conclusion those people are logically as well as ethically incorrect.
I host a podcast about movies.
I think he's referring to the "silent" part, not the toleration part.
This is why I blow my fucking lid.
yeah and i habitually mutilate the english language, spelling and grammar in general... so i hope he wasn't talking to me.
It's a reference to a scene in a movie. Namely, Boondock Saints.
Hahaha oh man. At first I was like well, there shouldn't be a nativity scene on government property, but on the other hand, that is a dickheaded sign. Now though? That is too awesome. Fight on you angry atheists.
LoL: failboattootoot
Perhaps, but the fact that we carved it onto his monument and that his philosophies (especially regarding religion) inform our understanding of the first amendment's interpretation, means that it has at least a little validity concerning public display of that sentiment.
I suppose I view toleration as being inherently silent then *shrug*.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yeah, if they explicitly made it clear that they think atheists and the followers of other religions will burn in hell for not believing in their God then I would be offended.
I want to make it clear that my position is that expression of these kinds of beliefs is inherently offensive to somebody, and inherently exclusive, so it has no place on a legislative building, whether it's atheist or religious.
Why would a sign hung by a Christian stating "all non-Christians will burn in hell" be offensive?
If you don't believe it, why should you pay attention to it? Sure, both are mean-spirited, but you gotta just follow the golden rule of the internet:
thou shalt not feed the trolls
Well, we put "in God we trust" on our money, so does that have validity too? Should that inform our interpretation of the first amendment?
In the free market place of ideas, it's kind of like the difference between the guy selling those awesome Shammy Wow! things, and a used car salesman trying to talk you into a lemon.
Atheists are not members of a religion. Spiritual people who believe in god are not members of a religion. People who fall into these two are spared these effects.
Atheists are probably more or less screwed, but no one's really certain. Actively stating that God is either nonexistant or a horrific blight upon humanity probably isn't doing you any favors, though.
Not better. Just more knowledgeable.
Any of them could become as knowledgeable if they tried. They chose to be knowledgeable in other things, which is fine. But, knowing as much as I do about people think, I kind of find it pitiable that people will jump into the worst, least useful ways of doing so.
I know it sounds like I think I'm better, but man I'm not. I have to watch myself all the time to make sure I'm not doing something like this. Do you have any idea of what it's like to know, explicitly, that our memory cannot be trusted, that 90% of our thoughts are lazy approximations, that we make extremely poor judgements base on extremely poor processes, and that the emotional distress I feel at most of the things in my life are a result of being an animal with a slap together job of "thinking".
And that all of the normal justifications we use to gather together our self identity and self esteem, most of them are at the cost of someone or something else?
Fuck me I'm glad I make it through a day.
So I pity myself too mate. Because of this, I think I regard pity as a neutral emotion, since you know it's applied to me as well.
But I can see that's probably the wrong choice of word to another person, so I'll take it back.