It's not just a PR screen. It does also limit the amount of abuse that is spoken, and affects what is acceptable to say.
As for the OP, I am still hoping someone cleverer than me can put forward a practical method of limiting shitty speech like this, that won't backfire and be also used by shitty authorities to limit good speech.
I think the beliefs being referred to there are not those about gods, but those about other things (e.g. homosexuality being harmful, young-earth creationism, or just plain ignorance like Obama being a Muslim).
Augustine (and I think joshofalltrades) were referring to those types of beliefs, and that ignorance in those made arguments on theology less compelling.
Probably they did, but at the root is still the belief in god that is used to justify otherwise unjustified claims, and the god claim itself is unjustified.
I don't see why the god claim should get a pass when other things do not.
Some might feel that, when someone says "homosexuality is wrong because god says so", the way to go is to argue about bible studies, translations and other stuff. Me, i prefer to ask them to prove god exists (and, if they are Christians, ask for their take on prawns).
Considering that the concept of faith is fairly fundamental to most religions, I find the bolded to be a laughable request.
It's not just a PR screen. It does also limit the amount of abuse that is spoken, and affects what is acceptable to say.
As for the OP, I am still hoping someone cleverer than me can put forward a practical method of limiting shitty speech like this, that won't backfire and be also used by shitty authorities to limit good speech.
As far as TV influencing viewers, sure, but we still get a lot of dog whistling and out-of-sight meetings where people express their real views, while keeping a clean public image.
There really isn't a neutral way to enforce speech. Good speech is limited as hell in the media along with the vile stuff because viewers and sponsors will spaz otherwise. There still aren't exactly a lot of homosexual relationships depicted in children's shows, for example, even when they display lots of heterosexual ones.
It's not just a PR screen. It does also limit the amount of abuse that is spoken, and affects what is acceptable to say.
As for the OP, I am still hoping someone cleverer than me can put forward a practical method of limiting shitty speech like this, that won't backfire and be also used by shitty authorities to limit good speech.
More importantly, I think it limits the exposure of younger generations to that sort of stuff. Racism is not a one-generation problem. I think by limiting what sort of racist people things "old" people can say, we limit the racist things that "young" people hear, and so, even if "fake", we establish a new social convention on acceptable speech and idea for the next generation.
Whether we can eliminate racism this way - or any way - I don't know. But at least we can minimize the institutionality of racism.
It only limits what you can say in polite company. Super racist shit still flies at home.
If your folks at home say one thing and the rest of the world says another, you would probably be inclined to not listen to your folks. This especially goes when the rebellion phase kicks in. Plenty of people here on these forums have rants about their parents being crazy stupid backwards racists/sexists/homophobes/all of the above and more though they didn't turn out that way.
0
Options
ComradebotLord of DinosaursHouston, TXRegistered Userregular
It's not just a PR screen. It does also limit the amount of abuse that is spoken, and affects what is acceptable to say.
As for the OP, I am still hoping someone cleverer than me can put forward a practical method of limiting shitty speech like this, that won't backfire and be also used by shitty authorities to limit good speech.
Will never, ever happen. No one can come up with a way, because there isn't a way, since "shitty speech like this" is entirely subjective. Yes, a few things should be pretty clear cut wrong to say, but then the question becomes where the line is drawn, and its the fuzziness of that line that would invariably lead to abuse. The idea of such a system is a thing of idealistic fantasy, nothing more.
It was sort of rooted in the claim that what happened here was censorship by A&E, which I have since abandoned.
It's clear that A&E never intended to take a stand against bigotry, so even if it would have been censorship for them to stick to their guns and keep Robertson suspended (and I admit I'm not entirely sure this is the case), it was never going to happen, and this is all just optics theater.
0
Options
JohnnyCacheStarting DefensePlace at the tableRegistered Userregular
I think the beliefs being referred to there are not those about gods, but those about other things (e.g. homosexuality being harmful, young-earth creationism, or just plain ignorance like Obama being a Muslim).
Augustine (and I think joshofalltrades) were referring to those types of beliefs, and that ignorance in those made arguments on theology less compelling.
Probably they did, but at the root is still the belief in god that is used to justify otherwise unjustified claims, and the god claim itself is unjustified.
I don't see why the god claim should get a pass when other things do not.
Some might feel that, when someone says "homosexuality is wrong because god says so", the way to go is to argue about bible studies, translations and other stuff.
Me, i prefer to ask them to prove god exists (and, if they are Christians, ask for their take on prawns).
Prove to me whose rights take priority - those of a mother, or those of an unborn child.
Prove to me the impact of firearms on a free society and why I should/should not be allowed a gun.
Prove to me why societies shouldn't follow a Eugenics policy, especially if I believe we should be conserving our resources for sustainability.
Prove to me the purpose of sleep.
Prove to me that Unified Gravitational Theory of Relativity exists.
Prove to me how electrons can jump between orbits without passing between any intermediary space.
Prove to me how light can have both the properties of a wave and a particle.
Prove to me how the universe came into being if there was "nothing" prior to the Big Bang.
Prove to me that this world is real and it's not just a bunch of electrodes stuck into a brain making me think that my senses are encountering a physical world.
Prove to me what happens to the "me" when my body dies.
Prove to me that there's a "you" in the same way that there's a "me".
Prove to me why we should treat people the same despite it being obvious that we are all different.
I'm just saying - there's a shitload of things we fundamentally believe in that are not particularly justified, sometimes in the belief that we will work it out some day and sometimes in the belief that it provides a greater benefit to society.
Going "lolgod" can make you look like a bit of a goose because there's plenty of things you believe about society (and science!) that aren't built on a solid bedrock of justification either.
I hate to be the analogy police, but:
Faith is trust in something, despite its unknowability. We don't trust in or concede the unknowability of really anything on that list, even where there are gaps in our knowledge as a society or gaps in the knowledge of individual laypeople.
Faith itself, and the notion that scripture is deeply allegorical, have always felt like justifications for badly aging scripture for me but that's another thread.
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'd like to note, though it may be pedantry, that atheism is not a belief. I don't believe there is no god. I just don't believe in any god. If God descended from the heavens and told me to start believing, I probably would. I wouldn't argue with him.
And I don't argue with any kind of believer about their faith. There is no proof one way or the other because theism of any kind is completely faith based. And there may very well be a god at the controls. The unicorn analogy is popular, but it's more about respect than it is consistency. I can say I believe there aren't any unicorns, but also say I don't believe there is a god because it has to do with respecting that there are orders of magnitude more people that believe there is a god (or gods) than do not.
Besides, the argument itself is completely pointless. Spend time convincing Christians that solutions that apply to everyone should be based on everyone's beliefs in aggregate, not one group's, not trying to convince them there is no god.
I'd like to note, though it may be pedantry, that atheism is not a belief. I don't believe there is no god. I just don't believe in any god. If God descended from the heavens and told me to start believing, I probably would. I wouldn't argue with him.
That's true, not believing in a god is not a belief, by definition. It's literally a lack of belief in something. But going a step further than that, saying "there is no god," is as untestable a hypothesis as saying there is, and that counts as a belief.
It still makes me sad people support horrific minstrel levels of what "red necks" act like. It would be like nerds standing by Sheldon. YOU PEOPLE ARE BEING CONNED!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well there are two things we need to improve. One is people being bigots. The other is the victims of bigotry being attacked by bigots.
Political correctness hopefully improves the first issue. It definitely improves the second.
I was just thinking how this might be why teachers are prohibited from swearing. Again, it's not that people don't swear - God knows the kids know more swear words than the teacher does, really - but it establishes a social convention of its appropriateness, at least in public. It also makes it slightly taboo and more exciting to swear, but you know... it seems hard to deny that if teachers swore and tolerated swearing in class, kids would swear more. My new-parent friends are all vaguely embarrassed when their kids swear, having randomly picked it up from them.
I've never watched nor probably will ever watch DD but after reading the guys comments I don't see what the big deal is. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Did he call for the extermination or imprisonment or gays? No. It was just his opinion based on his belief system.
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
+1
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
I'd like to note, though it may be pedantry, that atheism is not a belief. I don't believe there is no god. I just don't believe in any god. If God descended from the heavens and told me to start believing, I probably would. I wouldn't argue with him.
That's true, not believing in a god is not a belief, by definition. It's literally a lack of belief in something. But going a step further than that, saying "there is no god," is as untestable a hypothesis as saying there is, and that counts as a belief.
Eh it's conceptually problematic to treat as equal the proposition that something/anything exists as the proposition that it does not when determining what we mean by "belief". Given the probability that the amount of entities we can propose to exists is infinite and that most of us only propose the existence of a finite amount you'd basically be forced to say that we all hold an infinite set of beliefs. (and that we are frequently unaware of most of them.)
It is much more useful to say that the "beliefs"of a person are those things that the person accepts to be true or real. In other words, it's propositions of existence that count as beliefs. If someone asks you what you believe you don't start summing up everything you don't believe in, do you?
It only limits what you can say in polite company. Super racist shit still flies at home.
If your folks at home say one thing and the rest of the world says another, you would probably be inclined to not listen to your folks. This especially goes when the rebellion phase kicks in. Plenty of people here on these forums have rants about their parents being crazy stupid backwards racists/sexists/homophobes/all of the above and more though they didn't turn out that way.
That's why more and more of the conservative Christian families are raising their children with as little exposure to the outside world as possible. If it isn't their home or their church, keep them away from it, and then you avoid the problem of conflicting viewpoints. By the time they're old enough to go out and proselytize to the wider world, they'll be too indoctrinated to disagree!
That's the theory, anyway. There's a big movement of "ex-homeschooled" kids lately that seems to show even then there's no guarantee.
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
And the bigots are slowly losing that fight. Twenty years ago it'd be fine to utter the N-wod in a newspaper article or at work.
not so much anymore.
And honestly gaybashing is one of the last bits of hate they have left and it's slipping away. that's why there's so much flailing and hand wringing over this issue.
I've never watched nor probably will ever watch DD but after reading the guys comments I don't see what the big deal is. Do I agree with them? Not at all. Did he call for the extermination or imprisonment or gays? No. It was just his opinion based on his belief system.
Well, agree somewhat. I'm all for people taking a strong stand against, bad opinions should be overbalanced with better ones. But yeah, I'm not a fan of the "they said something bad, now they have to Go Away" mindset .
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
And the bigots are slowly losing that fight. Twenty years ago it'd be fine to utter the N-wod in a newspaper article or at work.
not so much anymore.
And honestly gaybashing is one of the last bits of hate they have left and it's slipping away. that's why there's so much flailing and hand wringing over this issue.
Don't worry, people will always find a subset of people to hate.
And the bigots are slowly losing that fight. Twenty years ago it'd be fine to utter the N-wod in a newspaper article or at work.
not so much anymore.
And honestly gaybashing is one of the last bits of hate they have left and it's slipping away. that's why there's so much flailing and hand wringing over this issue.
Don't worry, people will always find a subset of people to hate.
And the bigots are slowly losing that fight. Twenty years ago it'd be fine to utter the N-wod in a newspaper article or at work.
not so much anymore.
And honestly gaybashing is one of the last bits of hate they have left and it's slipping away. that's why there's so much flailing and hand wringing over this issue.
Don't worry, people will always find a subset of people to hate.
They'll hate but they'll do it in fucking private. This isn't about stomping out all hate it's about making it unacceptable in public life.
+1
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
I moderate for another forum and, as I have to remind posters too often: The first amendment protects you from the government, not from companies, people, family, friends or me.
I think the beliefs being referred to there are not those about gods, but those about other things (e.g. homosexuality being harmful, young-earth creationism, or just plain ignorance like Obama being a Muslim).
Augustine (and I think joshofalltrades) were referring to those types of beliefs, and that ignorance in those made arguments on theology less compelling.
Probably they did, but at the root is still the belief in god that is used to justify otherwise unjustified claims, and the god claim itself is unjustified.
I don't see why the god claim should get a pass when other things do not.
Some might feel that, when someone says "homosexuality is wrong because god says so", the way to go is to argue about bible studies, translations and other stuff.
Me, i prefer to ask them to prove god exists (and, if they are Christians, ask for their take on prawns).
Prove to me whose rights take priority - those of a mother, or those of an unborn child.
Prove to me the impact of firearms on a free society and why I should/should not be allowed a gun.
Prove to me why societies shouldn't follow a Eugenics policy, especially if I believe we should be conserving our resources for sustainability.
Prove to me the purpose of sleep.
Prove to me that Unified Gravitational Theory of Relativity exists.
Prove to me how electrons can jump between orbits without passing between any intermediary space.
Prove to me how light can have both the properties of a wave and a particle.
Prove to me how the universe came into being if there was "nothing" prior to the Big Bang.
Prove to me that this world is real and it's not just a bunch of electrodes stuck into a brain making me think that my senses are encountering a physical world.
Prove to me what happens to the "me" when my body dies.
Prove to me that there's a "you" in the same way that there's a "me".
Prove to me why we should treat people the same despite it being obvious that we are all different.
I'm just saying - there's a shitload of things we fundamentally believe in that are not particularly justified, sometimes in the belief that we will work it out some day and sometimes in the belief that it provides a greater benefit to society.
Going "lolgod" can make you look like a bit of a goose because there's plenty of things you believe about society (and science!) that aren't built on a solid bedrock of justification either.
I hate to be the analogy police, but:
Faith is trust in something, despite its unknowability. We don't trust in or concede the unknowability of really anything on that list, even where there are gaps in our knowledge as a society or gaps in the knowledge of individual laypeople.
Faith itself, and the notion that scripture is deeply allegorical, have always felt like justifications for badly aging scripture for me but that's another thread.
I was going to answer that post, but you did in much more concise and eloquent way than i would have, thought the basic premise is the same.
strictly speaking, yea atheists believe there is no god, in the same way everyone believes there's no unicorns
This is commonly used rhetorically to claim atheism as some sort of religion though, which is completely silly
That's why we're all agnostics nowadays.
Every time someone tells me their agnostic, i want to swear and call them a goose (or worse).
At best it tells me they are not (hopefully) an utter fanatic of some sort, and at worst it is them trying to mislead and obfuscate without actually outright stating a falsehood.
Belief/No Belief, it's a binary position, 1 or 0, everyone is one or other.
I'm agnostic, and also atheist, and while most people when they say they are agnostics, mean that they are atheists (but please don't associate me with Hitchens or Dawkins), there are agnostic theists.
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
Done and supported by people from your country (assuming you are from USA), who also support, back and influence politicians in your country.
0
Options
cptruggedI think it has something to do with free will.Registered Userregular
It only limits what you can say in polite company. Super racist shit still flies at home.
If your folks at home say one thing and the rest of the world says another, you would probably be inclined to not listen to your folks. This especially goes when the rebellion phase kicks in. Plenty of people here on these forums have rants about their parents being crazy stupid backwards racists/sexists/homophobes/all of the above and more though they didn't turn out that way.
That's why more and more of the conservative Christian families are raising their children with as little exposure to the outside world as possible. If it isn't their home or their church, keep them away from it, and then you avoid the problem of conflicting viewpoints. By the time they're old enough to go out and proselytize to the wider world, they'll be too indoctrinated to disagree!
That's the theory, anyway. There's a big movement of "ex-homeschooled" kids lately that seems to show even then there's no guarantee.
We're way to big (and connected) of a world these days for that sort of isolationism to work like it used to. In the end, at some point you will see that there is a life without religion and a life with religion and you will take all of your experiences and decide which you like better. I wish I could say everyone makes this decision based on a good weight of experiences on both sides, but that wouldn't be true. Some folks just stay on the path their folks set for whatever reason. But to say more and more folks stay with it out of brainwashing would be a little much. I would bet that just as many who are openly exposed to secular society stay with religion as those that even attempt the level of seclusion you're talking about. Young christians find a lot of solace in being part of the group. And there are a lot of good things that come out of things christian youth groups. It's not like its all corporal punishment and saying your hail marys.
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
I'd consider myself agnostic. I used to read lots of stuff on religions and found spirituality interesting as a younger person. But after all that I ultimately concluded I didn't believe it at all.
I'd consider myself agnostic because it's simply not a terribly important topic to me anymore. i'm not rabidly anti-religion as long as it leave me and other people alone.
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited December 2013
I am reasonably sure there is something more, but I more or less refuse to define, understand or codify my relationship with it. It simply is, and that's enough for me.
Not quite sure what that makes me from a definition perspective. I spent some time with Native Americans in my early 20s, and I like the name some tribes have for god - "Great Mystery" - in that the creator is not understandable, and won't be until you pass on. I like this because it is incredibly simple, and doesn't get in the way of living my life.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I'd consider myself agnostic. I used to read lots of stuff on religions and found spirituality interesting as a younger person. But after all that I ultimately concluded I didn't believe it at all.
I'd consider myself agnostic because it's simply not a terribly important topic to me anymore. i'm not rabidly anti-religion as long as it leave me and other people alone.
That's not agnostic. That's "I don't give a damn". A lot of us are in that boat. I rarely mention I'm an atheist, because everyone hears atheist and translates it to "evangelizing none believer who doesn't shut up".
Marc Maron has a delightful comedy bit on this subject in Thinky Pain.
A belief system that has recently lead to an african country outlawing homosexuality (to the point of executions) backed by right wing christians from this country.
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
It was sort of rooted in the claim that what happened here was censorship by A&E, which I have since abandoned.
It's clear that A&E never intended to take a stand against bigotry, so even if it would have been censorship for them to stick to their guns and keep Robertson suspended (and I admit I'm not entirely sure this is the case), it was never going to happen, and this is all just optics theater.
At no point was A&E going to do that. Robertson's family stood by him and made it clear they didn't feel like they could continue the show without him. They do all get paid a lot of money, but A&E needs the Robertsons more then the Robertsons need A&E.
A&E's viewers made it clear that the vast pots of money that show brings them shouldn't be allowed to go away. For Q1-Q3 or 2013 the show pulled in 80 million in advertising revenue. That's a lot, and it's only one of the multitude of revenue streams a show like this generates. The Season 4 premier was the most watched cable non-fiction telecast with 11.8 million viewers.
I'm all for people taking a stand against bigotry. But that has consequences. People, and corporations especially, can only be expected to deal with consequences as long as the benefits outweigh them.
I'd consider myself agnostic. I used to read lots of stuff on religions and found spirituality interesting as a younger person. But after all that I ultimately concluded I didn't believe it at all.
I'd consider myself agnostic because it's simply not a terribly important topic to me anymore. i'm not rabidly anti-religion as long as it leave me and other people alone.
You don't believe in god or gods? Congratulations, you're an atheist.
It doesn't need to be important, you don't need to have ever even heard of the concept, you don't need to have ever even thought about the whole damn thing, but by definition, if you do not believe in a god, or gods, you, are an atheist.
Agnostic just means you don't claim knowledge of the existence of god or gods.
I'd consider myself agnostic. I used to read lots of stuff on religions and found spirituality interesting as a younger person. But after all that I ultimately concluded I didn't believe it at all.
I'd consider myself agnostic because it's simply not a terribly important topic to me anymore. i'm not rabidly anti-religion as long as it leave me and other people alone.
You don't believe in god or gods? Congratulations, you're an atheist.
It doesn't need to be important, you don't need to have ever even heard of the concept, you don't need to have ever even thought about the whole damn thing, but by definition, if you do not believe in a god, or gods, you, are an atheist.
Agnostic just means you don't claim knowledge of the existence of god or gods.
I identify as "agnostic" because "I don't believe in God" is not a completely accurate statement of my beliefs. It's as inaccurate for me as "I believe in God." Neither accurately depicts my personal beliefs.
You can be pedantic and claim that because I cannot say "I believe in God" I am technically atheist but fuck that.
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
I identify as "agnostic" because "I don't believe in God" is not a completely accurate statement of my beliefs. It's as inaccurate for me as "I believe in God." Neither accurately depicts my personal beliefs.
You can be pedantic and claim that because I cannot say "I believe in God" I am technically atheist but fuck that.
I feel this is a pretty reasonable position.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
I don't believe in god is a completely accurate statement of the beliefs of nobody, it only defines a relatively minor subset of persons beliefs.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.
Posts
As for the OP, I am still hoping someone cleverer than me can put forward a practical method of limiting shitty speech like this, that won't backfire and be also used by shitty authorities to limit good speech.
Considering that the concept of faith is fairly fundamental to most religions, I find the bolded to be a laughable request.
As far as TV influencing viewers, sure, but we still get a lot of dog whistling and out-of-sight meetings where people express their real views, while keeping a clean public image.
There really isn't a neutral way to enforce speech. Good speech is limited as hell in the media along with the vile stuff because viewers and sponsors will spaz otherwise. There still aren't exactly a lot of homosexual relationships depicted in children's shows, for example, even when they display lots of heterosexual ones.
More importantly, I think it limits the exposure of younger generations to that sort of stuff. Racism is not a one-generation problem. I think by limiting what sort of racist people things "old" people can say, we limit the racist things that "young" people hear, and so, even if "fake", we establish a new social convention on acceptable speech and idea for the next generation.
Whether we can eliminate racism this way - or any way - I don't know. But at least we can minimize the institutionality of racism.
Political correctness hopefully improves the first issue. It definitely improves the second.
If your folks at home say one thing and the rest of the world says another, you would probably be inclined to not listen to your folks. This especially goes when the rebellion phase kicks in. Plenty of people here on these forums have rants about their parents being crazy stupid backwards racists/sexists/homophobes/all of the above and more though they didn't turn out that way.
Will never, ever happen. No one can come up with a way, because there isn't a way, since "shitty speech like this" is entirely subjective. Yes, a few things should be pretty clear cut wrong to say, but then the question becomes where the line is drawn, and its the fuzziness of that line that would invariably lead to abuse. The idea of such a system is a thing of idealistic fantasy, nothing more.
It's clear that A&E never intended to take a stand against bigotry, so even if it would have been censorship for them to stick to their guns and keep Robertson suspended (and I admit I'm not entirely sure this is the case), it was never going to happen, and this is all just optics theater.
I hate to be the analogy police, but:
Faith is trust in something, despite its unknowability. We don't trust in or concede the unknowability of really anything on that list, even where there are gaps in our knowledge as a society or gaps in the knowledge of individual laypeople.
Faith itself, and the notion that scripture is deeply allegorical, have always felt like justifications for badly aging scripture for me but that's another thread.
I host a podcast about movies.
And I don't argue with any kind of believer about their faith. There is no proof one way or the other because theism of any kind is completely faith based. And there may very well be a god at the controls. The unicorn analogy is popular, but it's more about respect than it is consistency. I can say I believe there aren't any unicorns, but also say I don't believe there is a god because it has to do with respecting that there are orders of magnitude more people that believe there is a god (or gods) than do not.
Besides, the argument itself is completely pointless. Spend time convincing Christians that solutions that apply to everyone should be based on everyone's beliefs in aggregate, not one group's, not trying to convince them there is no god.
That's true, not believing in a god is not a belief, by definition. It's literally a lack of belief in something. But going a step further than that, saying "there is no god," is as untestable a hypothesis as saying there is, and that counts as a belief.
hitting hot metal with hammers
strictly speaking, yea atheists believe there is no god, in the same way everyone believes there's no unicorns
This is commonly used rhetorically to claim atheism as some sort of religion though, which is completely silly
pleasepaypreacher.net
That's why we're all agnostics nowadays.
I was just thinking how this might be why teachers are prohibited from swearing. Again, it's not that people don't swear - God knows the kids know more swear words than the teacher does, really - but it establishes a social convention of its appropriateness, at least in public. It also makes it slightly taboo and more exciting to swear, but you know... it seems hard to deny that if teachers swore and tolerated swearing in class, kids would swear more. My new-parent friends are all vaguely embarrassed when their kids swear, having randomly picked it up from them.
Eh it's conceptually problematic to treat as equal the proposition that something/anything exists as the proposition that it does not when determining what we mean by "belief". Given the probability that the amount of entities we can propose to exists is infinite and that most of us only propose the existence of a finite amount you'd basically be forced to say that we all hold an infinite set of beliefs. (and that we are frequently unaware of most of them.)
It is much more useful to say that the "beliefs"of a person are those things that the person accepts to be true or real. In other words, it's propositions of existence that count as beliefs. If someone asks you what you believe you don't start summing up everything you don't believe in, do you?
That's why more and more of the conservative Christian families are raising their children with as little exposure to the outside world as possible. If it isn't their home or their church, keep them away from it, and then you avoid the problem of conflicting viewpoints. By the time they're old enough to go out and proselytize to the wider world, they'll be too indoctrinated to disagree!
That's the theory, anyway. There's a big movement of "ex-homeschooled" kids lately that seems to show even then there's no guarantee.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Also you must have missed his comments about how black people were happier pre civil rights, because you're most likely a white straight male and what the Phil character said does not affect you in any way.
pleasepaypreacher.net
not so much anymore.
And honestly gaybashing is one of the last bits of hate they have left and it's slipping away. that's why there's so much flailing and hand wringing over this issue.
Well, agree somewhat. I'm all for people taking a strong stand against, bad opinions should be overbalanced with better ones. But yeah, I'm not a fan of the "they said something bad, now they have to Go Away" mindset .
I never said anything about his views on civil rights. And while what's going on in Africa and other parts of the world are terrible it's NOT what's going on in this country thankfully.
Don't worry, people will always find a subset of people to hate.
Welcome to the human race.
They'll hate but they'll do it in fucking private. This isn't about stomping out all hate it's about making it unacceptable in public life.
You really don't think so?
Every time someone tells me their agnostic, i want to swear and call them a goose (or worse).
At best it tells me they are not (hopefully) an utter fanatic of some sort, and at worst it is them trying to mislead and obfuscate without actually outright stating a falsehood.
Belief/No Belief, it's a binary position, 1 or 0, everyone is one or other.
I'm agnostic, and also atheist, and while most people when they say they are agnostics, mean that they are atheists (but please don't associate me with Hitchens or Dawkins), there are agnostic theists.
Done and supported by people from your country (assuming you are from USA), who also support, back and influence politicians in your country.
We're way to big (and connected) of a world these days for that sort of isolationism to work like it used to. In the end, at some point you will see that there is a life without religion and a life with religion and you will take all of your experiences and decide which you like better. I wish I could say everyone makes this decision based on a good weight of experiences on both sides, but that wouldn't be true. Some folks just stay on the path their folks set for whatever reason. But to say more and more folks stay with it out of brainwashing would be a little much. I would bet that just as many who are openly exposed to secular society stay with religion as those that even attempt the level of seclusion you're talking about. Young christians find a lot of solace in being part of the group. And there are a lot of good things that come out of things christian youth groups. It's not like its all corporal punishment and saying your hail marys.
Okay, I have to confess that this made me hate a group of people.
A group of people consisting of congresspeople named Michele Bachmann.
I'd consider myself agnostic because it's simply not a terribly important topic to me anymore. i'm not rabidly anti-religion as long as it leave me and other people alone.
She's really more of a symptom, though. The root problem is that there's a rather retrograde region of MN.
Not quite sure what that makes me from a definition perspective. I spent some time with Native Americans in my early 20s, and I like the name some tribes have for god - "Great Mystery" - in that the creator is not understandable, and won't be until you pass on. I like this because it is incredibly simple, and doesn't get in the way of living my life.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That's not agnostic. That's "I don't give a damn". A lot of us are in that boat. I rarely mention I'm an atheist, because everyone hears atheist and translates it to "evangelizing none believer who doesn't shut up".
Marc Maron has a delightful comedy bit on this subject in Thinky Pain.
Right, yeah. I mean, she's just one of the heads of the hydra, for sure.
It doesn't mean I don't seethe with rage to think about what she helped come to pass, though.
At no point was A&E going to do that. Robertson's family stood by him and made it clear they didn't feel like they could continue the show without him. They do all get paid a lot of money, but A&E needs the Robertsons more then the Robertsons need A&E.
A&E's viewers made it clear that the vast pots of money that show brings them shouldn't be allowed to go away. For Q1-Q3 or 2013 the show pulled in 80 million in advertising revenue. That's a lot, and it's only one of the multitude of revenue streams a show like this generates. The Season 4 premier was the most watched cable non-fiction telecast with 11.8 million viewers.
I'm all for people taking a stand against bigotry. But that has consequences. People, and corporations especially, can only be expected to deal with consequences as long as the benefits outweigh them.
You don't believe in god or gods? Congratulations, you're an atheist.
It doesn't need to be important, you don't need to have ever even heard of the concept, you don't need to have ever even thought about the whole damn thing, but by definition, if you do not believe in a god, or gods, you, are an atheist.
Agnostic just means you don't claim knowledge of the existence of god or gods.
I identify as "agnostic" because "I don't believe in God" is not a completely accurate statement of my beliefs. It's as inaccurate for me as "I believe in God." Neither accurately depicts my personal beliefs.
You can be pedantic and claim that because I cannot say "I believe in God" I am technically atheist but fuck that.
I feel this is a pretty reasonable position.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Nothing to do with souls, magic, after life, spiritually in general or what not.
Do you accept the claim that god (or gods) exist as true? No? Atheist.