PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
Uhm....Listen, I'd love to give you a reaction here, but it wouldn't be the first time I fell for a poe.
So please, could you read this quote of yours again, and confirm that you're 100% serious. I'm not trying to make light of your opinion, I just honestly can't tell if you're kidding or not.
Really, I'm sorry, but I can't see a connection between atheism and someone not wanting to be held accountable for their actions.
[EDITED FOR LACK OF CIVILITY]
I have a question and a statement;
Question: How do you know that these people are atheists?
Statement: Explain;
Japan
Scandinavia
When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...
Pray tell (abandoning your rather silly comparison), what arguments might those be? This is not a matter of rejection of cogent arguments. This is a matter of there being no sound logical arguments that could be presented, as you found out in your previous thread with your utterly ridiculous suggestion. You aren't trying to pull a Poe on us, are you?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
[EDITED FOR LANGUAGE]
First up, in the 30 years that I have been behind a wheel, I have been stopped for speeding exactly once, mostly because I obey laws even when I don't think that someone is watching. The time that I was stopped involved a truck without cruise control and engrossing conversation with a passenger. The trooper did his job very professionally, which is more than I can say for nearly all the city police and deputies that I've met and worked with. After doing his routine paper chase, he came back to the truck and told me the reason he had stopped me was because I was going 8 mph over the speed limit. My response was " Was I? Ohhh...sorry about that, I was running my mouth and not watching the speedometer. " He let me off with a warning.
I was willing then, and now, to be held accountable for my actions. Never would it occur to me to say " Well officer, this dead Jew paid for my speeding ticket 2,000 years ago. ". I realize that I am fallible. I realize that I do make mistakes. I realize that I can be wrong. In other words, I do not delude myself with infantile fairy tales to the point that I have shut off the critical thinking circuits in my brain.
So maybe the next time you pull over an incredulous interlocutor, why not look for a Jesus fish on the bumper instead of deluding yourself into thinking that you are an FBI grade profiler?
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Your entire argument rests on the presumption that there is a god to have faith in. Saying no sign will be given in this life and making it all about faith definitely avoids any need to provide evidence, never mind proof. Presumption is all there is under those conditions, and an inarguable point - meaning that no rational argument can be made for or against it.
Where your comparison goes wrong, however, is in your second presumption. That being that atheists somehow believe there is a god to avoid believing in. As if it's not a lack of belief in a god that makes an atheist, but a denial of a god.
There is no reason to believe. The irony being, if there were reason to believe, it would not be faith, but knowledge.
So, if you're asking for faith to know what a person's accountability is, then we're left with some questions. The biggest being: Which god?
I know the answer is obvious to you. However, the answer is just as obvious to a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Baha'i, a Scientologist, a Wiccan, an Asatru, or a Druid. The answer is in no way obvious to me.
I can't try each to see which generates faith. Faith is belief without or in contradiction to evidence. If tried Baha'i, and found I had faith in it, I'd not try any others. Faith is faith. But, if the Baha'i religion is wrong, I've failed just as completely as if I'd remained an atheist.
So, all I see are a lot of people insisting they are right about their faith in god, or several gods. Most warn that the others with faith are wrong, and choosing to have faith in those other's religions will result in punishment. I want to ask questions to find out who is right, use my intellect to decipher the messages and choose the path that is real. But, I'm warned again by many of those of faith that intellect and reason will never lead to the truth and that only faith will get me there, so please just believe in the religion they believe in.
Where we then loop back to the start where there really just isn't a way to know which faith is real.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
I'm already accountable for my actions. If you read the Bible - that makes me better than God.
I'm an atheist, I don't argue with cops when I get a speeding ticket, unless I wasn't speeding. But I've never been pulled over for speeding when I wasn't. I guess you'd stereotype me as a Christian. How fun.
Edit: When I was a Christian I often struggled with those darn questions those atheists would ask me. In order for me to hold onto my beliefs and "feel better" I would brush off those questions and say "Those darn atheists just ask too many questions! Heck, they're probably being over-inquisitive on purpose just to deny God! I mean, who questions the obvious anyway?"
Yepp. Its like those traffic stops, they must be atheists because they're trying ot get away from responsiblity by avoiding the obvious and asking all kinds of questions. That's the only explanation. If they were Christians they'd be like "Sorry Officer" - even though 90% of our prison population profess to be theists. I mean, if they are Christians then they just follow the law, and are big time patriots and do their best not to lie and to do the right thing. Shoot, since most of the USA believes that Jesus hung on the cross and rose from the dead 3 days later, and that they should repent and follow what he says, then let's just get rid of the executive branch all together and just jail anyone who isn't a Christian! I mean, crime rates should be next to non-existant since atheism is indeed a minority. But wait! You have personal evidence that refutes all of this so what am I saying?
I am an Ex-Christian.
A real skeptic would ask you to show the evidence, the audio, the video and radar data. Not just take your word for it. If you don't produce it, the judge is obliged to throw the case out at that point. So let's put your Christian faith on trial. You claim:
Matthew 17:20 (New International Version)
20He replied, "Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."
Mark 16
16Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."
So when do we get to see the evidence of your faith? Or is it all just hearsay? Are you prepared to drop you case since you can't produce the evidence?
And Christian theology is that you are judged based on if you 'believe'. So not being a Christian is a thought crime, we don't prosecute though crimes in our courts so your analogy is flawed in this way as well.
PS. Can I just say three little magic words like "Jesus is Lord" and get out of tickets if the cop happens to be Christian?
Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen
Some of us started as believers and became skeptics and atheists because the beliefs vaporized in the harsh light of reality. Instead of my making millions of excuses I hear such from those that believe. Perhaps you have cut yourself a rut so deep you cannot see what is really out there. Start with the beginning of Christian beliefs and count the number of excuses you make to justify the illogical. Genesis 1 is a good place to begin and you'll easily make about 20 excuses before you get to Genesis 2.
In the highly unlikely event that this occurs the god is more than welcome to toss my mythical soul into the lake of fire.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
The last stats I saw indicated that closer to 98% of prison inmates are theists. Less than 2% are atheists, at any rate.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
O RLY! Well let us just shove these statistics under the rug and keep on thinking that the atheists are the bad people. Clearly his faith, his personal observations, and his interpretation of the Bible are superior to the facts.
I am an Ex-Christian.
Not too much to add here aside from what has already said, other than the following two contributions:
1) I am an atheist, 24 years old, and to date I have NEVER received a ticket of any kind. My father, who is a Christian, has only ever received one, and it wasn't until his late 30's. I'm hoping I can beat his record with zero tickets, or at least receive my first ticket later.
2) Even if we suppose that all of these people you pulled over that behaved in this way were, in fact, atheists, you have to remember that you can't lump all atheists into one group. There is no common behavior, or dogma, or set of interests that links them together. There is no criteria you can use to go around atheist-hunting. The only thing you can do is get the person to TELL YOU what their beliefs are. Nothing else could give you a certain answer. Trying to put all atheists in one place is like trying to herd cats. It's an impossible task.
So even if all these accountability-dodging skeptics you pulled over WERE all atheists, it still doesn't mean that they represent atheists in general. It just means you've encountered a very specific kind of atheist, but not the epitome of the atheistic personality. There is no such thing.
Peace.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
It turns out that across the board, atheists appear to be quite the model citizens. It turns out, the marriages that are statistically the most likely to last are atheist/atheist. The ones that are most likely to end are Protestant/Protestant. Imagine that! Sanctity of marriage, my [BLEEP].
But anyway, damn the facts. Atheists are bad people.
[Self corrected for obsenity.... sorry Brian! -HD]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Have you ever noticed how few beat cops have psychology degrees? Funny, isn't it?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Let me hep you out, Johnny Boy.
I've become convinced that anecdotal evidence is a valid means to support the theory that I walk in the door with, and therefore prosecuting attorneys have to coach me, again and again and again on how to handle myself on the witness stand and not lose easy cases for them.
That's probably a little more accurate, right?
[EDITED FOR LACK OF CIVILITY]
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
ATTENTION POSTERs: PLEASE NOTE THIS THREAD WAS POSTED IN THE KILL EM WITH KINDNESS FORUM.
I just applied the KewK tags now, and feel that many of the posts in this thread violated the rules. However it was not obvious that this was the KEWK section. Please pay attention people. If I'm at work it might take a few hours before I can get to it. If you are a person who starts a thread in the Kill Em With Kindness forum, you might want to add to the title [kill em with kindness] in brackets.
My apologies to you bayjohn for any lack in civility that would otherwise had been extended to you, should it have been more apparent which forum the members were in.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Yep.
My first wife: fundamentalist. Lasted 4 years (though we had a great kid, who unfortunately turned out to be fundamentalist, raised by her mom -- but more willing to talk about God than her mom). My second wife: agnostic atheist. We've been together 16 years and counting.
And the only speeding ticket I ever got, I merely said, "Yep. I was speeding. Thanks. Have a good day." (The "thanks" was for them doing their job, as they handed me the ticket; I know it's not personal.)
I'm not sure what the parent post was all about. How can he tell who is the atheist, and who is the Christian trying to get out of a speeding ticket? Do they say, "Hey, I don't deserve this, and I'm an atheist!" or something?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
My best guess? "Hey, I have a stereotype of what atheists are like. I see people like that. They must be atheists."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Actually, both of my brothers are on the job. That and I am a psychiatric social worker. Very little surprises me.
bayjohn, please don't thank me for that one. I am a conservative republican. That and even more of an atheist than most of the people around here.
Even so, when you get people who would fight against all of that evidence, that does not make them atheists. That just makes them terminally dumb. But let me get past that and look at a typical traffic stop.
Again, this does not speak to me of the person really being all that smart. When one is already stopped by the police, now is not really the time to go into all of that. At best, I can't see how that does not just get annoying for you, regardless of whether the person might be an atheist or not.
On the other hand, if the stopped motorist is civil about the matter (I am sorry officer, I did not see the stop sign/realize my speed/whatever), would that not have a net positive effect on how you deal with the public? Perhaps if the actual offense was not actually very serious, would being polite just possibly dispose you to giving the driver a warning?
Seriously, if people would think this type of thing through before shooting their mouth off inappropriately, life might just be a bit easier for the rest of us. Heck but I would not want to be the guy who got pulled over ten minutes later while the officer was still fuming about the last stop. Which is not to say that you would be so unprofessional but there are cops who are. And when some moron makes such a cops job just a bit harder, it might make the next guy who does try to do the right thing get hassled more than he deserves.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Also, since you have only been on the job since the introduction of video recording, you might want to ask your supervisors what the job was like back in the 80's. With the video recordings, your conviction rate is probably close to 100%. without such recordings, it becomes easier to sow doubt when the case does get in front of a judge.
That and with no video recordings, there were some officers who were not as cautious during a routine stop. Seriously, for those officers who take their professionalism very seriously, it should not matter. However, for the one's who just want to swagger around and be “the man”, they probably become more professional when they know that what they do is going on tape.
=
Don't they have a right to know that they are being recorded or how they are being monitored? They have to tell you where I live and it seems like a good practice to me. Also, how do you know that they're atheist? do they have a "darwin fish" or some other atheist symbol/bumper sticker? Are you specifically targer people who are atheists? for you sake I certainly hope not.
Besides that, there's nothing wrong with fighting a ticket and in fact we need people to fight tickets to keep the law in check. If no one questioned the law and just accepted whatever the police did and said and whatever punishment a judge handed out the free world would not be free anymore. There would be no reprucutions for corrupt offcials, they would be free to do as they please we would be better off living in anarchy.
The problem is not that we don't want to follow god's laws it's that they seem so ridiculous and have not even the slightest bit of evidence (not to mention all the other gods we'd have to follow, you know, just in case). Believe me when I tell you that if god revieled himself to me and told me to follow his laws so that I could get into hevean I would follow everyone obediantly. Having said this I must confess that I would ask him to clearify all the contradictions but that would just be to make sure I was doing it right.
Pretty much. As for example recently in Oakland, recently in Texas, and recently I think in Louisiana.
Bart Killing.
Unarmed Texas man shot.
Great cops in Shreveport.
Other really bad cops.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
The weird thing about your post is that you've cited evidence as the main focus. You seem to be representing the atheist argument, and your perceived atheists are playing the part of theists who really want there to be a way out of their dilemma.
See, all the evidence points to a naturalistic universe. That is, pretty much what we got here is what we got here. We have lots of evidence for that. What we have no evidence for is magic, astrology, gods, fairies, or other imagined creatures.
Now, I could show you all the evidence, but my guess is that you'd take yourself to an authority and get them to tell me that I'm wrong. Then I'll have to prove that I'm being reasonable. Sound familiar?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Cops hate being questioned. I was driving in a far away town when a cop saw the out of town licence plate. "AHA, an easy target." He lit me up and when I stopped he informed me that I had been speeding. Un beknowest to him I was one block from in-laws house and had been driving that road for over 30 years. When I began to question him he became irate and threatining especially when I politely asked him to show me the sign that he insisted was there. It is useless to argue with someone who worships himself so much. Anyway I took the case to court and had a good time raking him over the coals. I recieved a letter of apology and that was that. Cops are not above lying, far from it. They should be questioned. Caution; It may be better to do it in court. They might make up some excuse to shoot you, and then there is only their side of the story.
Honestly, and I'm not being coy or facetious here, I thank you guys sincerely for your feedback. I do admit that this post was a bit sharp (what's the word I'm looking for?) and the argument presented probably is flawed in many ways, but that is why I depend upon your feedback for analysis. And again I say, Thank you! Oh, I appreciate your candor and civility (Mr Sapient keeps a close eye!) too.
I use different approaches to arguments with both theists and atheists in order to see how the groups think (reason?). And I'll be the first to admit that I sometimes have trouble remembering the difference in atheists and agnostics. That's not to ridicule or be condescending in any way, its just that I don't think the same way and therefore I depend upon their input to understand their arguments. That is why I'm so grateful for you feedback in this forum.
I was reluctant to post the "cop / atheist" argument, but I figured that it would generate a good amount of feedback. I sincerely hope that I do not give off the impression of someone who discriminates or plays favorites, because I truly try earnestly to hold myself to a higher standard. And in case you are curious, a lot of times I do ask people if they are "religious" or "atheists" in court AFTER we have settled the dispute. Most of the time (90% I'd say) if the folks show up for court I make the ticket a warning anyway because they made the effort to show up in the first place. On the rare occassion I do write a ticket, I always say that if they disagree with me to come to court and discuss it with me. That doesn't mean I'll always back down from my stance, but it does allow me to see who is willing to fight for what they believe. Do you guys feel this is wrong?
Yes, I have met my share of "crooked" cops. I can tell you honestly that the most arrogant ones take the hardest falls and are usually alienated by their coworkers (which is what leads them to self destructive behavior). I am glad to say that the folks I work with are honest and kind, which is a true blessing because it makes for a great work environment (don't have to worry about your buddy getting you indicted for something stupid he did).
Thanks guys and gals! More feedback, please!
"Be careful that the light within you is not darkness."
I think it's really unfair to throw the word "liberal" in here. As if atheist always equals liberal, and Christian always equals conservative.
In fact, I question whether or not many people know the proper use of the terms- if they even have any meaning left!
This is getting a little off topic but...
it just bothers me. Like, I watched this movie "Right America: Feeling Wrong" or something like that. It was Pelosi's daughter going around interviewing people who were disappointed after voting for McCain and not seeing his victory. The term "liberal" was thrown around quite alot. It's almost become an insult.
I was annoyed when watching the movie, because I know that I would be classified as a "liberal" by most of these people, and with this term would come all kinds of incorrect assumptions. Like that I'm a democrat Commie who hates the working class.
When in fact, I am completely for a least involved, de-centralized government (Republicans may not realize they have this in common with those of some Socialist and Anarchist backgrounds)... and believe strongly in worker's rights... I'm all for the whole "Robin Hood" effect, that is, taxing most the rich, and returning most, to the "poor" (working class). Also interesting, many Republicans are of this very working class I speak of, but don't realize that the idea behind the Republican economy involves the exact opposite of the so-called "Robid Hood" effect (the idea being to allow the wealthy to create jobs for the working class... but that's a whole different arguement).
One man in the movie was asked about Obama. He said "I don't like him, because he wants to take away the money from us and give it to others." (he was a truck driver) miss Pelosi responded "No... I think the idea is to take the money from the wealthy, and give it to you."
I just don't understand why we have to throw these generalized, false, umbrella terms out there. It hurts us all in the end, because it provides for assumptions which are often incorrect, causing discord among those who might otherwise agree or identify with each other.
Does asking questions when accused of a crime really make you a "liberal?" I advise you to research the term thoroughly, then come to a conclusion.