Why not break the cycle?

Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Why not break the cycle?

I have seen discrimination all around. Rather it be in real life, or on internet forums.

 

There will always be discrimination in the world. Rather it be discrimination based on religion, race or nationality. I see it all the time. Some Christians claim atheists are immoral, some atheists claim Christian are bigots, this only leads to more bigotry on both sides, each side claiming persecution. Of course, some Christians are bigots, and some atheists are immoral, but for either side to generalize the other is nothing less than group think and only contributes to the problem. 

In highschool, I was discriminated against because I was a Theist. I was riducled  and mocked among other things, for believing in 'fairy tales' and 'a magic sky daddy'  (Ironically I went to a catholic school). Luckily I actually had friends at school (who were also Theist and were also mocked). However, guess what? This could have easily made me a bigot against atheists, but no, I refused to generalize all atheists as such. Would you like to know why? Because if I did, then I would be just like them. I would be no better than the ones who mocked me, it is easy to generalize people based on their religious beliefs, however I have learned judge people on a case to case basis. Most of the lessons I learned was from a priest at my church. He taught me to rise above the intolerance and lead by example and he was truely a great man and I'm sure people wouldn't be so bad if there were more people like him. By teaching tolerance, he didn't contribute to the cycle he broke it. 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
You were... ridiculed for

You were... ridiculed for being a theist?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
CrimsonEdge wrote: You

CrimsonEdge wrote:
You were... ridiculed for being a theist?

 

Yes. 


CrimsonEdge
CrimsonEdge's picture
Posts: 499
Joined: 2007-01-02
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:
You were... ridiculed for being a theist?

 

Yes.

Where did you go to school at? What part of the world/country?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
  CrimsonEdge

 

CrimsonEdge wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:
You were... ridiculed for being a theist?

 

Yes.

Where did you go to school at? What part of the world/country?

 

Canada 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I'm starting to agree.

I'm starting to agree. Probably not in the manner you think though.

Segregation based upon ideology sounds really good today. That would 'break the cycle'.

Segregation based upon race is patently stupid, but based on ideology.... I'm not so sure. Bloods and Crips, Republicans and Democrats, Red state/Blue State, North Korea South Korea. Hmmmm.

Oh. My bad. They tried that before elsewhere and the jesus freaks sent little tiny bibles smuggled inside of coffee shipments and whatnot didn't they.

I suppose the question I have is: Who is supposed to leave whom alone? Really. Who is guilty in the 'evangelism wars' in the respective ideologies? I want to know.

In the mind of the average theist, could they NOT allow their ideology to affect their interpersonal relations? 95% of the time in RL I have to be asked whether I am a believer or not when I initiate a conversation with someone. In the first three minutes talking about the damned weather, I can tell you if a person is a believer or not.

I'm sincerely glad that you aren't basing your perception of atheism on the atheists in your school in Canada. I truly wish it were that easy to do with regard to theists in America. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
The weird part is that

The weird part is that Canada is ~77% Christian, so I was surprised to find so many atheists at my school.

As any other user who lives in Canada or has visited Canada can atest to, Canada is a very good country to live in. The people are generally very friendly and easy going regardless of their beliefs. But I guess every high school has it's problem.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple what a nice

Cpt_pineapple what a nice idea, unfortunately are brains run a  hardwired program called spot the difference, this cannot be stopped best you can hope for, is to realize this is part of your psyche, and from that point try to adjust your behavior, 

Religion or rather the Ideology of religion adds another layer of spot the difference/discrimination, to your psyche

Although it could be argued that atheism is an ideology, it would be more appropriate to describe atheism as the ideology you were born with

Cpt_pineapple ? do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple what a nice idea, unfortunately are brains run a hardwired program called spot the difference, this cannot be stopped best you can hope for, is to realize this is part of your psyche, and from that point try to adjust your behavior,

 

If it's neurological, doesn't that mean EVERYONE regardless of religion can fall for it? 

 

Quote:
 

Religion or rather the Ideology of religion adds another layer of spot the difference/discrimination, to your psyche

Although it could be argued that atheism is an ideology, it would be more appropriate to describe atheism as the ideology you were born with

Doesn't matter. People will always be different hence the 'spot the difference' psyche will always be lurking

 

 

Quote:

Cpt_pineapple ? do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society

 

 

Think about this. What if someone wants to believe, but can't because of ridicule? People will always believe, let them as long as it is withing civil rights. 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
77 percent say they are

77 percent say they are christians.  For family reasons, friends etc, however in high school that's a different scene all together. Many of the Catholics schools is where we went to get some of the best weeds and the slutiest (is this a word?) girls during HS.


Voided
Posts: 1195
Joined: 2006-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Think

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Think about this. What if someone wants to believe, but can't because of ridicule? People will always believe, let them as long as it is withing civil rights.

If someone can't take ridicule they might want to grow up a little bit. Honestly though if the belief is not worth ridicule then it wouldn't be ridiculed. Now if you don't think its worth ridicule or you know what they think doesn't really effect you then what are you worried about?

BTW you contradict yourself up there. "Someone wants to believe, but can't" and "people will always believe." If people will always believe then ridicule shouldn't have an effect. Discussion of ideas even attacking them is a part of free speech. I'd hope it would be done with logic arguments, but its not like we take a 'how to argue effectively 101.' Honestly I don't see how talking will physically stop someone. Do you think its bad that people get called on things other people see as irrational? If someone wants to talk about god take to'em.

With the school though there could have been all sorts of things going on. Maybe you rubbed them the wrong way one day without realizing it or they just got out of religion and vented. Maybe they saw you somehow connected to the authority figures of the school, it been catholic. What this has to do with today I'm not sure. Its not like we can't find cases of christians picking on atheists and the atheist not turning into a bigot as you call it. Are you suggesting the discussion stop because it effects people's beliefs?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Voiderest

Voiderest wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Think about this. What if someone wants to believe, but can't because of ridicule? People will always believe, let them as long as it is withing civil rights.

If someone can't take ridicule they might want to grow up a little bit. Honestly though if the belief is not worth ridicule then it wouldn't be ridiculed. Now if you don't think its worth ridicule or you know what they think doesn't really effect you then what are you worried about?

 

You can have a rational discussion without ridicule.

 

Quote:
 

BTW you contradict yourself up there. "Someone wants to believe, but can't" and "people will always believe." If people will always believe then ridicule shouldn't have an effect. Discussion of ideas even attacking them is a part of free speech. I'd hope it would be done with logic arguments, but its not like we take a 'how to argue effectively 101.' Honestly I don't see how talking will physically stop someone. Do you think its bad that people get called on things other people see as irrational? If someone wants to talk about god take to'em.

 

That is not a condraticion. What if someone wanted to be open to their believes but can't?

 

Quote:
 

With the school though there could have been all sorts of things going on. Maybe you rubbed them the wrong way one day without realizing it or they just got out of religion and vented. Maybe they saw you somehow connected to the authority figures of the school, it been catholic.

 

 

 My point is intolerance breeds intolerance

 

Quote:
 

What this has to do with today I'm not sure. Its not like we can't find cases of christians picking on atheists and the atheist not turning into a bigot as you call it.

Which is my point.  Intolerance breeds intolerance. I thought I made that clear. People can rise above intolerance regardless of their religion

 

Quote:
 

Are you suggesting the discussion stop because it effects people's beliefs?

 

/facepalm. See first point.  


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:What

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
What if someone wanted to be open to their believes but can't?

Being ridiculed doesn't take away someone's right to be open with their beliefs. It takes away their right to expect to express ridiculous ideas without being ridiculed for it. Freedom of speech protects your right to say stupid things and my right to tell you that what you're saying is stupid.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

(Ironically I went to a catholic school)

 

In my experience, nothing will turn a teenager into an atheist more effectively than being sent to a catholic high school

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

CrimsonEdge wrote:
You were... ridiculed for being a theist?

 

Yes.

So? As you said it cuts both ways.

Claims shouldnt get respect "just because". You claim it, you back it up. Thats how you get respect for that claim. But that is a seperate issue than weither or not the person claiming it is good or bad.

There are two seperate issues.

1. The person

2. The claim a person makes 

 

"Cant we all just get along" I AGREE WITH!

But at the same time you cannot physically rearrange the neurons in someone's head and force them to never say things thaty "may" offend you.

I dont bash Christians who understand that their Bible is not public law. I may ridicule their claims or your claims am and under no obligation to respect a claim simply because someone utters it.

I do have to respect someone's right to believe something I find absurd, but that doesnt equate me to being a bigot anymore than claiming all Christians hate me because they think my atheism is absurd.

I may like and value an individual but not not always find everything they claim, because I like them, as always being credible merely because I like them.

I can like a person and still find some claim they make ON ANY ISSUE, to be absurd.

Some people for example find me being a fan of the NFL absurd, but that doesnt make them hatefull to ALL NFL fans or want to opress NFL fans.

I find claims of pantheism, disimbodied brians, supernatural omni-gods as being the same catigory as Harry Potter. That doesnt make me a bigot.

I do however HATE people who think it is their job to hijack goverment and base everyone's law on their particular holy book and I could care less weither we are talking about America or Iran.  

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I have seen discrimination all around. Rather it be in real life, or on internet forums.

 

There will always be discrimination in the world. Rather it be discrimination based on religion, race or nationality. I see it all the time. Some Christians claim atheists are immoral, some atheists claim Christian are bigots, this only leads to more bigotry on both sides, each side claiming persecution. Of course, some Christians are bigots, and some atheists are immoral, but for either side to generalize the other is nothing less than group think and only contributes to the problem. 

In highschool, I was discriminated against because I was a Theist. I was riducled  and mocked among other things, for believing in 'fairy tales' and 'a magic sky daddy'  (Ironically I went to a catholic school). Luckily I actually had friends at school (who were also Theist and were also mocked). However, guess what? This could have easily made me a bigot against atheists, but no, I refused to generalize all atheists as such. Would you like to know why? Because if I did, then I would be just like them. I would be no better than the ones who mocked me, it is easy to generalize people based on their religious beliefs, however I have learned judge people on a case to case basis. Most of the lessons I learned was from a priest at my church. He taught me to rise above the intolerance and lead by example and he was truely a great man and I'm sure people wouldn't be so bad if there were more people like him. By teaching tolerance, he didn't contribute to the cycle he broke it. 

But you can't be truly tolerant unless you tolerate intolerance.

There has to be a point at which you stake your stand or else you reduce your own position to absurdity. Many of those who oppose theism do so because they think it to be the most morally relevant place to make their stand. If one sees theism as a means to justify intolerance then to not oppose it would be no better than to not oppose racism.  

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vessel

Vessel wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I have seen discrimination all around. Rather it be in real life, or on internet forums.

 

There will always be discrimination in the world. Rather it be discrimination based on religion, race or nationality. I see it all the time. Some Christians claim atheists are immoral, some atheists claim Christian are bigots, this only leads to more bigotry on both sides, each side claiming persecution. Of course, some Christians are bigots, and some atheists are immoral, but for either side to generalize the other is nothing less than group think and only contributes to the problem.

In highschool, I was discriminated against because I was a Theist. I was riducled and mocked among other things, for believing in 'fairy tales' and 'a magic sky daddy' (Ironically I went to a catholic school). Luckily I actually had friends at school (who were also Theist and were also mocked). However, guess what? This could have easily made me a bigot against atheists, but no, I refused to generalize all atheists as such. Would you like to know why? Because if I did, then I would be just like them. I would be no better than the ones who mocked me, it is easy to generalize people based on their religious beliefs, however I have learned judge people on a case to case basis. Most of the lessons I learned was from a priest at my church. He taught me to rise above the intolerance and lead by example and he was truely a great man and I'm sure people wouldn't be so bad if there were more people like him. By teaching tolerance, he didn't contribute to the cycle he broke it.

But you can't be truly tolerant unless you tolerate intolerance.

There has to be a point at which you stake your stand or else you reduce your own position to absurdity. Many of those who oppose theism do so because they think it to be the most morally relevant place to make their stand. If one sees theism as a means to justify intolerance then to not oppose it would be no better than to not oppose racism.

Not sure what you are saying here.

I appose racism and bigotry. But even more importaint I value human nature and am rational enough not to try to force some utopia on others who may not agree with me or like me.

It is in human nature to express emotion and to deny emotion is to set yourself up to explode. No one should deny their emotions, but recognize them and take personal responsibility for controling them.

I dont want to live under a goverment that thinks it is their right to try and re arrange the neurons in my brain. Creating a more harmonious society should not come at the cost of playing thought police.

I dont like it when Christian politicians claim what I should believe or like and claim so I wont do that to them either.

We dont like their utopias forced on us so we should refrain from trying to force a PC utopia on them.

I hate polliticall correctness via goverment force. People have to change themselves and it is best suited when a person doesnt feel like they are being forced to change.

This has nothing to do with "there is no good reason to be a bigot" That is a no duh.

This has to do with what kind of goverment we as citizens want to live under. I dont want some buerocrat or politician telling me what I can or cannot say or who I have to like. AND NEITHER DO THEY!

What we can do is use our own voices to combat the needless division and bigotry. But what no one should want is a goverment full of thought police.

Iran's goverment is full of "thought police". Hitler's government was full of "thought police".

Getting along should not incorperate denying people their emotions or thoughts. Getting along amounts to agreeing not to physically harm your neighbor. No one has the right to tell me who to like and I am damned sure not going to let any Republican, Democrat, atheist or Christian tell me what my thoughts are or who to like.

I can agree to no harming you physically. But I dont have to like you nor am I obligated to like everything you claim and I am allowed to express that via the First Amendment.

Utopias dont exist and I am against any attempt via goverment to opress the views of people who dont like me. They dont have to like me and the laws are already in place that say they cant have me arrested or kill me merely because they dont like me. 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
What if someone wanted to be open to their believes but can't?

Being ridiculed doesn't take away someone's right to be open with their beliefs. It takes away their right to expect to express ridiculous ideas without being ridiculed for it. Freedom of speech protects your right to say stupid things and my right to tell you that what you're saying is stupid.

Lets put asside religion for a second and think about personal relationships with individuals. Lets say a family member or friend or co-worker makes an absurd claim ON ANY ISSUE.

Are they your friend if you cant be openly honest with them?

I am quite sure that both theists and atheists reading this have had a situation where someone they like has said something the other found to be absurd and said, 'Thats rediculous"

Does that mean they hate the person? Or merely find the claim absurd?

I have had family members and friend in my past say to me on a given claim "That is rediculous Brian". My response to them is not "YOU HATE ME" but, "Ok, why do you say that?"

Why should any religion, be it scientology or Islam or Christianity get a pass just because?

It is lack of blasphemey and blind faith that allows indoctrinated people to slam planes into buildings and burn witches.

I am willing to be friends with people who believe absurd things. I am unwilling to have a relationship with someone who wont let me be honest with them.

I can like someone but not like everything they claim or believe.  And I sure as hell dont want to live under a goverment of pollitically correct thought police. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Utopias dont exist

Quote:
Utopias dont exist and I am against any attempt via goverment to opress the views of people who dont like me. They dont have to like me and the laws are already in place that say they cant have me arrested or kill me merely because they dont like me.

I made no reference to laws, thought police, violence or any such thing. My point was simple.

To tell those that are anti-theism that they should just tolerate theism and live and let live is no different than telling those that are anti-racism that they should just tolerate racism and live and let live. 

I wouldn't kill a KKK memeber or try and legislate away his right to be racist (without harming others in the process), but I do not have to tolerate hi ideology and speaking against his ideology, even with ridicule, is not being intolerant. I can speak out against it to the best of my ability and attempt to disuade others from becoming a part of his societally detrimental system. 

 

 

 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vessel

Vessel wrote:

Quote:
Utopias dont exist and I am against any attempt via goverment to opress the views of people who dont like me. They dont have to like me and the laws are already in place that say they cant have me arrested or kill me merely because they dont like me.

I made no reference to laws, thought police, violence or any such thing. My point was simple.

To tell those that are anti-theism that they should just tolerate theism and live and let live is no different than telling those that are anti-racism that they should just tolerate racism and live and let live.

I wouldn't kill a KKK memeber or try and legislate away his right to be racist (without harming others in the process), but I do not have to tolerate hi ideology and speaking against his ideology, even with ridicule, is not being intolerant. I can speak out against it to the best of my ability and attempt to disuade others from becoming a part of his societally detrimental system.

 

 

 

I am sorry if I missunderstood.

My fear is putting individual's thoughts in the hands of government.

There was a letter from Jefferson to Adams where Jefferson scoffed at Adam's complaints in a previous letter that people didn't "respect" their ellected officials and that they shouldnt be allowed to say such "offensive" things.

Jefferson basically said to Adams, "Listen you moron(he put it more politely) Listen, the King was saying the same thing about us when we criticised and ridiculed him, now you want to do the same thing to our citizens that he did to us in demanding our  silence and obediance?"

Jefferson said that he herd it all aimed at him too, but it is far better to let people vent than to put their thoughts in the hands of a goverment that may not always agree with an individual.

So if your issue is merely improving relationships through the free market of ideas and free speech thats great. My issue has never been the "intent" of the "get allong" people. My issue has always been tactic used and it is a bad idea to make laws that attempt to become the repacement for an individual's thoughts. 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Iruka Naminori
atheist
Iruka Naminori's picture
Posts: 1955
Joined: 2006-11-21
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: In the

darth_josh wrote:

In the first three minutes talking about the damned weather, I can tell you if a person is a believer or not.

Josh, I'm going to say something completely irrational: I can usually tell whether or not someone is a fundy within the first three minutes regardless of the topic of conversation. There is something about the way fundies dress, speak and act that fairly screams out their religiosity. My voice teacher, a Zen Buddhist from the Bay Area (California), is experiencing a bit of culture shock. She can't believe how many fundies are in the area. She moved here about a year ago and she's already been dragged to church and shunned for a comment she made.

She went to the church my mother and one of my music profs attend: Sierra Bible Church. I've laid into that church for spending so much money on facilities and no money on helping the local needy. An acquaintance of mine was in danger of having her utilities turned off so I went around to individuals to scrape up some cash. I asked Sierra Bible Church and guess what? All they could give was canned goods. In the meantime, they have this huge-ass facility.

My Zen Buddhist voice teacher noted the little carts people can ride between buildings and said, "Gee, this is like the DisneyLand of Christianity." The neighbor who had brought her hasn't spoken to her since.

My voice teacher has been proselytized multiple times, especially at the gym we both use. There's this weird guy who takes his bible and approaches people at the pool. If he comes up to me, I'm not sure what my reaction will be.

Ideally, I should engage him in conversation. With people that deranged, it could be a lost cause.

When talking to fundies I usually keep the conversation very, very shallow and mind my own business. The other night in the hot tub I felt kind of devilish. A lady joined me who had "fundy" dripping out of every pore. I deliberate chose topics that would make a fundy uncomfortable: my cousin and I getting naked and sending webcam pics around the Internet, for example. I don't know what got into me...just couldn't help myself, I guess. Sticking out tongue

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


Vessel
Vessel's picture
Posts: 646
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vessel

Brian37 wrote:
I am sorry if I missunderstood.

My fear is putting individual's thoughts in the hands of government.

There was a letter from Jefferson to Adams where Jefferson scoffed at Adam's complaints in a previous letter that people didn't "respect" their ellected officials and that they shouldnt be allowed to say such "offensive" things.

Jefferson basically said to Adams, "Listen you moron(he put it more politely) Listen, the King was saying the same thing about us when we criticised and ridiculed him, now you want to do the same thing to our citizens that he did to us in demanding our  silence and obediance?"

Jefferson said that he herd it all aimed at him too, but it is far better to let people vent than to put their thoughts in the hands of a goverment that may not always agree with an individual.

So if your issue is merely improving relationships through the free market of ideas and free speech thats great. My issue has never been the "intent" of the "get allong" people. My issue has always been tactic used and it is a bad idea to make laws that attempt to become the repacement for an individual's thoughts. 

I agree. There is never an excuse to attempt to legislate thought. Well, at least not unless I'm the one who gets to make the laws. 

“Philosophers have argued for centuries about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but materialists have always known it depends on whether they are jitterbugging or dancing cheek to cheek" -- Tom Robbins


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Iruka Naminori wrote: The

Iruka Naminori wrote:
The other night in the hot tub I felt kind of devilish. A lady joined me who had "fundy" dripping out of every pore. I deliberate chose topics that would make a fundy uncomfortable: my cousin and I getting naked and sending webcam pics around the Internet, for example. I don't know what got into me...just couldn't help myself, I guess. :P

Lol!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
You guys are completly

You guys are completly missing my point. I do not want to install the thought police. 

In Canada you can have any opinion you want want as long as it isn't a hate crime. The KKK would get arrested here. You can oppose homosexual marriage, I can't prevent that, but holding a sign saying 'Kill all gays' is hate speech because you want to physically harm them.
You can oppose theism but to spread hate speech about them is uncalled for. People can have rational discussions without hate speech.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Vessel wrote: Brian37

Vessel wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
I am sorry if I missunderstood.

My fear is putting individual's thoughts in the hands of government.

There was a letter from Jefferson to Adams where Jefferson scoffed at Adam's complaints in a previous letter that people didn't "respect" their ellected officials and that they shouldnt be allowed to say such "offensive" things.

Jefferson basically said to Adams, "Listen you moron(he put it more politely) Listen, the King was saying the same thing about us when we criticised and ridiculed him, now you want to do the same thing to our citizens that he did to us in demanding our silence and obediance?"

Jefferson said that he herd it all aimed at him too, but it is far better to let people vent than to put their thoughts in the hands of a goverment that may not always agree with an individual.

So if your issue is merely improving relationships through the free market of ideas and free speech thats great. My issue has never been the "intent" of the "get allong" people. My issue has always been tactic used and it is a bad idea to make laws that attempt to become the repacement for an individual's thoughts.

I agree. There is never an excuse to attempt to legislate thought. Well, at least not unless I'm the one who gets to make the laws.

Yea, that is exactly what I am against, "I get to make the laws and you dont".

That remindes me of a Metallica lyric "You can do it your own way, just as long as it is how I say".

The citizens, which is what our government is made of make laws not on "majority rule" but "majority guides without dictating and only through advise and concent" Which gives a detractor an ability to say "Hey you majority, are violating my rights" and allows government the ability to protect that detractor.

So my issue is never about "getting along" which we should do. My issue is that people dont think about "Who gets to decide" because it may not be YOU or your label in that seat of power. That is why it is better to resolve those issues through the free market of free speech rather than demand the silence of a detractor. You may be that "detractor" at some historical point and without your free speech you can potentially allow goverment to silence you.

I would rather my neighbor say mean things about me than give my goverment the power to be mean to me via law. 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Quote:

Cpt_pineapple ? do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society

Think about this. What if someone wants to believe, but can't because of ridicule? People will always believe, let them as long as it is withing civil rights.

Ideologies such as fascism should not be ridiculed then ?

You have failed to answer this question, "Cpt_pineapple ? do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society"
 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: You

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

You guys are completly missing my point. I do not want to install the thought police.

In Canada you can have any opinion you want want as long as it isn't a hate crime. The KKK would get arrested here. You can oppose homosexual marriage, I can't prevent that, but holding a sign saying 'Kill all gays' is hate speech because you want to physically harm them.
You can oppose theism but to spread hate speech about them is uncalled for. People can have rational discussions without hate speech.

And YOU MISS MY POINT,

"Hate crime" is not only needless language in law, but also DANGEROUS. Not because of the "intent" but in terms of government gaining too much power in deciding what is or is not "hate".

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY:

If Christians pass a law saying you cant say, "Fuck Jesus" because that is "hate" many of those same Christians WOULD if in a seat of power make merely saying "Jesus is fiction" an act of "hate"

FOR EXAMPLE ONLY: 

Assault is assault weither you are punching your spouse because you found out they were cheating on you and would be the same act of assault if you punched someone because they said "Fuck Allah".

There is no such thing as "jelousy crime" laws nor should do we need them. THE LAWS ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!

1. You hit somoneone in the heat of the moument, a lower form of assault, but still assault.

2. Planing out an assault is a higher form of crime but still no less assault.

That type of language "hate crime" is a bad idea. It implies that my government has the right via force to make me like someone.

Hate to burst your bubble but there ARE individuals I hate and claims people make that I hate and I dont want any law that tells me I cant express that emotion.

I can say, "I hate the pope"

I cant ask anyone to harm him or harm him myself NOR WOULD I, dispite my feelings or expression of those feelings. 

What neither an atheist or theist has the right to do is advocate violence or act out in violence FOR ANY REASON, be it on a family member, co-worker, neighbor or spouse FOR ANY REASON!

I cant punch my neighor in the face for the same reason I cant punch my mother or you in the face. And it the degree of punishment is not based on my thoughts or who I like or dont like it is based on suddend action or pre meditated action, NOT THE THOUGHTS IN MY HEAD.

I hate "hate crime" being used as law language. It is a bad idea because it will give goverment the power to screw you over someday when you want to detract.

Who gets to decide what "hate" is? As an atheist I am damned sure not going to give a Christian majority that kind of government power because tons of the things I say here, that I dont see as hate, THEY MIGHT.

Again, I am fine with the laws we have already in place that say you cant physically harm someone. Just inforce the laws we already have.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: You

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

You can oppose theism but to spread hate speech about them is uncalled for. People can have rational discussions without hate speech.

Hate speech is a dangerous term to throw around. Some people want to label everything they don't agree with as hate speech. Whether it is legislated against or not is irrelevant, the stigma of 'hate speech' is used to automatically invalidate any point someone is making. It creates social taboos, subjects that cannot be discussed, ideas that cannot be expressed. This is much worse than some hurt feelings.

I was nearly kicked out of my university for 'breach of the diversity policy'. Part of my education degree was a unit on Aboriginal education (I'm Australian). Half of it was a white-guilt trip and the other half was making excuses for bad behavior of Aboriginal kids and outlining special treatemnt we should give them. This offended me from the start I think that people are individuals. I am not guilty for things done to people who look a bit like like them by people who look a bit like me. There are many things about the school system that don't fit individuals so why should we make special exceptions for some but not others, based on race? At some point all people need to take responsibility for their own lives and stop blaming all of their problems on the mistreatment of their grandparents.

Anyway, as I've covered this unit was largely propaganda. One lecture ended with the display of quotes from decades ago about Aboriginals to show how wrong everyone was back then. My problem was that there was no discussion on why they were wrong. It was just assumed that because they were hate speech they were wrong.

One of them was "Australia would be better off without the Aboriginal people". I was so offended by the concept that ideas can be wrong just because they aren't nice that as part of the assesment for that unit, in which we had to record our thoughts about each lecture, I wrote an agument in favor of that statement. I preceeded it with an explanation that it did not represent my opinion but I was meerly demonstrating that statements are not automatically wrong because they are racist.

They didn't respond to my argument with logic and evidence, just the threat that if I ever did it again I would be kicked out of university.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Quote:

Cpt_pineapple ? do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society

Think about this. What if someone wants to believe, but can't because of ridicule? People will always believe, let them as long as it is withing civil rights.

Ideologies such as fascism should not be ridiculed then ?

 

 

Yes, facism should be riducled. You know why? Because it violates our cival liberties. As I said, as long as the beliefs do not violate human rights, it should still be questioned of course, but not ridiculed to the point of hate speech.

 

Quote:

 You have failed to answer this question, "Cpt_pineapple ? do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society"

 

 

I have never advocated adding or taking away ideologies. Taking away all religions for example will not eliminate the belief in God.  So no, increasing or decreasing ideologies will NOT increase or decrease tolerance in our society. Why not? Because you do not have to hold to an ideology to have a belief. There will always be differences in humans.

 

Now, question for you.  Do you honestly want everyone to be the same? To not be able to hold their beliefs as long as they do it within civil liberties?


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote: Yes,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Yes, facism should be riducled. You know why? Because it violates our cival liberties. As I said, as long as the beliefs do not violate human rights, it should still be questioned of course, but not ridiculed to the point of hate speech.

Whoa, how does believing in facism violate civil liberties? (Belief here meaning thinking it's a great idea, not believing it exists).

How can a belief violate anyone's rights?

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

You can oppose theism but to spread hate speech about them is uncalled for. People can have rational discussions without hate speech.

Hate speech is a dangerous term to throw around. Some people want to label everything they don't agree with as hate speech. Whether it is legislated against or not is irrelevant, the stigma of 'hate speech' is used to automatically invalidate any point someone is making. It creates social taboos, subjects that cannot be discussed, ideas that cannot be expressed. This is much worse than some hurt feelings.

I was nearly kicked out of my university for 'breach of the diversity policy'. Part of my education degree was a unit on Aboriginal education (I'm Australian). Half of it was a white-guilt trip and the other half was making excuses for bad behavior of Aboriginal kids and outlining special treatemnt we should give them. This offended me from the start I think that people are individuals. I am not guilty for things done to people who look a bit like like them by people who look a bit like me. There are many things about the school system that don't fit individuals so why should we make special exceptions for some but not others, based on race? At some point all people need to take responsibility for their own lives and stop blaming all of their problems on the mistreatment of their grandparents.

Anyway, as I've covered this unit was largely propaganda. One lecture ended with the display of quotes from decades ago about Aboriginals to show how wrong everyone was back then. My problem was that there was no discussion on why they were wrong. It was just assumed that because they were hate speech they were wrong.

One of them was "Australia would be better off without the Aboriginal people". I was so offended by the concept that ideas can be wrong just because they aren't nice that as part of the assesment for that unit, in which we had to record our thoughts about each lecture, I wrote an agument in favor of that statement. I preceeded it with an explanation that it did not represent my opinion but I was meerly demonstrating that statements are not automatically wrong because they are racist.

They didn't respond to my argument with logic and evidence, just the threat that if I ever did it again I would be kicked out of university.

 

I have no idea what happened in regards to Aboriginals in Australia, but in Canada, Aboriginal communities usually have high crime rates. People think it is because of their special treatment. The government gives them handouts despite what they do, these hinder the growth of their communities. Why not treat them like everyone else? If we did, they might not have such high crime rates because they would have to rely on themselves, not the government. There are plenty of good indviduals in the Aboriginal community, but when they try to do something to benifit the community, to make it self dependent, they get red tape from the government, or from the community itself.

I heard one time of an Aboriginal man wanting to start a business. This man was hardworking and wanted to rely on nobody but himself, so he set up a buisness. This would have employed many in the community and offered service, and made them more self-relient.  But it was ruined from withing the community. Why?  Because the government hands out cheques to them some don't want to work. The place was vandalized and burnt down. If there was no government handouts then the community may have embraced this man, and helped him in his pursuit. 

 

Of course, some Aboriginals have moved out of the reserves and are prosperous in the city. They are hardworking and willing to contribute to the community.  

 

 

So, in summary, special treatment hinders growth.  


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
The Cpt. wrote: So, in

The Cpt. wrote:
So, in summary, special treatment hinders growth. 

See. That statement just throws up warning signs for me right there.

That can be taken many ways. You may see that as tolerance. I see it as:

"Atheists, just shut up and believe! Keep your heads down like you always have and don't ask to be free from religious proselytization!" 

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. Also, from the earlier post about your experience in school, it seems like some special tratment from a guidance counselor would have helped you with that problem. 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Yes, facism should be riducled. You know why? Because it violates our cival liberties. As I said, as long as the beliefs do not violate human rights, it should still be questioned of course, but not ridiculed to the point of hate speech.

Whoa, how does believing in facism violate civil liberties? (Belief here meaning thinking it's a great idea, not believing it exists).

How can a belief violate anyone's rights?

 


 I would guess your point is whether or not people act on those beliefs.

I kinda agree. You can disagree with homosexual marriage, but not go so far as the Phelps family. So, I guess my response would be when those ideas are taken to the extreme it violates civil liberties. 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh wrote: The Cpt.

darth_josh wrote:

The Cpt. wrote:
So, in summary, special treatment hinders growth.

See. That statement just throws up warning signs for me right there.

That can be taken many ways. You may see that as tolerance. I see it as:

"Atheists, just shut up and believe! Keep your heads down like you always have and don't ask to be free from religious proselytization!"

Maybe I'm reading too much into it. 

 

 Yes, you are reading too much into it. The schools should remain secular. If people want to pray, let them do it on their own time. 

 

As I said before, people can debate and question other's beliefs, but they don't have to resort to hate speech.

 

Quote:

Also, from the earlier post about your experience in school, it seems like some special tratment from a guidance counselor would have helped you with that problem.

What kind of special treatment?

I didn't go to a guidance counslor for the mocking, but even if I did he should have helped me because I'm a fellow human being, not because I am a Theist.

 

Having said that, I was in the IEP (Indvidual Education Program) for my bad handwriting, speech problems and reading comprehension. I have to say the 'help' I recieved did absolute fuck all. I worked hard to overcome my problems. One guidence cousnlor tried to talk me out of taking Gr. 12 physics and calculus. I'm glad I took them, when I told her I wanted to take Chemistry in University (I later switched to physics) she gave me a strange look as if I was some moron who wouldn't make it. Guess what? I am making it. It wasn't because  of her 'help' either.

Sometimes extra help is needed, but too much encourages people to play the victim. What would have happened if I listened to her? Who knows. I sure the hell wouldn't be studying physics and expanding my knowledge if I had listened to her.

 

 


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt Pineapple. I'm afraid

Cpt Pineapple.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. The mention of special treatment for Aboriginal students was just part of setting the scene of that unit and my frustration with it.

The point was about silencing ideas because they are not warm and fuzzy. Too many people accept that a statement can be wrong on the grounds that it's not a nice thing to say. Bad ideas should be responded to with logic and evidence, not just labelled as hate speech and assumed to be wrong because they are so labelled.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Cpt Pineapple.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. The mention of special treatment for Aboriginal students was just part of setting the scene of that unit and my frustration with it.

The point was about silencing ideas because they are not warm and fuzzy. Too many people accept that a statement can be wrong on the grounds that it's not a nice thing to say. Bad ideas should be responded to with logic and evidence, not just labelled as hate speech and assumed to be wrong because they are so labelled.

 

I see what you're saying now. What my point is yes, we should question things, but not to the point of sheer hate speech to say them for the sake of saying them.

 

For example take Russia, it is now an authoritian state. My brother said they were better of with Communism. My response, 'no, they would be better off with a better democracy'. He acted as if there were only two choices, Communism, or an authoritian state. 

My other point to him was it was not the Russian PEOPLE that were the problem, it was the Russian GOVERNMENT that was. So if I said something like 'The Russians are oppressing democracy in the U.N' or, "The Russians are contributing to the wars in the former Soviet states'  I am refering to the GOVERNMENT, not the Russians citizens themselves. It is very important to distinguish between the two. 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
 

Now, question for you. Do you honestly want everyone to be the same? To not be able to hold their beliefs as long as they do it within civil liberties?

My ideal is an anarchistic society, no organized control on any level, but this is unrealistic, so I'll settle for the least possible organized control, I am quite happy for individuals to believe what they wish, but as soon as these beliefs becomes organized into an ideology which starts to infringe upon my daily life or the daily lives ofmy fellow citizens. I will, have, and will continue to rebel

 

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I have never advocated adding or taking away ideologies. Taking away all religions for example will not eliminate the belief in God. So no, increasing or decreasing ideologies will NOT increase or decrease tolerance in our society. Why not? Because you do not have to hold to an ideology to have a belief. There will always be differences in humans.

 

 Cpt_pineapple there is a difference, between personal belief, and organize beliefs (ideology)

Personal beliefs affect nobody apart from the individual that hold's those beliefs 

Organized beliefs affect everybody within the ideology, and will also affect those that live in a society where this ideology becomes a dominant force

May I ask you to answer this question again, separating personal beliefs, from organized ideologies 

Do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society ? 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Now, question for you. Do you honestly want everyone to be the same? To not be able to hold their beliefs as long as they do it within civil liberties?

My ideal is an anarchistic society, no organized control on any level, but this is unrealistic, so I'll settle for the least possible organized control, I am quite happy for individuals to believe what they wish, but as soon as these beliefs becomes organized into an ideology which starts to infringe upon my daily life or the daily lives ofmy fellow citizens. I will, have, and will continue to rebel

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I have never advocated adding or taking away ideologies. Taking away all religions for example will not eliminate the belief in God. So no, increasing or decreasing ideologies will NOT increase or decrease tolerance in our society. Why not? Because you do not have to hold to an ideology to have a belief. There will always be differences in humans.

Cpt_pineapple there is a difference, between personal belief, and organize beliefs (ideology)

Personal beliefs affect nobody apart from the individual that hold's those beliefs

Organized beliefs affect everybody within the ideology, and will also affect those that live in a society where this ideology becomes a dominant force

May I ask you to answer this question again, separating personal beliefs, from organized ideologies

Do you believe that adding more ideologies will increase or decrease tolerance in our society ?

 

No, nobody should be forced to follow an ideology. Ideologies may look down upon those who do not hold on to their ideas, however, they have a right to disagree, not the right to persecute. 

 

So to answer your question seperating personal belief from organized ideologies, I see no reason why tolerence will change as long as these ideologies are not forced, but left to be a choice.

 

You seem to be reading too much into  my posts. I am not advocating not disagreeing and debating with others, I am advocating a stop to the intolerance and persecution of others.


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Unfortunately, the mere

Unfortunately, the mere fact that i am an atheist is enough for them to say that i am 'persecuting' theists.

The belief itself is preached in a manner that anyone that doesn't believe is offensive. Disagreeing and debating is what they refer to as persecution in my observations.

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
darth_josh

darth_josh wrote:

Unfortunately, the mere fact that i am an atheist is enough for them to say that i am 'persecuting' theists.

The belief itself is preached in a manner that anyone that doesn't believe is offensive. Disagreeing and debating is what they refer to as persecution in my observations.

 

 

Unfortunatley, the mere fact I am a Theist is enough for them to say I am 'irrational' and 'have a mind disorder' or that I believe in Young Earth or that every argument I make must be strawman since I am a Theist and Theists are too stupid to come up with their own arguments.

 The message itself isn't offensive (God exists), but it is to some atheists if I mention God, I must be wanting to 'shove my religion down their throats' and this is seen as persecution.

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm. I don't think the

Hmmm. I don't think the simple 'god exists' is the problem either, Cpt.

I think it is the rest of it that goes along with that statement.

Things said like:

"god exists despite anything to the contrary"

"god exists therefore this and this have to be true no matter what"

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


ParanoidAgnostic
ParanoidAgnostic's picture
Posts: 402
Joined: 2007-05-20
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Unfortunatley, the mere fact I am a Theist is enough for them to say I am 'irrational'

 Well by saying you are a theist you are openly declaring that there is atleast one thing you are not rational about. 

Quote:
 

and 'have a mind disorder'

 Well some of us believe that religion is a form of mental illness. You can believe in god and tell us about it. We can believe that religion is a mind disorder and tell you about it.

Quote:
 

 or that I believe in Young Earth

 I never make that assumption. I find young-earth creationism so ridiculous that I find it hard enough to get my head around the concept that someone actually believes it even when they are telling me they do.

Quote:
 

 or that every argument I make must be strawman

 I think that that labels of the logical fallacies are thrown around a little bit too readily by some atheists, often where the one they refer to doesn't really apply. so we can agree on this one. I think it's always better to demonstrate the flaws in an argument than to simply label it flawed.

Quote:
 since I am a Theist and Theists are too stupid to come up with their own arguments.

Well I haven't seen an original theistic argument created in my lifetime. I'll admit though that the atheist ones aren't that fresh either. I've never come up with an original argument for the non-existence of god. Where we think theists are stupid is that they keep using the same arguments no matter how may different ways they have the flaws pointed out.

Quote:

 The message itself isn't offensive (God exists),

That is offensive. It's arrogant. I'd accept "I believe God exists" but "God exists" asserts with complete certainty. Certainty you cannot possibly have.

 

Quote:

but it is to some atheists if I mention God, I must be wanting to 'shove my religion down their throats'

 From experience in real life that is usually the case. When someone brings up God it's either an attempted conversion or an attempt to enforce rules based on God's will.

Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ParanoidAgnostic

ParanoidAgnostic wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Unfortunatley, the mere fact I am a Theist is enough for them to say I am 'irrational'

Well by saying you are a theist you are openly declaring that there is atleast one thing you are not rational about.

 

But people project that irrationality to other aspects besides my Theism. 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

and 'have a mind disorder'

Well some of us believe that religion is a form of mental illness. You can believe in god and tell us about it. We can believe that religion is a mind disorder and tell you about it.

Personally, I think the word 'mind disorder' implies insanity.  

 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

or that I believe in Young Earth

I never make that assumption. I find young-earth creationism so ridiculous that I find it hard enough to get my head around the concept that someone actually believes it even when they are telling me they do.

You'd be surprised. Many people do. 

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

or that every argument I make must be strawman

I think that that labels of the logical fallacies are thrown around a little bit too readily by some atheists, often where the one they refer to doesn't really apply. so we can agree on this one. I think it's always better to demonstrate the flaws in an argument than to simply label it flawed.

 

Exactly. Address the argument itself.  

 

Quote:
 

Quote:
since I am a Theist and Theists are too stupid to come up with their own arguments.

Well I haven't seen an original theistic argument created in my lifetime. I'll admit though that the atheist ones aren't that fresh either. I've never come up with an original argument for the non-existence of god. Where we think theists are stupid is that they keep using the same arguments no matter how may different ways they have the flaws pointed out.

 

 

I thought some of my essays were original. (At least to me.) 

 

Quote:
 

Quote:

The message itself isn't offensive (God exists),

That is offensive. It's arrogant. I'd accept "I believe God exists" but "God exists" asserts with complete certainty. Certainty you cannot possibly have.

 

Fair enough. Would you agree the same way with  'I don't think God exists'  vs 'God doesn't exist'?

 

 

Quote:

Quote:

but it is to some atheists if I mention God, I must be wanting to 'shove my religion down their throats'

From experience in real life that is usually the case. When someone brings up God it's either an attempted conversion or an attempt to enforce rules based on God's will.

 

If people bring it up for the sole purpose of converting or preaching, then you should defend yourself. If it just comes up in a general conversation, then let it be. 

The site forums atheist vs theist and kill 'em with kindness are obviously there for the purpose of debating Theism.


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:  If

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 If it just comes up in a general conversation, then let it be.

personally I'd consider apathy in the presence of any ideology religion, racism, fascism, or any the other isms that are divisive corrupt and counterproductive to the well-being of society in general, an absolutely terrible idea


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13757
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
ParanoidAgnostic wrote:

Cpt Pineapple.

I'm afraid you missed the point of my post. The mention of special treatment for Aboriginal students was just part of setting the scene of that unit and my frustration with it.

The point was about silencing ideas because they are not warm and fuzzy. Too many people accept that a statement can be wrong on the grounds that it's not a nice thing to say. Bad ideas should be responded to with logic and evidence, not just labelled as hate speech and assumed to be wrong because they are so labelled.

 

I see what you're saying now. What my point is yes, we should question things, but not to the point of sheer hate speech to say them for the sake of saying them.

 

For example take Russia, it is now an authoritian state. My brother said they were better of with Communism. My response, 'no, they would be better off with a better democracy'. He acted as if there were only two choices, Communism, or an authoritian state.

My other point to him was it was not the Russian PEOPLE that were the problem, it was the Russian GOVERNMENT that was. So if I said something like 'The Russians are oppressing democracy in the U.N' or, "The Russians are contributing to the wars in the former Soviet states' I am refering to the GOVERNMENT, not the Russians citizens themselves. It is very important to distinguish between the two.

And you miss our point once again.

What you see as "hate speech" someone else might see as liberation from shackles.

That is a dangerous thing to interject into law language because what you think is one thing someone might think is another.

The common law of not physically harming your neighbor is enough. That allows me the atheist to say "|Jesus is fiction" an the Christian to say "You will burn in hell" without either of us having goverment ablity to arrest or exicute the other merely based on words.

Like I said before, it really makes my lip twitch when well intended "cant we all just get along" people on both sides want laws banning "offensive" speech". What neither side ever considers is that they may not be the cop, or DA, or Judge or Jury that would side with them on issues of "being offended".

What the Christian and atheist and any other CAN agree on is that no one likes to have their person being assaulted. That is why I personllay dont object VIA LAW, to some ignorant prick condemning me to hell. I can use my own voice to counter their ignorance. It cuts both ways.

I am not as an atheist minority going to give a Christian majority be they liberal or conservitive the power of law or jury to say, "You cant offend me". And conversely I am quite sure they would not want atheists making laws banning them from offending us.

What we can agree on is that as long as no one is saying "go kill this person" we BOTH can say what we want without fear of goverment taking away the freedom of the other.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37