If something should be "discouraged," then it obviously possesses a (or set of) negative qualities than outweigh it's positive quality/ies.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
You're skipping a step here: the one that shows that if something has more negative consequences than positive ones then it should banned. Frequently, banning something for that reason alone has more negative consequences than positive ones too. From a less "the only reason I'll allow it is because some serious shit goes down otherwise" standpoint - the one that ended Prohibition - simply wanting something banned for that reason alone has negative consequences. Accepting that viewpoint drastically increases the odds of society deciding something - say, free speech - has more negative consequences than good and banning it too.
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion for everyone, if nothing else, have a basis even if you're only looking out to protect your own freedom. There are other, less, you know, Vulcan ones, but I'm not seeing how it logically follows from "people shouldn't think atoms are shaped like chickens" to "it should be illegal to think atoms are shaped like chickens."
the legality of the situation doesn't factor into it. what I'm addressing is being honest about what is being said and done. If you think it is incorrect to believe atoms are shaped like chickens, then you don't think that people should be thinking they are. And if you're actually advocating that people stop believing they are, then you cannot honestly believe people should have that belief, and therefore are not entitled to whatever belief they want to believe in.
To summarize: You cannot say "people should be discouraged from this" and still honestly believe they are entitled to that belief.
I disagree.
I think that if the belief is likely to be hurtful, it is okay to discourage it on a personal level, or if the belief is ACTUALLY proven wong.
This would be things like the teaching of abstinence only sex-ed, which leads to a higher percentage of teen pregnancy, or telling people that you can catch aids by breating the same air as some one who is HIV positive.
Religion is not one of these things.
Not in and of itself.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't discourage things. like in my earlier example with murder and serial killers, I certainly believe that should be discouraged.
I'm merely calling Loren out on the fact he's saying he thinks people should be entitled to their beliefs, then basically saying "but I think they shouldn't have them for these reasons"
Look, I'm not offended. Blasphemy in and of itself does not shock or bother me. My problem is the intent behind it. The intent is "Let's be dicks because people believe in things we don't", which is more or less what fundies do to everyone else. It's not affirming atheism or anything. It's try ing to be offensive for the sake of a shitty prize.
If atheists are actually looking for some degree of credability, this is not the way to go about it, because people like me are just going to roll their eyes and write them off as jokes.
It's often to prove that lightning will not strike and that atheists do not, in fact, disappear in foxholes.
I made a royal fool of myself in public for two years at my college because some crackpot made a CHRISTIAN girl I knew cry.
But hey, you obviously are a mind reader and atheists are all exactly as you say.
I was aiming that mainly at the people who thought this was a great idea. Of course I don't think all atheists are like that. That would be like thinking all Christians are going to be offended or even care about something like this.
Being a knee-jerk is not useful.
Blasphemy is as often a socio-political tool as anything else.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person. SOMEONE has to show them how insanely deluded they are in at least that.
If people feel that Christianity is right for them, -fine-. But to be scared in to attending church is -wrong-.
Look, I'm not offended. Blasphemy in and of itself does not shock or bother me. My problem is the intent behind it. The intent is "Let's be dicks because people believe in things we don't", which is more or less what fundies do to everyone else. It's not affirming atheism or anything. It's try ing to be offensive for the sake of a shitty prize.
If atheists are actually looking for some degree of credability, this is not the way to go about it, because people like me are just going to roll their eyes and write them off as jokes.
It's often to prove that lightning will not strike and that atheists do not, in fact, disappear in foxholes.
I made a royal fool of myself in public for two years at my college because some crackpot made a CHRISTIAN girl I knew cry.
But hey, you obviously are a mind reader and atheists are all exactly as you say.
I was aiming that mainly at the people who thought this was a great idea. Of course I don't think all atheists are like that. That would be like thinking all Christians are going to be offended or even care about something like this.
Being a knee-jerk is not useful.
Blasphemy is as often a socio-political tool as anything else.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person. SOMEONE has to show them how insanely deluded they are in at least that.
If people feel that Christianity is right for them, -fine-. But to be scared in to attending church is -wrong-.
I really do not understand what you're arguing Evander. You're trying to say that logical thought is a leap of faith?
occam's razor isn't a replacement for logic, it is a tool to see what is most probable. Going with the outcomeof occam's razor still requires a leap of faith.
Before there was any way of having proof of black holes, they still existed, didn't they?
We know occam's razor is an exceptionally reliable tool for solving problems. So useful we don't even think about using it. When you don't see your car keys you rarely assume aliens have taken them. So yes, I guess going with the outcome of occam's razor is a "leap of faith". But it's more like the little kiddie step of faith isn't it.
Atheists are saying your car keys are probably under the pillows on the couch.
Christians are saying the car key gnomes took your keys.
first of all, I'm not talking about christians, I'm talking about religious people in general.
I have personal issues with the logic of christian beliefs, but this isn't the thread for that. Atheist are not people who disbelieve in jesus, they are people who disbelieve in god.
a better comparison would be that some one tells you that you tossed your keys, and they landed in the sink, and fell down the drain. He claims to have seen this through the window, from accross the street. You don't rememebr him being there. This is religion.
The other possibility is that you put the keys on the counter, where they always go, and accidentally knocked them into the garbage, which you took out, and has already been picked up.
Neither one is provable at the present time, and while one is more likely and more believable, there is still the possibility that the other is right.
I dealt with a guy with this philosophy and his horde of school children minions (he runs a fricking school, but likes to spend half his time harassing college students) and other supporters for two years. Come to Fresno on a Tuesday, and I can introduce you to some of the creepy.
It's that whole Pascal's Wager mentality in general.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
No Evander, the difference between an example of religion and an example of atheism should be pretty fantastic. Religions (Christianity being a good example) make completely unfounded claims. Absolutely insane shit like Noah's ark. Things that noone except a person with a 1st century education could believe.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
that is, if they even think about it.
Have you watched TBN lately?
Every time I get too distracted to change the channel, some freakjob is saying "We all know about Jesus's forgiveness, but some people forget about the terrible consequences of not believing in God."
No Evander, the difference between an example of religion and an example of atheism should be pretty fantastic. Religions (Christianity being a good example) make completely unfounded claims. Absolutely insane shit like Noah's ark. Things that noone except a person with a 1st century education could believe.
christianity is not a good example
other religious that make fantastical claims don't always require full belief in them, alowing for interpretation instead.
You really can't attack "religion" by taking christianity, then applying it to all religion
No Evander, the difference between an example of religion and an example of atheism should be pretty fantastic. Religions (Christianity being a good example) make completely unfounded claims. Absolutely insane shit like Noah's ark. Things that noone except a person with a 1st century education could believe.
christianity is not a good example
other religious that make fantastical claims don't always require full belief in them, alowing for interpretation instead.
You really can't attack "religion" by taking christianity, then applying it to all religion
Mysticism may be the better term.
But generally speaking, one focuses on the examples that actually have power. The "World Religions" all have some hefty amounts of it.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
that is, if they even think about it.
Have you watched TBN lately?
Every time I get too distracted to change the channel, some freakjob is saying "We all know about Jesus's forgiveness, but some people forget about the terrible consequences of not believing in God."
Notice how TBN still exists.
do you know how many niche channels are out there?
or the power of a vocal minority
hell, think of the ammount of Jews in prestigious positions. consider that jews are less than two percent of US population, and less than one percent of world population.
You have yet to prove that "a lot" of people believe anything, only that "some" people do.
No Evander, the difference between an example of religion and an example of atheism should be pretty fantastic. Religions (Christianity being a good example) make completely unfounded claims. Absolutely insane shit like Noah's ark. Things that noone except a person with a 1st century education could believe.
christianity is not a good example
other religious that make fantastical claims don't always require full belief in them, alowing for interpretation instead.
You really can't attack "religion" by taking christianity, then applying it to all religion
I do find it pretty much the argument seems based primarily around "Religion is bad! [brings up examples found in Christianity or Islam to be evidence, perhaps some tribal religions too]"
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
that is, if they even think about it.
Have you watched TBN lately?
Every time I get too distracted to change the channel, some freakjob is saying "We all know about Jesus's forgiveness, but some people forget about the terrible consequences of not believing in God."
Notice how TBN still exists.
do you know how many niche channels are out there?
or the power of a vocal minority
hell, think of the ammount of Jews in prestigious positions. consider that jews are less than two percent of US population, and less than one percent of world population.
You have yet to prove that "a lot" of people believe anything, only that "some" people do.
There are enough people to keep an international TV station going.
There were enough people to keep the whole "Buying your way in to heaven" thing going for awhile.
THAT IS TOO MANY.
I don't care if it's 1/10th of 1%, it's all over the goddamn place and it's harmful to those who suffer under it.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
It makes them the ones we have to worry about the most, however.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
that is, if they even think about it.
Have you watched TBN lately?
Every time I get too distracted to change the channel, some freakjob is saying "We all know about Jesus's forgiveness, but some people forget about the terrible consequences of not believing in God."
Notice how TBN still exists.
do you know how many niche channels are out there?
or the power of a vocal minority
hell, think of the ammount of Jews in prestigious positions. consider that jews are less than two percent of US population, and less than one percent of world population.
You have yet to prove that "a lot" of people believe anything, only that "some" people do.
There are enough people to keep an international TV station going.
There were enough people to keep the whole "Buying your way in to heaven" thing going for awhile.
THAT IS TOO MANY.
I don't care if it's 1/10th of 1%, it's all over the goddamn place and it's harmful to those who suffer under it.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
It makes them the ones we have to worry about the most, however.
TBN points: and there are many Christians think TBN and it's ilk are self-righteous, selfish, and with practically no merit.
Just because there are bad Christians, does not mean the whole thing needs to be scrapped.
Posterboys point: Then people should worry about them and not other religions that aren't them.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
Who let you off the short bus?
weren't you the one telling me to read the rules half an hour or so ago?
Don't troll.
This has a working definition of "attempting to be as annoying as possible while still technically obeying the rules," and it's not the way to go about getting attention. Attempting to derail threads, posting off-topic bullshit, or flame-baiting are all verboten. There also tends to be a thin line between being abusive and immature and simply being argumentative. Crossing it persistently will lead to a ban.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
that is, if they even think about it.
Have you watched TBN lately?
Every time I get too distracted to change the channel, some freakjob is saying "We all know about Jesus's forgiveness, but some people forget about the terrible consequences of not believing in God."
Notice how TBN still exists.
do you know how many niche channels are out there?
or the power of a vocal minority
hell, think of the ammount of Jews in prestigious positions. consider that jews are less than two percent of US population, and less than one percent of world population.
You have yet to prove that "a lot" of people believe anything, only that "some" people do.
There are enough people to keep an international TV station going.
There were enough people to keep the whole "Buying your way in to heaven" thing going for awhile.
THAT IS TOO MANY.
I don't care if it's 1/10th of 1%, it's all over the goddamn place and it's harmful to those who suffer under it.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
It makes them the ones we have to worry about the most, however.
TBN points: and there are many Christians think TBN and it's ilk are self-righteous, selfish, and with practically no merit.
Just because there are bad Christians, does not mean the whole thing needs to be scrapped.
Posterboys point: Then people should worry about them and not other religions that aren't them.
The need to be scrapped thing is unrelated.
The "Oh fuck I better go to church and worship god because if I don't I'll burn forever pure thoughts pure thoughts pure thoughts doubeplusgodlove" thing, however, is what relates to this particular topic.
And there's more than enough of it out there to worry about. Pascal's wager is not exactly a rare thing to see thrown in.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
that is, if they even think about it.
Have you watched TBN lately?
Every time I get too distracted to change the channel, some freakjob is saying "We all know about Jesus's forgiveness, but some people forget about the terrible consequences of not believing in God."
Notice how TBN still exists.
do you know how many niche channels are out there?
or the power of a vocal minority
hell, think of the ammount of Jews in prestigious positions. consider that jews are less than two percent of US population, and less than one percent of world population.
You have yet to prove that "a lot" of people believe anything, only that "some" people do.
There are enough people to keep an international TV station going.
There were enough people to keep the whole "Buying your way in to heaven" thing going for awhile.
THAT IS TOO MANY.
I don't care if it's 1/10th of 1%, it's all over the goddamn place and it's harmful to those who suffer under it.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
It makes them the ones we have to worry about the most, however.
TBN points: and there are many Christians think TBN and it's ilk are self-righteous, selfish, and with practically no merit.
Just because there are bad Christians, does not mean the whole thing needs to be scrapped.
Posterboys point: Then people should worry about them and not other religions that aren't them.
The need to be scrapped thing is unrelated.
The "Oh fuck I better go to church and worship god because if I don't I'll burn forever pure thoughts pure thoughts pure thoughts doubeplusgodlove" thing, however, is what relates to this particular topic.
And there's more than enough of it out there to worry about. Pascal's wager is not exactly a rare thing to see thrown in.
sorry about the scrapped thing then, I'm tired, been meaning to go to bed for over an hour, and getting some arguments mixed up.
as for a small note on the "go to church thing" I've never seen much for a belief in it. I find that it was likely derived from the traditional meetings of early Christians and such, derived from the passage stating that Christians should have fellowship with one another, and honestly, you don't need to go to Church just to have fellowship with Christians.
and with this, I'm off to bed, as it's 5-effing-33 AM as I write this. farewell and goodnight.
Considering two religions that are full of unfounded claims (Christianity and Islam) represent over half of the entire human race, I think it is fair to attack them as good representatives of religion. You can talk about Judaism all you want but that is .22% of the population so in the grand scheme of things, they're pretty much just part of an overgrown cult.
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
Who let you off the short bus?
weren't you the one telling me to read the rules half an hour or so ago?
Don't troll.
This has a working definition of "attempting to be as annoying as possible while still technically obeying the rules," and it's not the way to go about getting attention. Attempting to derail threads, posting off-topic bullshit, or flame-baiting are all verboten. There also tends to be a thin line between being abusive and immature and simply being argumentative. Crossing it persistently will lead to a ban.
You responded to my post with the most retarded thing you could have ever written. Christianity and Islam are the only two religions that matter. The abrahamic religions encompass every continent and most every politician and lawmaker in the western hemisphere subscribes to them but you know why don't we talk about scientology instead.
To summarize: You cannot say "people should be discouraged from this" and still honestly believe they are entitled to that belief.
I'm still catching up from last night (when this thread apparently decided to explode), but this right here keeps coming up and is annoying the hell out of me.
It's absolutely possible to say "I think this idea is wrong/stupid/hurtful/what have you" and "I think you should still be allowed to have the idea". The key is valuing freedom of speech/thought more highly than you devalue the negative consequences of the idea.
That's why you can say and mean "Minority X is lazy/retarded/evil" but you can't say and mean "I will kill the President".
For all ideas that fall under the bad enough to want to be discouraged, without being bad enough to outright ban, we use social pressure to keep them form occurring. Anyone is free to say they believe in aliens, or government conspiracies, or racism, or any retarded thing, but they lose social standing and respectability for publicly embracing what society feels are stupid ideas.
All the Dawkin's school of thought aims to do (and I agree with the goal if not necessarily the methods) is to add belief in mythological figures in the sky to the list of stupid things you can believe in but will be looked down on for.
To compare this to "coming out", which has been done previously in this thread, coming out is more akin to some one simply stating that they are an atheist. blasphemy is more like a homosexual individual attacking the concept of hetero attraction.
where, in that video, is he doing that? where, given the links in the OP, is attacking anyone encouraged? atheists are blasphemers. a person stating that he does not believe in god is a blasphemer. it is blasphemy to say that you don't believe in god. that's the whole point. blasphemy is an affront to god, and it gets you kicked out of heaven for good. and that's all these people are doing by saying "i don't believe...". you're justifying people being offended by people publicly asserting their atheism.
An example, just because it's what I know, Judaism, in theory, does not even require a belief in god, and encourages believers to question their faith and the laws of the religion. There's a reason you don't see Jews babbling about intelligent design.
"jew" refers to both an ethnic identity and a religious believer. in many cases, jewish people have taken to eschewing actual belief and judaism becomes more of a cultural identity for them than anything else. for purposes of my grievances, i don't consider such people to be religious.
there are, of course, orthodox jews who have a plethora of problems all their own.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
did you really not get the racism analogy? it's legal for someone to be racist. certain actions can get you in trouble, but we allow people to believe what they want. and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
hardly a leap of faith. just no evidence for the positive claim. i don't need to take a leap of faith for me to believe that there are no unicorns. it's not like evidence of unicorns (or god) wouldn't change my mind, however.
look at the celestial teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever. does it take a leap of faith to believe that any of them do not exist?
here's a question. what about Religions such as Buddhism? what's the harm in them?
buddhism can be practiced much like secular, nonreligious judaism. in that context, i see nothing wrong with it at all. in the context of true believers, however, there's still the problem of people having strong dogmas and beliefs with poor foundations in reality.
A belief system that has lasted for three or four thousand years, with no specific record of ulterior motives of the originator(s) is that much more likely. That's not to say that It makes sense to jump out and believe it right aware, but to fervently believe against it is also illogical, in my mind.
how do you feel about belief in poseidon? and how long until scientology becomes respectable? has the mormon faith ripened itself to legitimacy yet?
I do find it pretty much the argument seems based primarily around "Religion is bad! [brings up examples found in Christianity or Islam to be evidence, perhaps some tribal religions too]"
ah, no, but that's apparently the characterization you've applied to the argument. the argument is against dogma and beliefs rooted in faith. which are bad. and which religion has in spades. i've brought up jainism in the past. it's certainly about as overtly benign as a religion can get, but it still has faith and dogma.
To summarize: You cannot say "people should be discouraged from this" and still honestly believe they are entitled to that belief.
I'm still catching up from last night (when this thread apparently decided to explode), but this right here keeps coming up and is annoying the hell out of me.
Lanz doesn't buy that whole "i may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" line of bull.
Loren Michael on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited December 2006
Just because Dawkins violently disagrees with blind faith does not mean that all atheism is like that. It's like saying that all Christians are like those assholes who run megachurches, or the Osmonds, or the Baakers; and all Muslims are like the suicide bombers.
vehemently would be a better word. It was a turn of phrase. You don't have to be as pedantic as I am, you know. Now go off in the corner and bitch about irrationality. Then I can come over there and smack you with some Mozart and Michaelangelo.
I'm not understanding exactly where you're going with "art is irrational." Do you mean to say that art is irrational because painters largely follow their emotions and instincts rather than painting by a strict formula? I don't see how that makes art irrational--after all, it is perfectly rational to paint by instinct rather than by design, since (too forced) design has been shown to produce bad art.
Are you saying that it is irrational to love art, or produce art? I don't see how that's the case, any more than it's irrational to love milkshakes or cinnamon toast crunch. Rationality does not denying that our emotional or sensual responses to the outside world exist--it involves behaving in some basically reasonable ways, like not holding mutually contradictory positions.
I think I need a better explanation for what "art is irrational" means, especially when it's being used to justify the statement "it is sometimes better to think and behave irrationally." I feel like often people try to demonstrate the statment "it is sometimes better to think and behave irrationally" by claiming that some obviously desirable behavior is irrational, but without fully demonstrating why that behavior is irrational in any meaningful way.
Therefore, logically it shouldn't be allowed, as it is harmful to people/society.
did you really not get the racism analogy? it's legal for someone to be racist. certain actions can get you in trouble, but we allow people to believe what they want. and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
People have mentioned intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
You cannot tell me that it is possible to both truly believe everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe and then say
and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
That generally means no, you do not believe they are truly entitled to it, otherwise you would let it be and move on instead of having some action occur against it.
it doesn't matter if it's a law or not, if an action is taken against it, then the belief is not approved, and therefore it is wrong to say you believe they have a right to it when you're acting to change their belief to something you don't find offensive to some degree.
did you really not get the racism analogy? it's legal for someone to be racist. certain actions can get you in trouble, but we allow people to believe what they want. and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
People have mentioned intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
You cannot tell me that it is possible to both truly believe everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe and then say
and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
That generally means no, you do not believe they are truly entitled to it, otherwise you would let it be and move on instead of having some action occur against it.
it doesn't matter if it's a law or not, if an action is taken against it, then the belief is not approved, and therefore it is wrong to say you believe they have a right to it when you're acting to change their belief to something you don't find offensive to some degree.
lanz, i don't often write people off as unredeemable retards, as i have a reputation as an asshole without throwing a lot of base polemic around. but good lord you're being pretty god damn dense here.
did you really not get the racism analogy? it's legal for someone to be racist. certain actions can get you in trouble, but we allow people to believe what they want. and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
People have mentioned intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
You cannot tell me that it is possible to both truly believe everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe and then say
and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
That generally means no, you do not believe they are truly entitled to it, otherwise you would let it be and move on instead of having some action occur against it.
it doesn't matter if it's a law or not, if an action is taken against it, then the belief is not approved, and therefore it is wrong to say you believe they have a right to it when you're acting to change their belief to something you don't find offensive to some degree.
lanz, i don't often write people off as unredeemable retards, as i have a reputation as an asshole without throwing a lot of base polemic around. but good lord you're being pretty god damn dense here.
i may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it
how does that not work, logically?
because... they're not actually seeking to change the they they disagree with?
You seem to be missing my point, so for the last time, I will sum it up:
if you actively work against a belief, then it is dishonest to then say you believe people are entitled to whatever belief they want to hold.
I accept that you can disagree with something, but believe they have a right to believe that something. I don't believe in Islam, but damn if I'm going to to say they don't have the right to believe in it, and I'm not going to force them or dissuade them otherwise
Why does that work? Because notice that I'm not trying to change their belief.
meanwhile, looking at Racism. I don't agree with it, and I'm quite willing to explain to a racist why they're wrong. But see, now I cannot say that, honestly, I feel they are entitled to that belief, as I am doing something contrary that that statement by speaking against the belief.
@ Evander: It might be useful if you even understood what weak atheism and strong atheism meant before you started talking about atheism at all. It's difficult to have a meaningful conversation when one side does not understand the implications and meanings of the terms in use. Your characterizations of the strong and weak atheist viewpoints are wrong and thus the arguments from those characterizations are wildly off base. Others have pointed this out yet you shrugged their points aside and continued using terms incorrectly to advance your viewpoint.
If you don't find wikipedia to be a reliable enough source, I'll provide links to other works that you will find more authoritative, hopefully, and will provide more insight into some different formulations of atheism:
Posts
I'm not saying that we shouldn't discourage things. like in my earlier example with murder and serial killers, I certainly believe that should be discouraged.
I'm merely calling Loren out on the fact he's saying he thinks people should be entitled to their beliefs, then basically saying "but I think they shouldn't have them for these reasons"
Being a knee-jerk is not useful.
Blasphemy is as often a socio-political tool as anything else.
There are many Christians who honestly believe that being non-Christian will result in untold calamity to their person. SOMEONE has to show them how insanely deluded they are in at least that.
If people feel that Christianity is right for them, -fine-. But to be scared in to attending church is -wrong-.
T..there are actually people like that?
Now I just don't know what to think.
first of all, I'm not talking about christians, I'm talking about religious people in general.
I have personal issues with the logic of christian beliefs, but this isn't the thread for that. Atheist are not people who disbelieve in jesus, they are people who disbelieve in god.
a better comparison would be that some one tells you that you tossed your keys, and they landed in the sink, and fell down the drain. He claims to have seen this through the window, from accross the street. You don't rememebr him being there. This is religion.
The other possibility is that you put the keys on the counter, where they always go, and accidentally knocked them into the garbage, which you took out, and has already been picked up.
Neither one is provable at the present time, and while one is more likely and more believable, there is still the possibility that the other is right.
Link? Said link should show, also, not one example, or two, but that this is a signficant percentage.
I'm pretty sure a significant percentage believe in hell.
I dealt with a guy with this philosophy and his horde of school children minions (he runs a fricking school, but likes to spend half his time harassing college students) and other supporters for two years. Come to Fresno on a Tuesday, and I can introduce you to some of the creepy.
It's that whole Pascal's Wager mentality in general.
that doesn't mean anything by itself. I mean, do hey all think that every non-christian and unbaptized baby goes to hell? my guess would be that most people who believe in hell think of it as a place where "bad people" go, not a place where "unbelievers" go
that is, if they even think about it.
Have you watched TBN lately?
Every time I get too distracted to change the channel, some freakjob is saying "We all know about Jesus's forgiveness, but some people forget about the terrible consequences of not believing in God."
Notice how TBN still exists.
christianity is not a good example
other religious that make fantastical claims don't always require full belief in them, alowing for interpretation instead.
You really can't attack "religion" by taking christianity, then applying it to all religion
Mysticism may be the better term.
But generally speaking, one focuses on the examples that actually have power. The "World Religions" all have some hefty amounts of it.
Though I hear that Bollywood is equally powerful.
do you know how many niche channels are out there?
or the power of a vocal minority
hell, think of the ammount of Jews in prestigious positions. consider that jews are less than two percent of US population, and less than one percent of world population.
You have yet to prove that "a lot" of people believe anything, only that "some" people do.
I do find it pretty much the argument seems based primarily around "Religion is bad! [brings up examples found in Christianity or Islam to be evidence, perhaps some tribal religions too]"
that is ridiculous. Just because a lot of people believe in them does not make them the "posterboys" of religion.
There are enough people to keep an international TV station going.
There were enough people to keep the whole "Buying your way in to heaven" thing going for awhile.
THAT IS TOO MANY.
I don't care if it's 1/10th of 1%, it's all over the goddamn place and it's harmful to those who suffer under it.
--
It makes them the ones we have to worry about the most, however.
Who let you off the short bus?
TBN points: and there are many Christians think TBN and it's ilk are self-righteous, selfish, and with practically no merit.
Just because there are bad Christians, does not mean the whole thing needs to be scrapped.
Posterboys point: Then people should worry about them and not other religions that aren't them.
weren't you the one telling me to read the rules half an hour or so ago?
The need to be scrapped thing is unrelated.
The "Oh fuck I better go to church and worship god because if I don't I'll burn forever pure thoughts pure thoughts pure thoughts doubeplusgodlove" thing, however, is what relates to this particular topic.
And there's more than enough of it out there to worry about. Pascal's wager is not exactly a rare thing to see thrown in.
They're here. They're stupid. And they're having an impact.
sorry about the scrapped thing then, I'm tired, been meaning to go to bed for over an hour, and getting some arguments mixed up.
as for a small note on the "go to church thing" I've never seen much for a belief in it. I find that it was likely derived from the traditional meetings of early Christians and such, derived from the passage stating that Christians should have fellowship with one another, and honestly, you don't need to go to Church just to have fellowship with Christians.
and with this, I'm off to bed, as it's 5-effing-33 AM as I write this. farewell and goodnight.
You responded to my post with the most retarded thing you could have ever written. Christianity and Islam are the only two religions that matter. The abrahamic religions encompass every continent and most every politician and lawmaker in the western hemisphere subscribes to them but you know why don't we talk about scientology instead.
Well shit, someone better call up the other thousands of religions out there and tell them to pack it in.
That would be pretty fantastic.
Just don't be mean about it. They don't like that.
I was thinking of feeding them to the lions.
I'm still catching up from last night (when this thread apparently decided to explode), but this right here keeps coming up and is annoying the hell out of me.
It's absolutely possible to say "I think this idea is wrong/stupid/hurtful/what have you" and "I think you should still be allowed to have the idea". The key is valuing freedom of speech/thought more highly than you devalue the negative consequences of the idea.
That's why you can say and mean "Minority X is lazy/retarded/evil" but you can't say and mean "I will kill the President".
For all ideas that fall under the bad enough to want to be discouraged, without being bad enough to outright ban, we use social pressure to keep them form occurring. Anyone is free to say they believe in aliens, or government conspiracies, or racism, or any retarded thing, but they lose social standing and respectability for publicly embracing what society feels are stupid ideas.
All the Dawkin's school of thought aims to do (and I agree with the goal if not necessarily the methods) is to add belief in mythological figures in the sky to the list of stupid things you can believe in but will be looked down on for.
where, in that video, is he doing that? where, given the links in the OP, is attacking anyone encouraged? atheists are blasphemers. a person stating that he does not believe in god is a blasphemer. it is blasphemy to say that you don't believe in god. that's the whole point. blasphemy is an affront to god, and it gets you kicked out of heaven for good. and that's all these people are doing by saying "i don't believe...". you're justifying people being offended by people publicly asserting their atheism.
"jew" refers to both an ethnic identity and a religious believer. in many cases, jewish people have taken to eschewing actual belief and judaism becomes more of a cultural identity for them than anything else. for purposes of my grievances, i don't consider such people to be religious.
there are, of course, orthodox jews who have a plethora of problems all their own.
did you really not get the racism analogy? it's legal for someone to be racist. certain actions can get you in trouble, but we allow people to believe what they want. and we, as a society, discourage them. we are intolerant of racism, and racists (generally).
hardly a leap of faith. just no evidence for the positive claim. i don't need to take a leap of faith for me to believe that there are no unicorns. it's not like evidence of unicorns (or god) wouldn't change my mind, however.
look at the celestial teapot, the flying spaghetti monster, or whatever. does it take a leap of faith to believe that any of them do not exist?
buddhism can be practiced much like secular, nonreligious judaism. in that context, i see nothing wrong with it at all. in the context of true believers, however, there's still the problem of people having strong dogmas and beliefs with poor foundations in reality.
how do you feel about belief in poseidon? and how long until scientology becomes respectable? has the mormon faith ripened itself to legitimacy yet?
ah, no, but that's apparently the characterization you've applied to the argument. the argument is against dogma and beliefs rooted in faith. which are bad. and which religion has in spades. i've brought up jainism in the past. it's certainly about as overtly benign as a religion can get, but it still has faith and dogma.
Lanz doesn't buy that whole "i may disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" line of bull.
vehemently would be a better word. It was a turn of phrase. You don't have to be as pedantic as I am, you know. Now go off in the corner and bitch about irrationality. Then I can come over there and smack you with some Mozart and Michaelangelo.
:P
People have mentioned intellectual dishonesty in this thread.
You cannot tell me that it is possible to both truly believe everyone is entitled to believe whatever they want to believe and then say
That generally means no, you do not believe they are truly entitled to it, otherwise you would let it be and move on instead of having some action occur against it.
it doesn't matter if it's a law or not, if an action is taken against it, then the belief is not approved, and therefore it is wrong to say you believe they have a right to it when you're acting to change their belief to something you don't find offensive to some degree.
lanz, i don't often write people off as unredeemable retards, as i have a reputation as an asshole without throwing a lot of base polemic around. but good lord you're being pretty god damn dense here. how does that not work, logically?
because... they're not actually seeking to change the they they disagree with?
You seem to be missing my point, so for the last time, I will sum it up:
if you actively work against a belief, then it is dishonest to then say you believe people are entitled to whatever belief they want to hold.
I accept that you can disagree with something, but believe they have a right to believe that something. I don't believe in Islam, but damn if I'm going to to say they don't have the right to believe in it, and I'm not going to force them or dissuade them otherwise
Why does that work? Because notice that I'm not trying to change their belief.
meanwhile, looking at Racism. I don't agree with it, and I'm quite willing to explain to a racist why they're wrong. But see, now I cannot say that, honestly, I feel they are entitled to that belief, as I am doing something contrary that that statement by speaking against the belief.
If you don't find wikipedia to be a reliable enough source, I'll provide links to other works that you will find more authoritative, hopefully, and will provide more insight into some different formulations of atheism:
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Morality-Meaning-Prometheus-Lecture/dp/1573929875/sr=8-2/qid=1166983067/ref=sr_1_2/104-1310145-9579156?ie=UTF8&s=books
http://www.amazon.com/Value-Virtue-Godless-Universe-Wielenberg/dp/0521607841/ref=pd_sim_b_1/104-1310145-9579156
http://www.amazon.com/Ethics-Without-God-Kai-Nielsen/dp/0879755520/ref=pd_sim_b_4/104-1310145-9579156
http://www.amazon.com/Atheism-Case-Against-Skeptics-Bookshelf/dp/087975124X/ref=pd_sxp_grid_i_2_1/104-1310145-9579156
That's a start and I'm sure Loren can provide more.