Not So Funny Stuff

Broncosfan
Theist
Posts: 94
Joined: 2007-02-05
User is offlineOffline
Not So Funny Stuff

I mentioned earlier that in many instances, I don't see a whole lot of difference between fundies and rational responders.

Many of the posters here have convinced themselves that they've arrived at their enlightened opinions through alot of rational and logical analysis while the fundies have arrived at their positions through blind faith.

But at the end of the day, many of the rational responders are just as close-minded, obsessive and as "nutty" as the fundies.

You may have arrived at your destination via a different route, but you arrived at the exact same place.

Iin many instances, I found the posts here very amusing and always good for an occasional chuckle.

However, in the post entitled "Funny Stuff", one of the rational responders, if she had her way, by her own admission would ban certain songs from the radio and certain movies would only be shown in certain locations. I didn't press the point, but my guess is that she would also recommend a ban on certain books as well.

I don't care what a person's cause is - there's nothing funny or "rational" about people wanting to ban films and music. I hear this sort of nonsense and I immediately think of Nazis and book burnings.

Fortunately, for the majority of us, fundies and rational responders are, by and large, a relatively small minority and harmless. And whille they both have some very funny / peculiar ideas about what's best for society, their impact on the majority of the people is meaningless.

Enjoy your forums.

But before I leave, I would again recommend that you google the fundie forums - you wouldn't beleive the music, films and books that these "cuukoo birds" want to ban.


Rev0lver
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-02-24
User is offlineOffline
you do realize that one

you do realize that one person does not represent an entire community?


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: However,

Broncosfan wrote:

However, in the post entitled "Funny Stuff", one of the rational responders, if she had her way, by her own admission would ban certain songs from the radio and certain movies would only be shown in certain locations. I didn't press the point, but my guess is that she would also recommend a ban on certain books as well.

It is I that Broncosfan is taking taking out of context.

I said "It wouldn't be necessary for us to become vocal and be activists if religion was kept inside churches."

I said that yes, I'd like to have all the xmas songs that refer to Jesus removed from the radio and the movies The Passion of the Christ and King of Kings should be shown only in churches.

Just as the xians had such a fit over the television series "The Book of Daniel" (and the network bowed to their demands to have it cancelled), why is it any different that I'd like to see religion removed from television?

Please note that I did not say completely ban any books, movies or music as the xians would like to do.

I take offense at not only the personal insult, but also at the condesending attitude.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10327
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I can say with all certainty

I can say with all certainty that this guy's a complete idiot.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ophios
Ophios's picture
Posts: 909
Joined: 2006-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Rev0lver wrote: you do

Rev0lver wrote:
you do realize that one person does not represent an entire community?

Of course they do[/sarcasm]

 

*Slathers more sarcasm suace on the sentence.* 

AImboden wrote:
I'm not going to PM my agreement just because one tucan has pms.


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
Why is it that when we way

Why is it that when we way that we want to get rid of religious things in society, the theist assume we want laws passed that ban them? We want to get rid of them in the "free market of ideas." We leave the banning of things one doesn't like to the theists.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Let me also qualify my

Let me also qualify my response (which I failed to do in my original post).


Please note that I said "I would like" not "I am fighting to" or "I would support legislation to". I was saying (poorly apparently) is that I would like this. This is the kind of stuff that cannot be legislated. It would be quite unconstitutional.


I do not support the actual banning of any books or movies (exceptions such as child porn).

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


rexlunae
rexlunae's picture
Posts: 378
Joined: 2007-01-07
User is offlineOffline
I don't presume to speak for

I don't presume to speak for Susan, she's more than capable, but for myself, I would say that I oppose government censorship in most forms, and I find it dishonest to attempt to claim that we all think the same way based on a misunderstood post from one person.

The complaint that I have, and I think may have been what Susan was referring to, is that television studios have been willing to bow to the censorship demands of religious groups, but don't seem to care what atheists think. We want them to consider our feelings before they run pro-religion propaganda to the same extent that they consider the feelings of theists. I don't want to force them by law, but rather to raise their awareness of us. Their treatment of atheists is rather unbalanced.

It's only the fairy tales they believe.


NarcolepticSun
Posts: 108
Joined: 2007-02-18
User is offlineOffline
Good Grief! The senseless

Good Grief! The senseless bickering must end.

Broncosfan, the reason many of us frequent this site is because we are intellectuals. We are interested in intellectual persuits.

From your various posts - I gather your interests lend you to social persuits. Some atheists on this site will not understand your ease in your relationship with your wife because they are intellectuals and know that an intellectual mind could not easily pull off such a thing. A social mind, however, could.

In our eyes you appear to be quite a bit of a hypocrite coming on here demeaning us (especially with your broad generizations of this forum's participants) for exhibiting what you label "extremist" behavior - which would be identical to the behavior you are displaying.

It seems as if you have come here for the sole purpose of finding a group of people to bicker and and to refuse to understand. Not all people are intellectuals - and that is alright. If you are not going to pursue intellectual discussion/debate - this is not the place for you.

If you are here just to boost your social ego - leave.


Scotch
Scotch's picture
Posts: 37
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Broncosfan wrote: I don't

Broncosfan wrote:
I don't care what a person's cause is - there's nothing funny or "rational" about people wanting to ban films and music. I hear this sort of nonsense and I immediately think of Nazis and book burnings.

Have you ever heard of Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies? LoL 

http://youtube.com/phillipetrindade - Reasonable dialogue about atheism. Please visit, rate it and comment. Thanks!


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
What I particularly like

What I particularly like about Godwin's Law:

Quote:
There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.

So... Bronco lost.  Can we talk about something else now?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


stephenmarkjackson
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-03-05
User is offlineOffline
Can i just qualify why

Can i just qualify why theists might find something offensive; they arent offended because its a belief that they dont believe being aired, theist get offended when slander about a god, who they believe is real and has a personality (AND gets offended/upset), is aired. In the same way you would all want something removed from television that stated that your mum was a dirty whore, which is how far it goes towards God sometimes (for example, the jerry springer theatre thing).

Susan i would ask why you would like theist shows to be removed? Who is it hurting in your case? 


MrRage
Posts: 896
Joined: 2006-12-22
User is offlineOffline
stephenmarkjackson

stephenmarkjackson wrote:
Can i just qualify why theists might find something offensive; they arent offended because its a belief that they dont believe being aired, theist get offended when slander about a god, who they believe is real and has a personality (AND gets offended/upset), is aired.

I would say there are theist in both camps. Of course they're going to find it offensive. Part of the point of the blasphemy challenge was to rock the boat.

stephenmarkjackson wrote:
In the same way you would all want something removed from television that stated that your mum was a dirty whore, which is how far it goes towards God sometimes (for example, the jerry springer theatre thing). Susan i would ask why you would like theist shows to be removed? Who is it hurting in your case?

Just because something offends someone doesn't mean it should be "removed." I (and Susan) would like theism to become a marginal position in society. It's not just about getting rid of television shows.