Options

Athiests and Offensiveness

1568101122

Posts

  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited December 2008
    What the ass. Why, whenever I say something like this, do people go all reductio ad absurdum on me and assume I'm talking about screaming at people in the streets?

    Because you scream at people in here! You're normally an okay guy, but every so often the red mist descends and you turn into someone I'd cross the fucking street to avoid. So questioning how correctly socialized you are about these things is entirely legitimate, given that it's happened over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    AstraphobiaAstraphobia Lightning Bolt! Lightning Bolt! Root! Sleep! Death!Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    c4tch wrote: »
    "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."

    "And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence."

    Are those all quotes from Civ4?

    Man I love me some Nemoy in that game.

    Astraphobia on
  • Options
    TrowizillaTrowizilla Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Aegis wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    Trowizilla wrote: »
    Sarksus wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    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.

    I don't think this nativity scene should be in front or inside of a government building unless maybe other religions and non-religious groups were allowed to set up their own displays that were not explicitly inflammatory. That's not really what I was arguing about, though, and neither were several other people.

    The problem is that many people see any sort of expression of atheism as explicitly inflammatory. A sign saying "There is no god" is about as neutral as I can think of, maybe with "Be nice to each other anyway" added. Religious people would still get butthurt. What about a Satanist sign? Even if it was the mildest message ever, the mere existence of Satanism is considered inflammatory by many Christians.

    Better to just not allow any sort of display relating to religion on government property.

    "There is no god" isn't terribly neutral as it's fairly obvious a fair number of people do hold the opposite belief. "There may or may not be a God" is probably far more neutral.

    "There may or may not be a god" isn't atheist, though, it's agnostic. Besides, Christianity isn't neutral; it's not "Accepting Jesus as your savior may or may not be the only way to get into heaven." Kick it all out.

    I assumed your argument was on the inherent neutrality of the statement itself, not the neutrality within a specific worldview, in which case, yea okay my statement wouldn't be neutral.

    "There is no god" is neutral as a phrase because it doesn't have any sort of qualifiers. "There is no God and you're stupid for believing in one" isn't neutral, obviously. The problem is coming up with a way to say "There is no God" that isn't inflammatory because religious people tend to see the idea itself as inflammatory no matter how you say it.

    Trowizilla on
  • Options
    c4tchc4tch Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Thou art God. Every one of you.

    c4tch on
    League of Legends: firecane
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    Golden Leg wrote: »
    Not allowing some thing because it might offend some one is a dangerous game to play.

    Agreed. But at what point does such a thing become hate speech, and thus a punishable offense?

    Hate speech is not exempt from the First Amendment. See Brandenburg vs Ohio(1969) regarding "hate speech" from the KKK. Unless the speech is designed to incite "imminent lawless action" (or more quickly than a law enforcement officer could reasonably be summoned, especially a riot) it is protected (and even then it has nothing to do with "hate").

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    YannYann Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    I think we need to offend more religious people. I'm gonna make that my new years resolution. I doubt it will do any good, but at least it will make me feel slightly better about all the atheists that are killed in fundamentalist violence

    I like Dawkins as much as the next guy, but he is really way to nice about it. Hitchens is much more to my taste.

    Yann on
  • Options
    DaedalusDaedalus Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    So, let me get this straight: Christian group shouldn't put a nativity scene on public property. Atheist group shouldn't be dicks in order to make a point. D&D thread relating to religion turns into a huge clusterfuck.

    edit: also, the idea that the First Amendment shouldn't apply to speech that might piss people off is on-its-face retarded; that's the only kind of speech that anyone cares about restricting.

    Daedalus on
  • Options
    QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    I just went to the Wikipedia site for the monument and I didn't find what you are quoting, but it certainly does not list every single thing quoted in the monument. I found this, though:
    Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

    I'm not sure exactly how this relates to our current discussion, but I found it illuminating. He is also quoted as saying that the Constitution should be a fluid document, by the way.

    He was a pretty strong advocate of believing however you wanted to believe, or not believe. I think he was quite a guy myself.

    The quote I was referring to is in the first paragraph of the interior section.
    "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Looks like they didn't split it off because it's only a single line, but if you visit the place it's on the walls given the same prominence as his other stuff.

    You know, I don't see that as being anti-religion per se... was that what you were saying before? I may have misunderstood. This seems to fit in with his other espoused beliefs in freedom of speech and religion.

    Quoth on
  • Options
    QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    PantsB wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Golden Leg wrote: »
    Not allowing some thing because it might offend some one is a dangerous game to play.

    Agreed. But at what point does such a thing become hate speech, and thus a punishable offense?

    Hate speech is not exempt from the First Amendment. See Brandenburg vs Ohio(1969) regarding "hate speech" from the KKK. Unless the speech is designed to incite "imminent lawless action" (or more quickly than a law enforcement officer could reasonably be summoned, especially a riot) it is protected (and even then it has nothing to do with "hate").

    Thanks for reminding me of that. Case closed.

    Is it okay if I still think those guys are dicks, though? :P

    Quoth on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Korlash wrote: »

    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.
    Really.

    fig1a.jpg

    No progress at all?

    hist_medtt_mediev_surgery.jpg

    Surgery_468x399.jpg

    Like, not much progress?

    1809-chariot.jpg

    space-shuttle.jpg

    Absolutely sure about that?

    Hundred years ago, Finland, my home country was a godforsaken butthole somewhere up north where people still died of pretty rudimentary diseases, our greatest technological invention was some sort of a shovel that you could dig earth with or something, and our main food was potato, and our main trade item was, if you could call it trading, basically lots of wood because it was the only thing that we had.

    We still eat a lot potatoes, except that now we are among the top ten in pretty much every national comparision and we make bitchin' cellphones and gigantic ships.

    You want examples closer to home? How were the blacks treated in United States hundred years again? Now?

    obama.jpg

    Yeah, weapons have gotten better. But if you really think that is the only progress that is going on, you are crazy. Roughly sixty-five years ago, Europe was the center of the largest human conflict in history (THE history). Try to imagine France and Germany getting into a war today. Because before, they were pretty much killing eachother on a constant basis for centuries. Europe is a war-free zone. Wars are eliminated from there, where before there were wars ALL THE TIME, EVERY DAY.

    There are wars elsewhere, yes, but what used to be the center of the two most bloodiest, horrible conflicts ever is probably the most prospering, peaceful part of the world. Terrorists? What is their kill count again? Don't get me wrong, they are dangerous, but fuck, the world managed to survive WWII, and with all due respect, every war that is going around right now is a freaking pussy war compared to the Big Two. And this time Germany and Japan are on our side.

    We can cure diseases that used to mean death with a simple injection. An African-American man is the most powerful person in the world. Being gay isn't a crime anymore. We sent a human to the moon, and we are going to send one to Mars as well. I'm at the moment, writing this post for you, and whereas it would have taken half a year to reach United States in the past, as soon as I press the button you can read it.

    I'm not saying that there aren't problems. There are. But seriously, if you think that you don't see much progress...uhh, open your eyes, because a lot has happened. :|

    And not in the last 50 years either. A decade ago I hadn't even heard of the Internet.

    Spoilered because it's off-topic and long-ass.

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Golden Leg wrote: »
    The New Testament is pretty explicit about whether or not Christians should be judgmental toward others. The Sermon on the Mount is one of the cornerstone teachings of Christianity, and in it Jesus says this:

    Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. - Matthew 7:26 (NIV)
    1 John 2 wrote:
    Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
    1 John 4 wrote:
    Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
    2 John 1 wrote:
    If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed
    Titus 1 wrote:
    One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

    The bible's a giant, hypocritical pile of shit.

    That's usually what happens when you have a book written by a zillion different people. This is why people pick and choose what to believe and think about their religion. That's why maybe instead of railing against believing in anything or everything, those who choose to criticize should criticize HOW people use their faith, not simply that they HAVE faith.

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    I just went to the Wikipedia site for the monument and I didn't find what you are quoting, but it certainly does not list every single thing quoted in the monument. I found this, though:
    Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

    I'm not sure exactly how this relates to our current discussion, but I found it illuminating. He is also quoted as saying that the Constitution should be a fluid document, by the way.

    He was a pretty strong advocate of believing however you wanted to believe, or not believe. I think he was quite a guy myself.

    The quote I was referring to is in the first paragraph of the interior section.
    "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Looks like they didn't split it off because it's only a single line, but if you visit the place it's on the walls given the same prominence as his other stuff.

    You know, I don't see that as being anti-religion per se... was that what you were saying before? I may have misunderstood. This seems to fit in with his other espoused beliefs in freedom of speech and religion.
    The original context of the quote was because religious groups were opposing his election to the presidency on the ground that he wasn't going to let them determine policy or run the government. Taken alone like that it's pretty inspiring, but taken in its full context (which is basically "organized religious groups have been trying to control the government and that makes them a bunch of tyrants") it's also pretty controversial.

    skyknyt on
    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    What the ass. Why, whenever I say something like this, do people go all reductio ad absurdum on me and assume I'm talking about screaming at people in the streets?

    Because you scream at people in here! You're normally an okay guy, but every so often the red mist descends and you turn into someone I'd cross the fucking street to avoid. So questioning how correctly socialized you are about these things is entirely legitimate, given that it's happened over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    I'm going to contend that I don't get angry until people like Pony start getting sarcastic and offensive on their own. People use that as an excuse but ignore how often ad hom is thrown at me. I have to ignore numerous posts to find ones that will actually address me.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    DarkCrawlerDarkCrawler Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    Just because Jefferson said something doesn't mean it automatically gains validity. Just sayin'.

    Yeah, the cool thing about being an atheist is that I don't really have to care about what a specific person has said. :P

    DarkCrawler on
  • Options
    ElJeffeElJeffe Roaming the streets, waving his mod gun around.Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited December 2008
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    What makes your assessment of its relative degree of tastelessness better than say, a Hasidic Jew's, or better than mine?

    Because I am special and unique. God told me so.

    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
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    I just went to the Wikipedia site for the monument and I didn't find what you are quoting, but it certainly does not list every single thing quoted in the monument. I found this, though:
    Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

    I'm not sure exactly how this relates to our current discussion, but I found it illuminating. He is also quoted as saying that the Constitution should be a fluid document, by the way.

    He was a pretty strong advocate of believing however you wanted to believe, or not believe. I think he was quite a guy myself.

    The quote I was referring to is in the first paragraph of the interior section.
    "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Looks like they didn't split it off because it's only a single line, but if you visit the place it's on the walls given the same prominence as his other stuff.

    You know, I don't see that as being anti-religion per se... was that what you were saying before? I may have misunderstood. This seems to fit in with his other espoused beliefs in freedom of speech and religion.
    The original context of the quote was because religious groups were opposing his election to the presidency on the ground that he wasn't going to let them determine policy or run the government. Taken alone like that it's pretty inspiring, but taken in its full context (which is basically "organized religious groups have been trying to control the government and that makes them a bunch of tyrants") it's also pretty controversial.

    Jefferson was also a prolific political writer for like 40 years. And he changed his mind a lot. His quotes can be used to justify many positions, even if you don't include made up ones.

    Doesn't change that the wall of separation was real and intended

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Options
    QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    I just went to the Wikipedia site for the monument and I didn't find what you are quoting, but it certainly does not list every single thing quoted in the monument. I found this, though:
    Almighty God hath created the mind free...All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens...are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion...No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

    I'm not sure exactly how this relates to our current discussion, but I found it illuminating. He is also quoted as saying that the Constitution should be a fluid document, by the way.

    He was a pretty strong advocate of believing however you wanted to believe, or not believe. I think he was quite a guy myself.

    The quote I was referring to is in the first paragraph of the interior section.
    "I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Looks like they didn't split it off because it's only a single line, but if you visit the place it's on the walls given the same prominence as his other stuff.

    You know, I don't see that as being anti-religion per se... was that what you were saying before? I may have misunderstood. This seems to fit in with his other espoused beliefs in freedom of speech and religion.
    The original context of the quote was because religious groups were opposing his election to the presidency on the ground that he wasn't going to let them determine policy or run the government. Taken alone like that it's pretty inspiring, but taken in its full context (which is basically "organized religious groups have been trying to control the government and that makes them a bunch of tyrants") it's also pretty controversial.

    Well, I can certainly give that sentiment a hearty hell yeah.

    If anything, one could potentially argue that the atheists are trying to impose their own form of tyranny by insisting that they're right and everyone else is wrong and Christians are idiots. Maybe if they'd just stuck with the "question everything" message...

    Quoth on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    Golden Leg wrote: »
    The New Testament is pretty explicit about whether or not Christians should be judgmental toward others. The Sermon on the Mount is one of the cornerstone teachings of Christianity, and in it Jesus says this:

    Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. - Matthew 7:26 (NIV)
    1 John 2 wrote:
    Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
    1 John 4 wrote:
    Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

    And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
    2 John 1 wrote:
    If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed
    Titus 1 wrote:
    One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

    The bible's a giant, hypocritical pile of shit.

    That's usually what happens when you have a book written by a zillion different people. This is why people pick and choose what to believe and think about their religion. That's why maybe instead of railing against believing in anything or everything, those who choose to criticize should criticize HOW people use their faith, not simply that they HAVE faith.

    When talking about religious faith, arguing about how a person expresses it is utterly idiotic. There is absolutely no evidence to answer a "why" question to the how of their faith. This is why we ask "why" about the very roots of faith, because that can actually be discussed. Since the nature of religious faith is that you can make up absolutely anything you want without any reason, logic, external input or information, there's nothing to criticize.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    That's usually what happens when you have a book written by a zillion different people. This is why people pick and choose what to believe and think about their religion. That's why maybe instead of railing against believing in anything or everything, those who choose to criticize should criticize HOW people use their faith, not simply that they HAVE faith.
    That they have faith is precisely what we want to criticize, not just how they use their faith.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    c4tchc4tch Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Look at Christianity itself. It has not been able to stay cohesively whole. It has split into catholics and protestants.

    from there it has split even further, sectioning off differing belief systems into smaller and smaller groups.

    My question is - why stop there?

    I say, continue to break down belief systems into smaller and smaller and smaller groups until you derive a system where each individual enjoys their unique perspective of the universe, however they see fit.

    What does this sound like?

    c4tch on
    League of Legends: firecane
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited December 2008
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    What the ass. Why, whenever I say something like this, do people go all reductio ad absurdum on me and assume I'm talking about screaming at people in the streets?

    Because you scream at people in here! You're normally an okay guy, but every so often the red mist descends and you turn into someone I'd cross the fucking street to avoid. So questioning how correctly socialized you are about these things is entirely legitimate, given that it's happened over and over and over and over and over and over again.

    I'm going to contend that I don't get angry until people like Pony start getting sarcastic and offensive on their own. People use that as an excuse but ignore how often ad hom is thrown at me. I have to ignore numerous posts to find ones that will actually address me.

    I think the thing is that you should try if at all possible to avoid getting angry, period, inasmuch as this is a delicate subject that arouses strong emotions. That would strike me as the rational thing to do.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited December 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    jacobkosh wrote: »
    What makes your assessment of its relative degree of tastelessness better than say, a Hasidic Jew's, or better than mine?

    Because I am special and unique. God told me so.

    Okay, you've got me there.

    Jacobkosh on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Yes ElJeffe you magnificent bastard that earned you mucho brownie points and I know why it works too that was fucking excellent.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    SmurphSmurph Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Smurph wrote: »
    I know you are trying to be as neutral as possible and you are making good points, but somewhere in this world your Christian and Jewish and Muslim and Hindu counterparts exist. They all feel bad because so many Atheists do not understand all the spiritual aspects of the world. They've all acquired some really spectacular understanding that we probably never will about their respective belief systems. You might think it's all crap because it isn't based on facts like you consider your knowledge to be, but that would just illustrate that you do think your belief system or lack of one is better than theirs. We're really all the same.

    Oh yes.

    I had a very long dialogue with a priest at my boarding school as a teenager my god(I just realised I said "my god" without thinking. :lol:) was he knowledgeable.

    another example. I really respect podly. I don't necessarily respect the philosophy he extouts, in that I will go and research it and ask questions of him.

    But I respect his opinion about philosophy. I would never argue about something based on or derived from another aspect of philosophy, or claim he is wrong in arguing it. I respect his knowledge.

    I would never, ever, disrespect someones knowledge of the bible, the history surrounding it, etc.

    I don't look down on the knowledge. I look down on the result. It's unfortunate that these religions cause and reinforce the processes I'm talking about elsewhere. If they didn't I wouldn't mind.

    I don't have a problem wtih "spiritualistis" who just want something to comfort themselves, for example.

    Now you can say looking down on the result is all the same in the end, and I mean yes you'd be right. But on the other hand, my looking down is a result of evidence, and there's is based on shoulds. So I'm not going to change my opinion about that. These ideas cause harm.


    (Remember when you said I would get your point. I understand what you are trying to say. I really do. And I thank you for the polite effort. But whatever biases I do have left are ones I decided are worthwhile to keep because of consequences based on evidence. Rest assured I'm not unthinkingly generalising.
    But you did help me with the pity I hadn't thought about how others view that emotion.)

    I don't think the ideas themselves cause harm, I think the people cause harm. If you took all the major religions out of the picture, the dangerous people would find something new to misinterpret and go crazy about. Stalin and Pol Pot were not produced by Atheism, they were just really bad people. I think it's cool that not believing in a god is what works for some people, but I don't think religion alone is what makes people bad people. If you say the religion is harmful you are speaking out against the Dali Lama as much as you are against the Crusades.

    Smurph on
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    So, like, these people. Can anybody give me an argument of why they're wrong for how they expressed their religious belief?

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    MorninglordMorninglord I'm tired of being Batman, so today I'll be Owl.Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Smurph wrote: »
    Smurph wrote: »
    I know you are trying to be as neutral as possible and you are making good points, but somewhere in this world your Christian and Jewish and Muslim and Hindu counterparts exist. They all feel bad because so many Atheists do not understand all the spiritual aspects of the world. They've all acquired some really spectacular understanding that we probably never will about their respective belief systems. You might think it's all crap because it isn't based on facts like you consider your knowledge to be, but that would just illustrate that you do think your belief system or lack of one is better than theirs. We're really all the same.

    Oh yes.

    I had a very long dialogue with a priest at my boarding school as a teenager my god(I just realised I said "my god" without thinking. :lol:) was he knowledgeable.

    another example. I really respect podly. I don't necessarily respect the philosophy he extouts, in that I will go and research it and ask questions of him.

    But I respect his opinion about philosophy. I would never argue about something based on or derived from another aspect of philosophy, or claim he is wrong in arguing it. I respect his knowledge.

    I would never, ever, disrespect someones knowledge of the bible, the history surrounding it, etc.

    I don't look down on the knowledge. I look down on the result. It's unfortunate that these religions cause and reinforce the processes I'm talking about elsewhere. If they didn't I wouldn't mind.

    I don't have a problem wtih "spiritualistis" who just want something to comfort themselves, for example.

    Now you can say looking down on the result is all the same in the end, and I mean yes you'd be right. But on the other hand, my looking down is a result of evidence, and there's is based on shoulds. So I'm not going to change my opinion about that. These ideas cause harm.


    (Remember when you said I would get your point. I understand what you are trying to say. I really do. And I thank you for the polite effort. But whatever biases I do have left are ones I decided are worthwhile to keep because of consequences based on evidence. Rest assured I'm not unthinkingly generalising.
    But you did help me with the pity I hadn't thought about how others view that emotion.)

    I don't think the ideas themselves cause harm, I think the people cause harm. If you took all the major religions out of the picture, the dangerous people would find something new to misinterpret and go crazy about. Stalin and Pol Pot were not produced by Atheism, they were just really bad people. I think it's cool that not believing in a god is what works for some people, but I don't think religion alone is what makes people bad people. If you say the religion is harmful you are speaking out against the Dali Lama as much as you are against the Crusades.

    I already adressed that in my first few posts. I said it's a guidebook of how to train people to think in terms that have been demonstrated to cause negative effects irrespective of culture/age/ethics or otherwise.

    I'm not going to repeat myself, please go back and read it again.

    Morninglord on
    (PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
  • Options
    tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    That's usually what happens when you have a book written by a zillion different people. This is why people pick and choose what to believe and think about their religion. That's why maybe instead of railing against believing in anything or everything, those who choose to criticize should criticize HOW people use their faith, not simply that they HAVE faith.
    That they have faith is precisely what we want to criticize, not just how they use their faith.

    That's what I'm asking - what is the use in criticizing that? How exactly does the fact that they HAVE faith affect you at all?

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    So, like, these people. Can anybody give me an argument of why they're wrong for how they expressed their religious belief?

    Uh, because they killed an innocent child?

    Alternately, thank goodness they got rid of that demon before it did any damage?

    Seriously though, the fact that they lied to the police says they knew what they were doing was wrong.

    Quoth on
  • Options
    MikeManMikeMan Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    So, like, these people. Can anybody give me an argument of why they're wrong for how they expressed their religious belief?
    I suspect you'll get a lot of wishy washy answers about them going against the spirit of christianity or whatever the fuck.

    But it comes down to this: people consider them crazy because they don't conform to the societal standards of the 21st century Western World. Whenever a given religious belief comes into conflict with said standards, it is suddenly wrong and against the "true" religion.

    MikeMan on
  • Options
    SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    MikeMan wrote: »
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    That's usually what happens when you have a book written by a zillion different people. This is why people pick and choose what to believe and think about their religion. That's why maybe instead of railing against believing in anything or everything, those who choose to criticize should criticize HOW people use their faith, not simply that they HAVE faith.
    That they have faith is precisely what we want to criticize, not just how they use their faith.

    That's what I'm asking - what is the use in criticizing that? How exactly does the fact that they HAVE faith affect you at all?


    Because they think a person's faith undermines their ability to think rationally, and that is harmful to society. And it can, but like I have said numerous times before, I think people can compartmentalize and have an irrational belief while at the same time maintaining rational thought in other contexts. Emotions can play a large part in this. One topic might get someone really emotional and they'll argue irrationally as a result, but give them another topic and they can argue just fine. I do it myself and I don't believe in a God.

    Sarksus on
  • Options
    skyknytskyknyt Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited December 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    Well, I can certainly give that sentiment a hearty hell yeah.

    If anything, one could potentially argue that the atheists are trying to impose their own form of tyranny by insisting that they're right and everyone else is wrong and Christians are idiots. Maybe if they'd just stuck with the "question everything" message...

    Well, "question everything" would be more of an agnostic standpoint. And really, it's not much of a tyranny as long as there are no openly atheist members of the house of reps or the senate (actually this might have changed, there might be one or two now).

    This is sort of the problem that Wonder_Hippie is getting at, which is that the religious guy* can be shouting over a megaphone and handing out pamphlets that explain in detail why their god will set you on fire, but if you shout back that you think they're wrong, you will be considered the asshole of the situation.

    Telling someone that you think they are wrong should not be considered verboten**, even if that person is offended to be told that they're wrong.

    But really, there shouldn't be a situation where we have a nativity scene out front of a govt building, and if we do, I think allowing a sign to be put up next to it disagreeing with it or explaining an alternate belief is appropriate.


    *This guy is not hyperbole, he stands two blocks down from where I live for 8-12 hours each day. I've never stopped to shout at him, though. :P

    **As long as it's not, you know, done in a violent or personal manner.

    skyknyt on
    Tycho wrote:
    [skyknyt's writing] is like come kind of code that, when comprehended, unfolds into madness in the mind of the reader.
    PSN: skyknyt, Steam: skyknyt, Blizz: skyknyt#1160
  • Options
    Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited December 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    So, like, these people. Can anybody give me an argument of why they're wrong for how they expressed their religious belief?

    Uh, because they killed an innocent child?

    Alternately, thank goodness they got rid of that demon before it did any damage?

    Seriously though, the fact that they lied to the police says they knew what they were doing was wrong.

    No, no, let's assume they actually believe what they said. Whether or not they did is immaterial to what I'm trying to illustrate.

    And besides, you showed just how preposterous attacking the "why" of a person's expression of religious belief is. They can say literally anything they want. Anything at all, and they're perfectly accurate if you accept the premise.

    No, the only answer is to attack the problem at the roots: the premise itself.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • Options
    QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    skyknyt wrote: »
    Quoth wrote: »
    Well, I can certainly give that sentiment a hearty hell yeah.

    If anything, one could potentially argue that the atheists are trying to impose their own form of tyranny by insisting that they're right and everyone else is wrong and Christians are idiots. Maybe if they'd just stuck with the "question everything" message...

    Well, "question everything" would be more of an agnostic standpoint. And really, it's not much of a tyranny as long as there are no openly atheist members of the house of reps or the senate (actually this might have changed, there might be one or two now).

    This is sort of the problem that Wonder_Hippie is getting at, which is that the religious guy* can be shouting over a megaphone and handing out pamphlets that explain in detail why their god will set you on fire, but if you shout back that you think they're wrong, you will be considered the asshole of the situation.

    Telling someone that you think they are wrong should not be considered verboten**, even if that person is offended to be told that they're wrong.

    But really, there shouldn't be a situation where we have a nativity scene out front of a govt building, and if we do, I think allowing a sign to be put up next to it disagreeing with it or explaining an alternate belief is appropriate.


    *This guy is not hyperbole, he stands two blocks down from where I live for 8-12 hours each day. I've never stopped to shout at him, though. :P

    **As long as it's not, you know, done in a violent or personal manner.

    I can pretty much get behind everything you've said here. We weren't comparing screaming religious asshole with screaming atheist asshole, though; it was nativity versus asshole sign. Surely the atheists can do a better job of getting their message across without being dicks about it. They don't HAVE to, but maybe they should.

    Quoth on
  • Options
    SarksusSarksus ATTACK AND DETHRONE GODRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Religion isn't the root of the problem. Irrational thought is.

    Sarksus on
  • Options
    QuothQuoth the Raven Miami, FL FOR REALRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Quoth wrote: »
    So, like, these people. Can anybody give me an argument of why they're wrong for how they expressed their religious belief?

    Uh, because they killed an innocent child?

    Alternately, thank goodness they got rid of that demon before it did any damage?

    Seriously though, the fact that they lied to the police says they knew what they were doing was wrong.

    No, no, let's assume they actually believe what they said. Whether or not they did is immaterial to what I'm trying to illustrate.

    And besides, you showed just how preposterous attacking the "why" of a person's expression of religious belief is. They can say literally anything they want. Anything at all, and they're perfectly accurate if you accept the premise.

    No, the only answer is to attack the problem at the roots: the premise itself.

    I'll keep playing devil's advocate then. How do you know there was no demon in that girl?

    Quoth on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Wow, Wonder_Hippie is actually being less pleasant than Qingu on the subject of religion for once. Yeesh.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Golden LegGolden Leg Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Religion isn't the root of the problem. Irrational thought is.

    Where would we be today had someone never thought irrationally?

    Golden Leg on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Sarksus wrote: »
    Religion isn't the root of the problem. Irrational thought is.
    No, being a bugfuckcrazy babykiller is. Irrational thought can be good, but if there's a voice telling you to kill babies, maybe you should ignore it. Just saying.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    Man, the next 50 years will be entertaining.

    I'll just leave it at that.

    Shurakai on
  • Options
    PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited December 2008
    MikeMan wrote: »
    So, like, these people. Can anybody give me an argument of why they're wrong for how they expressed their religious belief?
    I suspect you'll get a lot of wishy washy answers about them going against the spirit of christianity or whatever the fuck.

    But it comes down to this: people consider them crazy because they don't conform to the societal standards of the 21st century Western World. Whenever a given religious belief comes into conflict with said standards, it is suddenly wrong and against the "true" religion.

    To be fair, that's not really accurate.

    Its not the 21st century Western World, its <Current century-1.5> with a margin of error of approximately 2.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
This discussion has been closed.