What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

reply to post by adjensen


You wrote:

["Persons of faith who go to street corners or college campuses holding up signs do so because they believe in something. Do you think it is proper to hold up signs that mock people who protest in favour of gay rights or being pro-choice? Or is it just those you disagree with that are fair game?"]

It depends on whether we operate from 'universal absolutes' or 'local approximations of 'truth' '.

A minor part of mankind has passively or actively adopted 'universal absolutes'.

A major part reacts from a basic instictive level of down-to-earth needs. If a system (e.g. a political model, a religion or knowledge-seeking systems) functions gratifyingly to satisfy such uncomplex needs it will be accepted, and its norms will be considered 'true'.

One of such norms in society is 'inclusiveness', which has demonstrated functional value. Its opposite, 'exclusiveness', is considered dysfunctional.

In the case of homosexuality it's increasingly appearent, that homosexuality as a part of egalitarian democracy isn't especially 'dangerous' or threatening. Only people operating from 'universal absolutes' will take a stance of 'exclusiveness' on this subject and when manifesting such 'absolute' extremist attitudes publicly, it's the extremists who are 'freaks' threatening liberal society. The situation is rather pragmatic on a social level, rather than a real 'truth' issue.

A kind of mini-epistemology.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen

 

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Do we go out on street corners or college campuses holding up signs saying such things (except in mockery of those religious folks who do)?

I'm curious, do you find anything hurtful or hateful in regards to this particular campaign?

Hateful? Nope. Hurtful? Well, that's a personal issue. It's someone offering one piece of text for another. You can already get a Bible for free. Now, it is more than a bit silly and childish, but I don't see how it's hateful or hurtful. I am all ears for an explanation from you if you're willing to provide one.

I am personally of the opinion that pornography degrades women, so I do not equate it with "one piece of text for another" (never mind that a pornographic magazine is generally not merely text.) One might claim that the Bible has its own share of issue with women, and I wouldn't disagree, but that is another matter.

Yes, I consider this to be a hateful and hurtful display, whose intent is to garner attention by being offensive. I do not equate texts that I consider to be holy as "smut" and it should come as no surprise that I would be offended by that.

Persons of faith who go to street corners or college campuses holding up signs do so because they believe in something.

And the ones that go to college campuses are often the ones that hold up signs that show that they believe in hate.

I'd like to see any evidence of that. People drag out the "Westboro Baptist" card far too often, when the reality is that most evangelicals are not "doom and gloom" hate mongers.

Do you think it is proper to hold up signs that mock people who protest in favour of gay rights or being pro-choice?

Nope. Granted, people don't spontaneously show up on street corners to protest in favor of homosexual rights or choice. Now, if they did, they'd be fair game.

Well, you're not in the US any longer, but they most certainly do. That's from personal experience -- my daughter, a university student, is one of them. Protests and passes out literature in support of both of those issues.

What is the value in mocking other people -- do you think that it makes a more salient point about the mocker or the person being belittled for their beliefs?

Being belittled for their beliefs? I'm sorry, but when someone comes on to a college campus basically denouncing everyone on that campus, they are doing the belittling and are not open to logical discourse.

What is your basis for believing that a religious person who is evangelical is "denouncing everyone on that campus"? That seems a bit narrow minded.

Regardless, what is your justification for mocking people, regardless of whether you agree with them or not? Mockery is an inherently disrespectful and arrogant slur towards another human being -- telling them that you think them a fool for believing something that you do not.

As I have said before, a gentle "no" has never failed to save me from proselytizers, and it does so in a manner that treats whoever is annoying me with the respect that they deserve as a fellow intelligent and sensitive human being.

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
I am personally of the opinion that pornography degrades women,

Ok, but I doubt the people handing it out thought that. I will, however, take a similar position to you. Most forms of modern pornography do degrade women, though I do believe that it is possible for pornographic material to exist without demeaning women and that such material already does exist.

so I do not equate it with "one piece of text for another" (never mind that a pornographic magazine is generally not merely text.)

Sorry, technical language flub there. I'm from a communications background and I still use the word 'text' to describe all sorts of things. Blame semiotics. "Text" in the manner I was using just meant 'piece of human work to communicate a message', so it includes more than just the written word. I'd also like to point out that pornographic magazines actually have a bizarre history of providing some very intelligent and scholarly work within their pages.

Well, in my mind, I doubt that the students passing out the pornographic material were of the mind that it was degrading to women, as they were happy to provide it for others.

One might claim that the Bible has its own share of issue with women, and I wouldn't disagree, but that is another matter.

Not as far as the campaign was concerned. The title was 'Smut for Smut', so if you consider them both degrading to women then it is the same matter.

Yes, I consider this to be a hateful and hurtful display, whose intent is to garner attention by being offensive.

How was it hateful. Your below statement explains why it is hurtful to yourself and possibly others, but that is, as I said before, I personal matter.

I do not equate texts that I consider to be holy as "smut" and it should come as no surprise that I would be offended by that.

Yes, but that is a personal matter. As I said before, hurtful is a case-to-case basis. I find things hurtful that others wouldn't and others find things hurtful that I don't. But to consider this display as hateful is an entirely different story.

I'd like to see any evidence of that. People drag out the "Westboro Baptist" card far too often, when the reality is that most evangelicals are not "doom and gloom" hate mongers.

True, but most evangelicals aren't the ones going on college campuses. And neither does the WBC. These are the sort of images you see at college campuses. (it's a slideshow, can't save the images, but they're not exactly nice people).

Here are a few that I uploaded over here.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/676ebc7d2dce.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3dc872988aee.jpg[/atsimg]
That's with a counter-protest.

Do you think it is proper to hold up signs that mock people who protest in favour of gay rights or being pro-choice?

Nope. Granted, people don't spontaneously show up on street corners to protest in favor of homosexual rights or choice. Now, if they did, they'd be fair game.

Well, you're not in the US any longer, but they most certainly do. That's from personal experience -- my daughter, a university student, is one of them. Protests and passes out literature in support of both of those issues.


She protests, but she doesn't spontaneously start shouting about it on campuses. She doesn't just show up on a street corner. An organized protest and a guy just standing on a corner are two different things.

And people always have the right to counter-protest.

What is the value in mocking other people -- do you think that it makes a more salient point about the mocker or the person being belittled for their beliefs?

Being belittled for their beliefs? I'm sorry, but when someone comes on to a college campus basically denouncing everyone on that campus, they are doing the belittling and are not open to logical discourse.

What is your basis for believing that a religious person who is evangelical is "denouncing everyone on that campus"? That seems a bit narrow minded.

Oh, I'm not talking about your average evangelist, I'm talking about the sort of hatemongers found in the above mentioned images. I'm all for polite people politely putting forward their beliefs.

Regardless, what is your justification for mocking people, regardless of whether you agree with them or not?

Mockery is reserved for those who are acting like those above. They're not the sort of people you can engage in a discourse with and they're generally unpleasant individuals. I'd rather talk to a regular evangelist than mock one.

Mockery is an inherently disrespectful and arrogant slur towards another human being -- telling them that you think them a fool for believing something that you do not.

Again, it's due to the above behaviors, not just the beliefs.

As I have said before, a gentle "no" has never failed to save me from proselytizers, and it does so in a manner that treats whoever is annoying me with the respect that they deserve as a fellow intelligent and sensitive human being.

adjensen, why didn't you address the rest of what I said? I brought up the Mormons for a reason, they universally act in a very polite manner. I don't mind this polite manner. A gentle "no" doesn't work with the sort of people I'm talking about.

Hell, Mormon missionaries came onto my campus without most people realizing they were there.

madness

Sorry, technical language flub there. I'm from a communications background and I still use the word 'text' to describe all sorts of things. Blame semiotics. "Text" in the manner I was using just meant 'piece of human work to communicate a message', so it includes more than just the written word.

That's a nice illustration of how a common word can have many different meanings within the English-speaking community, or within any language community.

It's also a nice illustration of the machinery through which specialized uses of a word come to influence the larger community. You, a specialized user, used the word with the expectation of being understood, especially in a context rich with familiar examples, like the Bible or porn. And, of course, the influence is reciprocal. Sometime in the past, members of your specialized community chose a word which was already especially common in general use, and adopted it as their own.

So, you were altogether correct to use text in this vastly inclusinve sense. No flub was committed. By your giving a clarification, both adjensen and the rest of us learned something about our fellow English speakers, which is to say, we learned more about English.

Who knows? Maybe some of us will enrich our own expressiveness by reaching for text to stand in for the whole class of human messages, in all their riotous variety.

Of course, we might have done so anyway, but now, if we are asked for clarification, we needn't plead synecdoche, but can truthfully say "Madness made me do it."

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen

 

Well, in my mind, I doubt that the students passing out the pornographic material were of the mind that it was degrading to women, as they were happy to provide it for others.

I don't understand, are you saying that they're vindicated in doing it, because they personally don't find it offensive?

One might claim that the Bible has its own share of issue with women, and I wouldn't disagree, but that is another matter.

Not as far as the campaign was concerned. The title was 'Smut for Smut', so if you consider them both degrading to women then it is the same matter.

One is objectifying and dehumanizing half of our population, the other makes occasional remarks that demonstrate the patriarchal society that it was written under, and for. How is that even remotely "the same matter"?

Yes, I consider this to be a hateful and hurtful display, whose intent is to garner attention by being offensive.

How was it hateful. Your below statement explains why it is hurtful to yourself and possibly others, but that is, as I said before, I personal matter.

I believe that intentionally offending people demonstrates hate. Pure and simple. Doesn't matter if it's the pro-lifers with their pictures of aborted fetuses, the Westboro nuts, or these atheists equating texts that are of the utmost importance to some people with pornography.

These are the sort of images you see at college campuses. (it's a slideshow, can't save the images, but they're not exactly nice people).

I have never witnessed such displays -- when I was at university, it was never anything more than people standing on street corners passing out Bibles and talking about their faith. I do not believe that this is anything other than extreme behaviour and your misconception that it is typical, but I may be wrong, as it has been far too many years since I was on campus.

Regardless, reacting to one subgroup (whether they are extremists or you claim that all evangelicals act in this way) in a manner that demeans and mocks the beliefs of all is not respectful, so about the best you can claim is that you've sunk to the level of those you look down on.

She protests, but she doesn't spontaneously start shouting about it on campuses. She doesn't just show up on a street corner. An organized protest and a guy just standing on a corner are two different things.

What makes them two different things? They're both disruptive, they're both just people who have one opinion trying to garner support for what they believe, and they're both annoying to people who don't agree with what's being preached (or, in my case, they're annoying even WHEN I agree with what's being preached )

And people always have the right to counter-protest.

This isn't about rights, Madness, this is about respect. Is the guy with the crazy sandwich board respecting the people that he's preaching to? I have no idea, but in looking at his sign, there's nothing there that certain readers of scripture (who are not me) would say is wrong. If God is real, and the end is coming (as it is for all of us, but I assume he means in an apocalyptic sense,) then fornicators, idolators and all the rest are in trouble, by his reading. One would hope that he's not screaming "you're all a bunch of jerkwads, God hates you and you're going to hell", but I guess you never know.

I do know, however, that pornography is demeaning and degrading, and that equating it to the Bible is patently offensive, and intentionally so, to all persons of faith, not simply the few that stand on street corners.

Oh, I'm not talking about your average evangelist, I'm talking about the sort of hatemongers found in the above mentioned images. I'm all for polite people politely putting forward their beliefs.

No, what you seem to be saying is that the extremists sufficiently represent the masses, because you support behaviour which treats all believers as being morally or intellectually inferior, and, thus, being due less respect than someone who does not believe. (I am not saying that you personally believe or act in this fashion, but you are defending those who do.)

Regardless, what is your justification for mocking people, regardless of whether you agree with them or not?

Mockery is reserved for those who are acting like those above. They're not the sort of people you can engage in a discourse with and they're generally unpleasant individuals. I'd rather talk to a regular evangelist than mock one.

Again, it's due to the above behaviors, not just the beliefs.

Not "just" the beliefs? You mean that it IS okay to mock someone for their beliefs? I am frequently at odds with one of your cronies here, because he doesn't seem to understand the difference, either. Taking umbrage with someone's actions are NOT the same as taking umbrage with their beliefs. The first is acceptable, even required in many instances, while the second is bigotry, pure and simple. It's one thing to disagree with someone, or try to persuade them to your way of thinking, quite another to vilify a person and treat them as an inferior, simply because you don't like what they believe.

Regardless, the incident in question is not a matter of behaviour versus belief, because they are not mocking the behaviours of street corner preachers, they are mocking the beliefs of all Christians.

adjensen, why didn't you address the rest of what I said? I brought up the Mormons for a reason, they universally act in a very polite manner. I don't mind this polite manner. A gentle "no" doesn't work with the sort of people I'm talking about.

You know that I'm not a fan of quoting scripture, so I'll simply paraphrase a response. "Of what merit is it to only be good to those who are good to you? Pretty much everyone does that. But to be good to those who treat you poorly or do evil to you, this is a mark of grace."

You're respectful of people who are respectful of you. That's great, but it's hardly notable, since only a cretin would behave otherwise. But how hard would it be to be respectful of those who are not respectful of you?

Truthfully? It ain't easy, but it's worth the effort.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


ooooookk....you call us the un-rational thinkers...yet you worship something that you can't see, hear or touch...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Well i can do that because the similarities between the 3 of them are almost identical...obam has youth brigades..so does hitler...Bush used Hitler SAME infamous speach
The Bush familly gave money to hitler in WW2 to fund their war machine and gave them gas or oil...so there you go.
maybe one day your brain will start to think rationally and maybe on day you look at facts instead of being an ignorant kind of person

reply to post by Annee


Sure he did..he also made the people that take away the ppls free will ,
not only that..but in real life bad ppl go to jail...therefore bad ppl in ur terms gets sent to hell or jail

I really hate labels... i am not religious nor do i believe in god or satan. so i guess that would have me labelled as an athiest. My personal beliefs are more in line with ancient astronaut theorists. Anyone here read Chariots of the Gods? Or researched the ancient Sumarian texts that alot of the Bible was based on? I'm sure there will be alot of posts that poke fun at the possibily that we were engineered by an alien race, but to me, its far more likely than an almighty being or god. As seen through ancient peoples eyes, beings coming down from above would be interpreted as god-like.. when in actuallity, they were beings from another place. just google ancient sumarian text or ancient astronauts and decide for yourself. I don't claim to have proof. i'm not trying to convert anyone. but it is the most likely scenario in my opinion.

reply to post by 15FORreal


How do you know?

I find it remarkable that someone can spout this nonsense and even personify god as "he". You don't know that God exists, for the same reason i don't.

Stop trying to pass off "he gave us free will" nonsense without even knowing. You're just copying the ideas of other people. And you can't verify the creationism fiction, i think it's high time you deal with it, the same way i deal with it, and many other scientists do, we don't know - How's that for honesty?

Hope you don't preach this creationism nonsense to any youngsters.

Originally posted by imawlinn
Anyone here read Chariots of the Gods?

Long, long ago. Probably read the first edition, in fact -- I'm old.

I'm sure there will be alot of posts that poke fun at the possibily that we were engineered by an alien race, but to me, its far more likely than an almighty being or god.

Well, I'm not going to poke fun at you, because I've considered the same thing. With a very liberal and encompassing read, in fact, there isn't really anything in scripture that says aliens couldn't have been the mechanism by which man became what he is, though this is not something that I personally believe.

Here's the problem with your "far more likely" statement -- it necessitates one or the other, while the other possibilities are "neither", which would be the skeptic view, or "both", which would be the view above. However, the preponderance of evidence is toward "neither" or "God", for the simple reason that, if aliens put us here, where did the aliens come from? After all, one cannot have an infinity of created beings populating planets with more creative beings -- it has to start at some point. (That sentence reminds me of my favourite joke of all time.)

So then you're back to either "they evolved" or "they are created entities created by a non-created being" (eg: God) and then, regardless of which side of that conundrum one comes down on, the question becomes "okay, then why wouldn't that apply to us, as well?" If the aliens evolved from the proverbial primordial soup, why couldn't we have? What do we need aliens for?

reply to post by adjensen


Thanks for your reply adjensen, very thought prevoking. I guess the bottom line is noone knows why we're here, how we got here or what happens when we die. We can only speculate and debate. And argue on these threads lol...

reply to post by 15FORreal


inforeal.

Hahaha

reply to post by awake_and_aware


Thats a cool theory and all but what i think you should do is check ur lack of facts...its called the big bang theory..it alot more likely then some old fart sitting up in the clouds pooping on ppl to make it rain. Dont worry tho it will make sense to you one day.
why if HE is soo awsome he nvr comes to say hi to us..oo yeah thats right he did 2000 years ago right?? but we were not there then.

Inn fact the bible its self is horse rectum, if you can sit and think to urself for ONE SECOND that there was angels in all that then ur sadly mistaken...in fact i challenge you to go home get ur bible read it..and everytime it says angel or god or something of that nature replace it with aliens or ET it will all of a sudden make sense.

the only reason they said they were ppl with wings is because they couldnt explain what they saw..so they had to try and explain it in the only way the knew how..and thats by mixing nature in.

Its called Ancient Astronaut Theory..lets get 21st century with it guy.

On top of this all the only ppl that are not Children molesting Priests that talk to that one dude in the clouds (not good enough for a name) are all crazy and kill there friends and familly, religion is a business and only wishes to scam and control ppl...soo maybe this will help you understand what religion realllly is

reply to post by 15FORreal

Thats a cool theory and all but what i think you should do is check ur lack of facts...its called the big bang theory.

Stop accusing me of getting "facts" wrong when you are incable of determining fact from theory.

The big bang is a theory, and science has said that there could be multiple bangs and multiple universes or plains of existence. THere's multiverse theory too. The big bang theory does not imply a creator, nor does it imply a start or beginning of reality or "all that is"

Your nonsense and ill-manners got you banned, and now you back for more.

Go for it. I'm happy enough to spectate. hahaha.



ADDED: LOL - Ancient Civilisation/Astronaut could be true, but you know me..... Evidence before belief, it makes discussion of ideas a lot more progressive. I suggest you try backing up your ill-mannered statements with facts.

Your attempts to condecend other users are very ironic considering you yourself show a profound lack of critical thinking or logic to back up your arguments.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

I'm just going to have to repeat myself: How is "I don't believe in any deity" equivalent to "I believe that no deity exists"? How is a statement of personal incredulity equivalent to a reality claim?

They are not equivalent beliefs but they are both belief systems none the less. The only thing that is not a belief is a fact because you know for sure something is or is not true. The agnostic atheist claims dieties are possible but does not have enough evidence to believe in deites while the gnostic atheist claims there is enough evidence to know dieties do not exist.

The same arguement can be said about gnostic theists and agnositc theists. One claims he knows dieties exist because he has enough convincing evidence while the other thinks dieties probably exist.

At the end of the day, all we have are lots of claims. Proof is in the eye of the beholder...at least so they say!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Proof is in the eye of the beholder

LOL - Man used to think the sun revolved around the earth - Proof in the eye of the beholder? if one man says so it must be proof? Science removes private prejudice. Again, i prefer evidence instead of subjective opinion.

Hitchen tells it like it is!

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Proof is in the eye of the beholder

LOL - Man used to think the sun revolved around the earth - Proof in the eye of the beholder? if one man says so it must be proof? Science removes private prejudice. Again, i prefer evidence instead of subjective opinion.

edit on 23/2/11 by awake_and_aware because: (no reason given)

Then why does science evolve rather than remain stagnant? Science is mostly theories that scientists come up with that are either proved or disproved. In other words its an imperfect system whereas math is perfect and universally agreed upon.

The point I am trying to make is that most proof is subjective rather than objective.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Most "proof" is subjective until we have objective means to verify it. Science takes pride in evolving and updating until absolutes can be determined. Science does not claim anything as fact until it has proper means to do so.

Evolution is an example of a theory AND a fact.

en.wikipedia.org...

Metaphysical theories "4th dimension" or "the multiverse" cannot be falsified, at least by objective means. Metaphysics can be formed using existing knowledge of the the universe (quantam mechanics) are are mathematically rationalised.

Theories such as "GOD" are the fiction of the man's mind and are not based on any empirical evidence; logical or empirical; it's not being nasty or disrespectful, it's just the truth.

Agnostic Atheism is the open-minded stance that if God were to be proved then the Atheism would be happily renounced based on the newly found Gnostcisim. But remember, it's 1 thing proving whether "GOD" exists, it's another story trying to prove which religion best fits the God, if at all. Religion is man-made after all, not God made.