Quote
In God We Must (http://www.slate.com/articles/life/ft/2012/02/atheism_in_america_why_won_t_the_u_s_accept_its_atheists_.html)
Why won't the U.S. accept its atheists?
Point, Texas (pop. 792) is not the easiest place for a single lesbian to raise her child. But neither her sexuality nor her unwed parenthood are enough to make Renee Johnson an American conservative's worst nightmare. As she explained to me when I met her at Rains County Library, "I'd rather have a big 'L' or 'lesbian' written across my shirt than a big 'A' or 'atheist', because people are going to handle it better."
We had met in a private room because Johnson worried that anywhere else in the town, people might overhear us and be offended by her godlessness. No wonder she often feels alone in her non-belief. But Johnson is far from unique. As I found out when I travelled across the US last year, atheists live in isolation and secrecy all over the country. In a nation that celebrates freedom of religion like no other, freedom not to be religious at all can be as hard to exercise as the right to swim the Atlantic.
America is the well-known exception to the rule that the wealthier and better-educated a country is, the less religious its population. As a Pew Research Center report put it, when it comes to religiosity, "the US is closer to considerably less developed nations, such as India, Brazil and Lebanon than to other western nations." But what is less discussed is what this means for the minority who are not just apathetic about their faith, but have actively rejected it.
:mellow:
:huh:
The right to swim the Atlantic? :huh:
To give myself a more nuanced response to that article:
QuoteStill, I found that even some New Yorkers, Bostonians and Washingtonians didn't think there was much problem with being an atheist in their country.
And then the article goes on to cite incidents in states known to be backwards. Shock!
lol. I'm a relatively out atheist in the South and I've never had a problem.
But then again, I live in a real city, not Pig's Cooter, Texas.
Quote from: garbon on February 05, 2012, 01:09:20 PM
To give myself a more nuanced response to that article:
QuoteStill, I found that even some New Yorkers, Bostonians and Washingtonians didn't think there was much problem with being an atheist in their country.
And then the article goes on to cite incidents in states known to be backwards. Shock!
Yeah, the article bounced around a bit (and needed a better editor, I think), but I felt it was making two points relative to the quote you posted:
- People in the progressive metro areas, while acknowledging these places are backwards, don't realize how much more open atheists are shunned than other "undesirable" groups
- Based on national statistics, even the progressive metro areas above are not as accepting of atheists as they think
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on February 05, 2012, 01:21:58 PM
- People in the progressive metro areas, while acknowledging these places are backwards, don't realize how much more open atheists are shunned than other "undesirable" groups
And why should people in progressive metro areas care? It isn't like it really has a big effect on them.
Quote from: Baron von Schtinkenbutt on February 05, 2012, 01:21:58 PM
- Based on national statistics, even the progressive metro areas above are not as accepting of atheists as they think
Not really sure this is an issue either. I don't know that many individuals that run around proclaiming they are atheists.
Quote from: Fireblade on February 05, 2012, 01:17:30 PM
lol. I'm a relatively out atheist in the South and I've never had a problem.
But then again, I live in a real city, not Pig's Cooter, Texas.
I personally haven't had much of a problem, either, but I probably would if I was open about it at work. DFW as a whole isn't that bad, but the northern suburbs and exurbs of Dallas are strange creatures, and I definitely understand the situation of the woman from Plano.
We have an office in Plano. One of the 'accountants' there (I say it in quotes because he's a very clueless accountant) is also a preacher. :huh:
The little cartoon at the beginning of the article is an excellent example of why so many people don't care for Athiests in this country.
Define atheist.
I don't believe in atheists.
ZOMG people who think differently than me sometimes have trouble accepting my belief system! :rolleyes:
Quote from: The Brain on February 05, 2012, 02:09:34 PM
Define atheist.
First you define Theism and then whoever isn't a Theist is an Atheist.
Link didn't work for me. Can someone tell me what kind of treatment our heroic lebiang aetheist is getting?
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 02:01:19 PM
The little cartoon at the beginning of the article is an excellent example of why so many people don't care for Athiests in this country.
:yes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fcontent%2Fdam%2Fslate%2Farchive%2F2002%2F12%2F1_123125_123067_2061418_2074779_021218_atheist.jpg&hash=0462ae9754edb1c362cbc4da1a9f92f4fae9070c)
Quote from: Fireblade on February 05, 2012, 01:17:30 PM
lol. I'm a relatively out atheist in the South and I've never had a problem.
But then again, I live in a real city, not Pig's Cooter, Texas.
It's hurt me, socially, on occasion. But I don't want to fuck a Christian anyway. They think Jesus told them that facials are evil; I'm not familiar with that verse myself.
Vegetarianism bothers people more, I think, because they think I'm secretly judging them. And I totally am.
I think what makes it hard in America are the Protestant scum. I'm a Catholic, and I have never proselytized, nor do I really see other American Catholics proselytizing.
But pretty much my entire professional life I've observed extreme open religiosity at work. (This is from a guy who has essentially been working for the government his whole life, I can only imagine what it's like in the private sector where there isn't even the theoretical concept of your employer being required to be religiously neutral.)
The big problem I've seen with Protestants is they really must talk about their religion, and they must believe that every incident in their daily lives is governed by God taking direct hands in their lives. Catholics have a long theological tradition in believing in strong free will (going back to Augustine), but a lot of Protestants, while not strict Calvinist style pre-destination believers do believe strongly in things along those lines.
For example a guy I work with some years ago had a brain stem stroke. At the time he weighed 240 lbs on a 5'8" frame, ate cheeseburgers every day for lunch and donuts every day for breakfast and never exercised. His doctors told him his stroke was directly caused by cholesterol, high blood pressure and etc. To his credit, he basically lost all his excess weight, plays tennis religiously, and 4-5 years out he still lives very healthily. But anytime he talks about his stroke he'll talk about how it was "god's way of waking me up and making me realize what I was doing."
As a Catholic I just don't believe that hogwash. I think that his stroke was a result of him using his free will and living like a very unhealthy person, and then his body reacted in a predictable manner. Afterwards, I can believe that his faith gave him the strength necessary to change his eating habits (one of the more difficult things one can do, probably harder than breaking an alcohol or cigarette addiction because you have no option to go cold turkey and no societal reinforcement), but I just reject this concept that God sat there one day and said "it's time for you to stroke out so you quit being a fatass." That offends common sense, and if Catholicism taught that kind of stuff I wouldn't be a Catholic any longer.
But here's the thing, the guy talks about this stuff all the time, as a non-atheist I'm not religiously offended by it, but as someone with common sense I am. However, in the work place it's just preferable to smile and nod, because what is there to really be gained by telling him, "Yeah, that's a bunch of BS." There is nothing to be gained. That's just one of many people I know who say things like that all the time. I imagine any atheists I work with do what I do and just sort of smile and nod, because making such a wave really wouldn't be good. It'd be even worse in the private sector if you worked for someone who was like that, because in reality it's not smart from a career perspective to make waves with your boss by interjecting into his religious discussions that you think it's all hogwash.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 02:01:19 PM
The little cartoon at the beginning of the article is an excellent example of why so many people don't care for Athiests in this country.
It's probably the other way around.
The reason you get Atheist assholes in the US is the pervasiveness of religion. It's always shocked me how often one of the first things mentioned about someone is whether he or she is a Catholic, a Mormon, a Baptist or whatever. You don't see Atheist proselytizing here precisely because religion is a non-issue. Nobody cares what you believe in.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 05, 2012, 05:31:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 05, 2012, 02:01:19 PM
The little cartoon at the beginning of the article is an excellent example of why so many people don't care for Athiests in this country.
It's probably the other way around.
The reason you get Atheist assholes in the US is the pervasiveness of religion. It's always shocked me how often one of the first things mentioned about someone is whether he or she is a Catholic, a Mormon, a Baptist or whatever. You don't see Atheist proselytizing here precisely because religion is a non-issue. Nobody cares what you believe in.
Except some of the biggest assholes come from Britain, not the US
We get atheist assholes for several reasons, but one of the biggest is the smug desire for intellectual superiority. Atheists often come off as the kid in school who enjoys making the younger kids cry by telling them there is no Santa Claus. Most people don't like to be belittled by some arrogant prick going on about "Sky fairies".
I should also note that the religious experience in the US has been fairly positive. We have no state church, so religion is less tainted by politics. Some very positive developments such as abolition and civil rights have had a strong religious element as well.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 05, 2012, 05:31:10 PM
It's always shocked me how often one of the first things mentioned about someone is whether he or she is a Catholic, a Mormon, a Baptist or whatever.
:huh:
Quote from: Iormlund on February 05, 2012, 05:31:10 PMYou don't see Atheist proselytizing here precisely because religion is a non-issue. Nobody cares what you believe in.
I don't see Atheists proselytizing here in America (generally gauche to do so in person) although I do see some of them doing so here on Languish.
Margrat Murray O'Hare did. But she's dead.
OvB's hit the nail on the head. Militant atheists generally aren't thinking rationally (speaking as someone who's been part of the problem before). Generally speaking, the rational viewpoint on religion is that it's a core psychological tool that can be more beneficial to some than to others, so proselytism of atheism is a pretty silly proposition.
I'd disagree with viewing us as victims, but the five stages of coping are good guidelines to consider, since they can also manifest due to grief or just about any fundamental enough change in one's life.
Example:
Denial - switched churches because I thought I was just uncomfortable with how "hellfire and bloody damnation" the pastor and at least one of the elders was.
Anger - mostly took the form of condescension. I took way too much glee in seeing everybody off to church upon the realization I could reclaim my Sunday mornings without being struck by lightning.
Bargaining - missed the community, plain and simple. Made a few occasional church visits just to see people (which I was aware was totally missing the point of attending church in the first place), figured I'd suffer through the obnoxious hymns and prayers to get to hanging out with people after the service.
Depression - self explanatory, big way. Possibly explains how I went from being generally dismissed as just another cynical kid to an adult with borderline-OCD tics that required antidepressants.
Acceptance - Mostly there. Still working off the depression, but I've generally accepted that I'm not a freak or a superhuman for not needing religion, nor is anyone else an idiot or inferior for getting a positive boost from believing in something.
OvB can be remarkably insightful when he wants to be.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on February 05, 2012, 01:17:30 PM
lol. I'm a relatively out atheist in the South and I've never had a problem.
But then again, I live in a real city, not Pig's Cooter, Texas.
It's hurt me, socially, on occasion. But I don't want to fuck a Christian anyway. They think Jesus told them that facials are evil; I'm not familiar with that verse myself.
Vegetarianism bothers people more, I think, because they think I'm secretly judging them. And I totally am.
Actually, I feel the same about (vocal) Christians as I feel about vegetarians. You look like a normal person until we reach a trigger ("homosexuals are evil", "you should eat fish on Friday", "you shouldn't eat meat") and your insanity becomes disturbingly visible.
It's like finding out your best friend is into furry coprophagia.
What really annoys me are apologetic atheists. "I have not been granted the grace of faith" is a sentence for the utterance of which one should be punished with extreme prejudice.
I have also not been granted the "grace" of having voices in my head telling me to kill the president but I am not going to apologize for that.
I have been trying to understand why it is so offensive when Richard Dawkins says "your theology is wrong mine is right" it is offensive but when the pope says it it is somehow not offensive. I also do not understand why when Richard Dawkins encourages people to agree with him he is strident but when Rick Warren does so he is not.
The Pope is the leader of a global pedophile ring. Everything else kind of fades aways beside that.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
But I don't want to fuck a Christian anyway. They think Jesus told them that facials are evil; I'm not familiar with that verse myself.
Something about turning the other cheek, I think. Lulz.
QuoteVegetarianism bothers people more, I think, because they think I'm secretly judging them. And I totally am.
And they're judging you. That's the next cultural war, my friend.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on February 06, 2012, 12:15:39 AM
Denial - switched churches because I thought I was just uncomfortable with how "hellfire and bloody damnation" the pastor and at least one of the elders was.
Anger - mostly took the form of condescension. I took way too much glee in seeing everybody off to church upon the realization I could reclaim my Sunday mornings without being struck by lightning.
Bargaining - missed the community, plain and simple. Made a few occasional church visits just to see people (which I was aware was totally missing the point of attending church in the first place), figured I'd suffer through the obnoxious hymns and prayers to get to hanging out with people after the service.
Depression - self explanatory, big way. Possibly explains how I went from being generally dismissed as just another cynical kid to an adult with borderline-OCD tics that required antidepressants.
Acceptance - Mostly there. Still working off the depression, but I've generally accepted that I'm not a freak or a superhuman for not needing religion, nor is anyone else an idiot or inferior for getting a positive boost from believing in something.
Drama queen much?
I'm glad I didn't grow up in some weird cult.
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 05:11:59 AM
I have been trying to understand why it is so offensive when Richard Dawkins says "your theology is wrong mine is right" it is offensive but when the pope says it it is somehow not offensive. I also do not understand why when Richard Dawkins encourages people to agree with him he is strident but when Rick Warren does so he is not.
Here's a hint. Dawkin's offensive when he says "You theology is as harmful as child abuse". But of course you and Marty have a hard time understanding things because bigots always do.
If you're an atheist and are being discriminated against in employment, housing, etc., that's against the law, so you have legal recourse.
If you're an atheist and are whining because your neighbors and/or co-workers don't like you because of your atheism, suck it up. There are lots of reasons that people don't like each other besides theological differences. We all have do deal with the fact that some people just don't realize how awesome we are and dislike us.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on February 06, 2012, 07:04:59 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
But I don't want to fuck a Christian anyway. They think Jesus told them that facials are evil; I'm not familiar with that verse myself.
Something about turning the other cheek, I think. Lulz.
Coverage is important.
QuoteQuoteVegetarianism bothers people more, I think, because they think I'm secretly judging them. And I totally am.
And they're judging you. That's the next cultural war, my friend.
All right, ground floor.
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2012, 04:33:41 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 05, 2012, 03:42:39 PM
Quote from: Fireblade on February 05, 2012, 01:17:30 PM
lol. I'm a relatively out atheist in the South and I've never had a problem.
But then again, I live in a real city, not Pig's Cooter, Texas.
It's hurt me, socially, on occasion. But I don't want to fuck a Christian anyway. They think Jesus told them that facials are evil; I'm not familiar with that verse myself.
Vegetarianism bothers people more, I think, because they think I'm secretly judging them. And I totally am.
Actually, I feel the same about (vocal) Christians as I feel about vegetarians. You look like a normal person until we reach a trigger ("homosexuals are evil", "you should eat fish on Friday", "you shouldn't eat meat") and your insanity becomes disturbingly visible.
It's like finding out your best friend is into furry coprophagia.
Cool, I'm halfway there. If I can get Tim to make pro-carnivorism statements too, the taint should be sufficient to get people off animals for good.
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2012, 03:25:32 PM
If you're an atheist and are whining because your neighbors and/or co-workers don't like you because of your atheism, suck it up. There are lots of reasons that people don't like each other besides theological differences. We all have do deal with the fact that some people just don't realize how awesome we are and dislike us.
If you're an atheist and all you can talk about is how much you love atheism and how stupid everyone who isn't you is, then that's probably why people don't like you.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2012, 03:30:43 PM
Cool, I'm halfway there. If I can get Tim to make pro-carnivorism statements too, the taint should be sufficient to get people off animals for good.
Maybe you ought to get them to mention that they like playing video games and watching television while you're at it.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 09:37:10 AM
Here's a hint. Dawkin's offensive when he says "You theology is as harmful as child abuse". But of course you and Marty have a hard time understanding things because bigots always do.
I take it you don't know how to use quotation marks. Dawkins did not say that. He said something completely different. I know that some people think that Dawkins is strident based on faked quotations and deliberatly misleading misrepresentations of what he said.
What he said, when asked about that misrepresentation he said "When you hear a child a child labelled as a christian child simply because it's parents are christian then that is child abuse." See, thats how you use quotation marks. It's the labelling that is the child abuse not the stuff you made up.
Still a stupid thing to say. Dawkins is an agitating self-righteous dick.
And before you go that route, I'm an atheist.
Quote from: dps on February 06, 2012, 03:25:32 PM
If you're an atheist and are being discriminated against in employment, housing, etc., that's against the law, so you have legal recourse.
If you're an atheist and are whining because your neighbors and/or co-workers don't like you because of your atheism, suck it up. There are lots of reasons that people don't like each other besides theological differences. We all have do deal with the fact that some people just don't realize how awesome we are and dislike us.
I actually agree. Same goes really for being black, gay, Christian, Muslim, straight or a hipster. I think the right to dislike other people should be maintained.
PS. I used to think differently not so long ago so dont point out inconsistencies. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2012, 04:35:26 PM
PS. I used to think differently not so long ago so dont point out inconsistencies. ;)
What changed?
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2012, 04:41:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2012, 04:35:26 PM
PS. I used to think differently not so long ago so dont point out inconsistencies. ;)
What changed?
That may sound silly but listening to comedians make their case against humour censorship. Also a general desire to grow up. I dont think it's the society's duty to make people like each other. And if I dislike people for being stupid or religious, they have a right to dislike me for being gay or Polish. Drawing arbitrary line at race, nationality or sexuality makes no sense really.
Also, being in a relationship kinda made me realise I don't need to invent pet causes to feel meaningful. ;)
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 04:27:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 09:37:10 AM
Here's a hint. Dawkin's offensive when he says "You theology is as harmful as child abuse". But of course you and Marty have a hard time understanding things because bigots always do.
I take it you don't know how to use quotation marks. Dawkins did not say that. He said something completely different. I know that some people think that Dawkins is strident based on faked quotations and deliberatly misleading misrepresentations of what he said.
What he said, when asked about that misrepresentation he said "When you hear a child a child labelled as a christian child simply because it's parents are christian then that is child abuse." See, thats how you use quotation marks. It's the labelling that is the child abuse not the stuff you made up.
More of a paraphrase. The man wrote a whole article on it, but then was forced to backtrack because it made him sound like a totalitarian fuck.
QuotePriestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118
The quote you use was his backtrack. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT3d5RFNATA But it is interesting. He denied he wanted parents prosecuted for this type of thing, but that leads us to a conundrum. Mr. Dawkins doesn't think child abuse is worth prosecuting? That's peculiar. Abusing a child is against the law. If you want child abuse to be against the law you have to have the state step in somewhere. If he says something is child abuse then he is saying it is a crime. He can't have it both ways and say it's child abuse but he doesn't want to the state to step in.
The reason you are not liked Marti has nothing to do with being gay or Polish.
I don't dislike Marty, but his general shallowness, selfishness, and stupidity can be annoying.
Quote from: HVC on February 06, 2012, 04:30:07 PM
Still a stupid thing to say. Dawkins is an agitating self-righteous dick.
And before you go that route, I'm an atheist.
The difference between what he actually says and what people say he says is quite staggering. Chistopher Hitchens might have been a aggitating self-righteous dick, Dawkins is not. He doesn't knock on doors and he only speaks when invited, which is much more than you can say about the randomly picked preacher.
Well, unlike the randomly picked preacher he has made a lot of money in his efforts. He doesn't have to knock on doors, he has fanatics to bother people about religion. I do think he helped with an advertising campaign, though.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 06:08:57 PM
Well, unlike the randomly picked preacher he has made a lot of money in his efforts. He doesn't have to knock on doors, he has fanatics to bother people about religion. I do think he helped with an advertising campaign, though.
Don't buy his book then, you don't need to read it. You still have declined to comment on your gross slander and misrepresentation of Dawkins.
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 04:27:08 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 09:37:10 AM
Here's a hint. Dawkin's offensive when he says "You theology is as harmful as child abuse". But of course you and Marty have a hard time understanding things because bigots always do.
I take it you don't know how to use quotation marks. Dawkins did not say that. He said something completely different. I know that some people think that Dawkins is strident based on faked quotations and deliberatly misleading misrepresentations of what he said.
What he said, when asked about that misrepresentation he said "When you hear a child a child labelled as a christian child simply because it's parents are christian then that is child abuse." See, thats how you use quotation marks. It's the labelling that is the child abuse not the stuff you made up.
Sadly, Raz is right in substance, though he ought to have used paraphrase marks rather than quotation marks.
Here's a direct quotation, from the Dawkins website:
QuoteOdious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118
I dunno how you parse it, but to me that appears to be Dawkins saying that in his opinion being brought up Catholic is "menal abuse" and worse (in that it does more "lasting damage") than the "physical abuse" of being raped by priests.
He expands on that theme:
Quote
First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like 'predatory monster' are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups. Second (and this is the point with which I began) the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them.
I think Dawkins may be onto something there.
Why is it sad when I'm right? Also I don't know how to make paraphrase marks. :(
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 06:15:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 06:08:57 PM
Well, unlike the randomly picked preacher he has made a lot of money in his efforts. He doesn't have to knock on doors, he has fanatics to bother people about religion. I do think he helped with an advertising campaign, though.
Don't buy his book then, you don't need to read it. You still have declined to comment on your gross slander and misrepresentation of Dawkins.
I guess you missed my other post. Or Malthus's. The man was quite clear. No misrepresentation needed.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 06, 2012, 07:06:18 PM
I think Dawkins may be onto something there.
Yep. He's not saying that teaching kids religion is mental abuse, he's saying teaching kids a doctrine that there is an eternal hell is abusive. He's correct.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 07:07:42 PM
Why is it sad when I'm right? Also I don't know how to make paraphrase marks. :(
It's sad not becaise you are right but because a respected thinker has revealed himself as a bigot.
Quotation marks are like this: "this is a quote". The enclosed words are exact from the source.
In academic works, you either don't use quotation marks (but rather reference with a footnote), or you tell people you are paraphrasing, like so:
-- In summary, the author's basic point is "blah blah blah".
On forums like this, the usage has informally arisen that quotes use the double comma "quote" while paraphrase use the single comma 'paraphrase'.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 06, 2012, 07:14:51 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 06, 2012, 07:06:18 PM
I think Dawkins may be onto something there.
Yep. He's not saying that teaching kids religion is mental abuse, he's saying teaching kids a doctrine that there is an eternal hell is abusive. He's correct.
QuoteOdious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.
Sounds like simply bringing them up Catholic is mental abuse. I didn't see the word "Hell' in there at all. Of course Hell is part of Catholic theology, so perhaps you have a point. If it is abusive then it follows that it should be banned. Unless Dawkins is cool with child abuse. The only conclusion I can make is that either Child abuse shouldn't be a crime, or teaching religion to children should be. If there is a third way to interpret it, please tell me.
Quote from: Malthus on February 06, 2012, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 07:07:42 PM
Why is it sad when I'm right? Also I don't know how to make paraphrase marks. :(
It's sad not becaise you are right but because a respected thinker has revealed himself as a bigot.
Quotation marks are like this: "this is a quote". The enclosed words are exact from the source.
In academic works, you either don't use quotation marks (but rather reference with a footnote), or you tell people you are paraphrasing, like so:
-- In summary, the author's basic point is "blah blah blah".
On forums like this, the usage has informally arisen that quotes use the double comma "quote" while paraphrase use the single comma 'paraphrase'.
Sorry, I'll try better next time.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 06, 2012, 07:14:51 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 06, 2012, 07:06:18 PM
I think Dawkins may be onto something there.
Yep. He's not saying that teaching kids religion is mental abuse, he's saying teaching kids a doctrine that there is an eternal hell is abusive. He's correct.
I'd say he is incorrect, and particularly bigoted and offensive in comparing Catholic theology unfavourably to pedophile attacks, but that is really irrelevant to the point - which is whether he said it at all.
Raz's summary was "You[r] theology is as harmful as child abuse". This was attacked as " gross slander and misrepresentation of Dawkins". It isn't an answer to say that, well, if Dawkins really
did say it, he was right.
Why is it "bigoted" to consider someone else's worldview in raising kids harmful?
Is one a "bigot" if one considers parents who feed their children only chicken nuggerts harmful?
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2012, 07:32:07 PM
Why is it "bigoted" to consider someone else's worldview in raising kids harmful?
Is one a "bigot" if one considers parents who feed their children only chicken nuggerts harmful?
Analogies? Really?
Catholicism may not be *quite* as bad, but growing up Calvinist thinking that there's a hell and it's ultimately beyond my power to avoid it was pretty fucking scary.
Yeah, it's a dumb analogy, but why is it wrong to bash what is, ultimately, a mutable characteristic and an ideological position?
"could be" /= is
for academics there is a big difference between "could be" and is. To paraphrase Dawkins
- The mental anguish caused by threats of eternal torture and hellfire could be as harmful as actual sexual abuse.
and
- To label a child born of catholic or muslim parents a catholic or muslim child is child abuse.
one is a conditional statement from a person outside the field speculating on the issue referring to a third party claiming as fact what Dawkins suggests we consider. The gross misrepresentation is first of all in mixing the two together to get a resulting idea which the speaker does not hold. I called it gross slander and misrepresentation because that's how Dawkins has responded to the same claim repeatedly.
Dawkins did not say that and Raz removing any caveats changing the 'could be' to 'is' and picking and choosing adejctives and adverbs can't make it so. Malthus is referring to an article where Dawkins refers to the many suits against he Catholic Church for sexual abuse which the mental abuse involved in the physical abuse is part of the suit, wonders why the mental abuse of the threat of eternal torture in hell is not being treated the same way and then he says
"I am not advocating this course of action. [...] All I am doing is calling attention to an anomaly."
The specific misrepresentation perpetrated by Raz here is to take a speculation about the consequence of a minority practice within one religion and generalizing it into a definitive statement about all practices of all religions.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 07:20:47 PM
Sounds like simply bringing them up Catholic is mental abuse. I didn't see the word "Hell' in there at all. Of course Hell is part of Catholic theology, so perhaps you have a point. If it is abusive then it follows that it should be banned. Unless Dawkins is cool with child abuse. The only conclusion I can make is that either Child abuse shouldn't be a crime, or teaching religion to children should be. If there is a third way to interpret it, please tell me.
From the article.
QuoteIt will be said that the Catholic Church no longer preaches hell fire in its full horror. That depends on how upmarket is your area and how progressive your priest . But eternal punishment certainly was the normal doctrine dished out to congregations, including terrified children, back in the time when many of the priests now facing expulsion or prosecution committed their physical abuses. Most of the victims bringing or supporting lawsuits are now in their middle years. They therefore, along with many others who were never physically abused, probably experienced mental terrorism of the hell fire type. The long retrospect of the law entitles middle-aged victims to lucrative redress, decades after they suffered physically. Nobody thinks the physical injuries of sexual abuse could possibly last decades , so the damages now being claimed have to be the mental consequences of the original physical abuse. A typical claimant, now 54, said that his "life was marred by inexplicable confusions, anger, depression and lost faith." (Parenthetically, one can't help marvelling at the idea of a life being marred by lost faith. Perhaps it would get the sympathy of a jury.) But the point is this. If you can sue for the long-term mental damage caused by physical child abuse, why should you not sue for the long-term mental damage caused by mental child abuse? Only a minority of priests abuse the bodies of the children in their care. But how many priests abuse their minds? Why aren't Catholics and ex-Catholics lining up to sue the church into the ground, for a lifetime of psychological damage?
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 05:55:38 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 06, 2012, 04:30:07 PM
Still a stupid thing to say. Dawkins is an agitating self-righteous dick.
And before you go that route, I'm an atheist.
The difference between what he actually says and what people say he says is quite staggering. Chistopher Hitchens might have been a aggitating self-righteous dick, Dawkins is not. He doesn't knock on doors and he only speaks when invited, which is much more than you can say about the randomly picked preacher.
Eh? People liked Hitchens alot more than they do Dawkins.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on February 06, 2012, 08:08:35 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 05:55:38 PM
The difference between what he actually says and what people say he says is quite staggering. Chistopher Hitchens might have been a aggitating self-righteous dick, Dawkins is not. He doesn't knock on doors and he only speaks when invited, which is much more than you can say about the randomly picked preacher.
Eh? People liked Hitchens alot more than they do Dawkins.
You're probably still wondering why all the girls you liked in high school preferred arrogant shitheads as boyfriends. People liked Hitchens more because he was basically harrassing and humiliating the indoctrinated idiots who didn't have the mental facilities to realize they were outmatched and humiliated. He made us atheists feel good when "our team" was winning. He was also tolerated by even theists because he fit their view of what an lapsed believer that is angry at god is. Hitchens was a bully and acted like a bully and anybody who knew their 2 Timothy would know that good christians will be persecuted.
Dawkins doesn't fit that mold, he boils every question down to if a statement is true or not and what evidence backs it up. Hitchens is making the arguments of 100 years ago, the arguments of Ingersol. Dawkins is making the arguments of Huxley. In a sense Dawkins tests while Hitchens mocks.
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2012, 04:37:59 AM
I have also not been granted the "grace" of having voices in my head telling me to kill the president but I am not going to apologize for that.
If the president were Hitler and you let him stay President you probably should.
Talking to Viking about Atheism...why bother? :zzz
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 08:00:02 PM
"could be" /= is
for academics there is a big difference between "could be" and is. To paraphrase Dawkins
- The mental anguish caused by threats of eternal torture and hellfire could be as harmful as actual sexual abuse.
and
- To label a child born of catholic or muslim parents a catholic or muslim child is child abuse.
one is a conditional statement from a person outside the field speculating on the issue referring to a third party claiming as fact what Dawkins suggests we consider. The gross misrepresentation is first of all in mixing the two together to get a resulting idea which the speaker does not hold. I called it gross slander and misrepresentation because that's how Dawkins has responded to the same claim repeatedly.
Dawkins did not say that and Raz removing any caveats changing the 'could be' to 'is' and picking and choosing adejctives and adverbs can't make it so. Malthus is referring to an article where Dawkins refers to the many suits against he Catholic Church for sexual abuse which the mental abuse involved in the physical abuse is part of the suit, wonders why the mental abuse of the threat of eternal torture in hell is not being treated the same way and then he says
"I am not advocating this course of action. [...] All I am doing is calling attention to an anomaly."
The specific misrepresentation perpetrated by Raz here is to take a speculation about the consequence of a minority practice within one religion and generalizing it into a definitive statement about all practices of all religions.
:lol: You are quibbling. He was saying "Could be more" not "Could be less". Dawkins is only pointing out an anomaly because if he pursues this line of thinking any further it paints him into a corner as either an enabler of child abuse or a totalitarian nut. He over stepped, and realized that he had shown to much of his true colors, and felt the need to step back. Of course this isn't the first time he's equated child abuse with religion
QuoteMy colleague the psychologist Nicholas Humphrey used the "sticks and stones" proverb in introducing his Amnesty Lecture in Oxford in 1997. Humphrey began his lecture by arguing that the proverb is not always true, citing the case of Haitian Voodoo believers who die, apparently from some psychosomatic effect of terror, within days of having a malign "spell" cast upon them. He then asked whether Amnesty International, the beneficiary of the lecture series to which he was contributing, should campaign against hurtful or damaging speeches or publications. His answer was a resounding no to such censorship in general: "Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with." But he then went on to shock his liberal self by advocating one important exception: to argue in favour of censorship for the special case of children ... "... moral and religious education, and especially the education a child receives at home, where parents are allowed – even expected – to determine for their children what counts as truth and falsehood, right and wrong. Children, I'll argue, have a human right not to have their minds crippled by exposure to other people's bad ideas – no matter who these other people are. Parents, correspondingly, have no God-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose: no right to limit the horizons of their children's knowledge, to bring them up in an atmosphere of dogma and superstition, or to insist they follow the straight and narrow paths of their own faith. In short, children have a right not to have their minds addled by nonsense, and we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, in the literal truth of the Bible or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon." [pp. 325-326
From his "God Delusion".
Apperently Mr. Dawkins signed some sort of petition that banned religious teaching to children
QuoteIn order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.
He seemed to have it on his site, but later dropped it claimed he hadn't read it properly and no longer supports it ( I can't seem to find the whole petition online). So either he sign things without reading or he has totalitarian leanings and has to step back when he is called on them. I see a pattern for the second one.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2012, 08:39:43 PM
Talking to Viking about Atheism...why bother? :zzz
It's what he likes to talk about. It's like Slargos and Jews.
Quote from: Viking on February 06, 2012, 08:21:01 PM
You're probably still wondering why all the girls you liked in high school preferred arrogant shitheads as boyfriends. People liked Hitchens more because he was basically harrassing and humiliating the indoctrinated idiots who didn't have the mental facilities to realize they were outmatched and humiliated. He made us atheists feel good when "our team" was winning. He was also tolerated by even theists because he fit their view of what an lapsed believer that is angry at god is. Hitchens was a bully and acted like a bully and anybody who knew their 2 Timothy would know that good christians will be persecuted.
Dawkins doesn't fit that mold, he boils every question down to if a statement is true or not and what evidence backs it up. Hitchens is making the arguments of 100 years ago, the arguments of Ingersol. Dawkins is making the arguments of Huxley. In a sense Dawkins tests while Hitchens mocks.
Yeah, that it. Everyone is simply stupid. That's why they don't agree with Hitchens. I certainly hope Dawkins isn't making the arguments of Huxley. Huxley wasn't even a confirmed Darwinist. Well, he did have some
Social Darwinist tendencies.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 06, 2012, 08:41:08 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2012, 08:39:43 PM
Talking to Viking about Atheism...why bother? :zzz
It's what he likes to talk about. It's like Slargos and Jews.
Indeed and notice that I don't encourage Slargos to talk about Muslims (his real bugbear).
He can be amusing while he hangs himself.
Quote from: garbon on February 06, 2012, 07:40:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2012, 07:32:07 PM
Why is it "bigoted" to consider someone else's worldview in raising kids harmful?
Is one a "bigot" if one considers parents who feed their children only chicken nuggerts harmful?
Analogies? Really?
I'm not saying these are analogous. I just oppose a world where you can criticize someone's eating habits but you can't criticize their religion. I think we have become some sort of pussified society where "not being offended" has become one of the fundamental rights, which is idiotic.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 06, 2012, 07:55:42 PM
Yeah, it's a dumb analogy, but why is it wrong to bash what is, ultimately, a mutable characteristic and an ideological position?
I don't think it's even wrong to bash someone immutable characteristic - as long as you are not using violence or inciting to violence and everybody has the level playing field guaranteed from a legal perspective.
I think the whole mutable vs. immutable divide is a red herring. It just leads to unproductive discussions whether being gay is a choice or whether "race" exists or whether one chooses one religion or grows up into it. People are different. As long as they don't harm others, law should not prevent them from being whatever the hell they want to be. But none of these makes them immune to criticism from people who think less of them because of that.
Now, I think the problem lies with people wanting to legislate morality (at the both sides of the aisle) and ban or hinder stuff they don't agree with but that do not actively harm other people - but this is the attitude we should fight, and not "bigotry".
If you can tell me I'm going to a non-existent, evidenceless Hell (usually with a smirk), ...that's all the excuse I need to mock the totality of your superstition.
If I don't know that's what you think, we have no problem. As it should be.
Bibles, Qurans, Torahs and etc. are for your personal delusions, keep it that way.
Thanks :)
You've got Dawkins saying that in certain circumstances bringing up a child in a religious environment can be more damaging than sexual abuse (I paraphrase).
OTOH you have thousands of religious types saying that if you don't bring up your child in a certain way you are digustingly immoral and condemning your child to an eternity of torture.
But of course it's the atheists who are the sanctimonious, smug ones.
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 05:13:49 AM
But of course it's the atheists who are the sanctimonious, smug ones.
Oft times yes.
I think the root of the problem is really that most people cannot cope with a low-key "internal" conflict on a social level. As a species, we have a hard time going about our business when two or more mutually exclusive worldviews exist within what we perceive as a "community" or "society" - it probably has some old time evolutionary roots.
So whenever we identify a source of that conflict - i.e. people who think differently than us - we tend to escalate this conflict into a war (whether a real war, or a figurative "Phelps-Dawkins war" if our societies have strong enough anti-violence controls) by trying to impose our own worldview as dominant and achieve a total victory.
Which probably makes the unique ability of some people to accept the middle ground to be the most valuable thing differentiating us from animals - there is nothing more beastial than standing by one's principles and rejecting any "rotten compromise".
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 07:11:53 AM
Which probably makes the unique ability of some people to accept the middle ground to be the most valuable thing differentiating us from animals - there is nothing more beastial than standing by one's principles and rejecting any "rotten compromise".
:yeahright:
Beasts are quite practical and have no principles. In instances where they appear stubborn, it's probably because an alternative hasn't occurred to them.
While Poles on the other hand...
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 05:13:49 AM
You've got Dawkins saying that in certain circumstances bringing up a child in a religious environment can be more damaging than sexual abuse (I paraphrase).
OTOH you have thousands of religious types saying that if you don't bring up your child in a certain way you are digustingly immoral and condemning your child to an eternity of torture.
But of course it's the atheists who are the sanctimonious, smug ones.
Immorality and Hell are not matters of law. Child abuse is though. So on one hand you have someone saying that teaching your children something is possibly in the same category of a criminal act if not worse, and the other saying it is immoral and they may get punished by for by some kind of divine authority. I suppose that's not really a matter of smugness and sanctimony on the part of the Atheist but a desire to curtail human rights or a manifestation of extreme hatred. The smugness comes from the patronizing and insulting attitude that so many atheist adopt.
The quality of writing on Slate is somewhere between Maxim and my Grade School paper. This is pathetic even by their standards. And that cartoon is atrocious.
Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.
Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.
They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.
They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism
They don't make their followers take poison.
We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.
I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Raz, Christians actually do want to curtail rights of people they consider sinful - e.g. by legislating bans on adoptions by gay people (and not even by gay couples, but also trying to ban individual homosexuals from adopting).
I don't think even Dawkins ever gone so far as to want to ban adoptions by Christians.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2012, 07:56:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 07:11:53 AM
Which probably makes the unique ability of some people to accept the middle ground to be the most valuable thing differentiating us from animals - there is nothing more beastial than standing by one's principles and rejecting any "rotten compromise".
:yeahright:
Beasts are quite practical and have no principles. In instances where they appear stubborn, it's probably because an alternative hasn't occurred to them.
Their "principles" are biological imperatives. A wolf cannot decide to live side by side with a sheep and reach a reasonable compromise.
Humans have biological imperatives too. Principles are artificial constructs that only humans have. It seems rather bizarre to claim that hewing to them is bestial.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 07, 2012, 09:34:28 AM
Humans have biological imperatives too. Principles are artificial constructs that only humans have. It seems rather bizarre to claim that hewing to them is bestial.
I'm saying that ability to put ourselves in the other person's shoes and to be satisfied with a middle ground, where our imperatives are not victorious but exist side by side with possibly conflicting imperatives of other people is what differentiates us from animals. Is this so hard to understand?
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 09:24:28 AM
Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.
Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.
They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.
They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism
They don't make their followers take poison.
We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.
I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Really? Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement. He has quite a few devoted followers. I think he is quite representative. I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
Raz, Christians actually do want to curtail rights of people they consider sinful - e.g. by legislating bans on adoptions by gay people (and not even by gay couples, but also trying to ban individual homosexuals from adopting).
I don't think even Dawkins ever gone so far as to want to ban adoptions by Christians.
Do all Christians want this, Marty? It does seem unfair to compare one man to a nebulous group.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 09:36:52 AM
I'm saying that ability to put ourselves in the other person's shoes and to be satisfied with a middle ground, where our imperatives are not victorious but exist side by side with possibly conflicting imperatives of other people is what differentiates us from animals. Is this so hard to understand?
No, I just don't fully agree. Animals may lack empathy, but they frequently must accept compromises of sorts with each other, it's not always predator vs prey interactions. This isn't the core of what makes humans unique.
Really? Why do you think he is representative. How do you know how many "followers" he has? Twitter?
Are they like the Pope's followers? Do they think he is infallible? Do they go to his church every week and drop money in a collection box?
I doubt you actually believe what you are writing. I'm guessing you're just passing the time.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 09:42:43 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
Raz, Christians actually do want to curtail rights of people they consider sinful - e.g. by legislating bans on adoptions by gay people (and not even by gay couples, but also trying to ban individual homosexuals from adopting).
I don't think even Dawkins ever gone so far as to want to ban adoptions by Christians.
Do all Christians want this, Marty? It does seem unfair to compare one man to a nebulous group.
I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.
It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.
It seems to me that ascribing to all atheists alleged views of Dawkins seems more disingenuous than ascribing to Christians actual views (as expressed in the laws they adopt) of the majority of their elected representatives.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.
It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.
You're overlooking the other other arguments against gay adoption. A person doesn't have to believe that gays are immoral sinners to think children are better off raised by a man and a woman.
Quote from: Martinus on February 06, 2012, 07:32:07 PM
Why is it "bigoted" to consider someone else's worldview in raising kids harmful?
Is one a "bigot" if one considers parents who feed their children only chicken nuggerts harmful?
It is his lack of a sense of proportion that is the problem.
He's like those vegitarians who go on about how eating meat is worse than the Holocaust. They may or may not have a point about the virtues of vegitarianism, but their stridency is off-putting and when they go too far in condemning some individual group or other, can easily sound like bigotry - even to those who happen to think vegitarianism is correct.
Someone going on about how eating meat is worse than the Holocaust is more funny than offensive, because it is obviously silly but isn't attacking any one group. Someone going on about how raising kids Catholic is worse than pedophilia isn't as funny, even though it is just as silly, because it is directly targeting a specific identifiable group.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2012, 09:56:03 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.
It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.
You're overlooking the other other arguments against gay adoption. A person doesn't have to believe that gays are immoral sinners to think children are better off raised by a man and a woman.
Notice I wasn't talking about adoption by gay couples, but by people who are of homosexual orientation. These states do not ban adoption by single people, as long as they are heterosexual.
Also, I was talking about real bigotry (i.e. trying to adopt laws that curtail rights of others) - your "arguments" are exactly that type of bigotry and prejudice (as opposed to simply disliking someone).
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 09:49:25 AM
Really? Why do you think he is representative. How do you know how many "followers" he has? Twitter?
Are they like the Pope's followers? Do they think he is infallible? Do they go to his church every week and drop money in a collection box?
I doubt you actually believe what you are writing. I'm guessing you're just passing the time.
Wait you actually have to be considered infallible and have a church and given donations to be considered to have "followers". Does that fact that he is frequently invited to speak at places, and has written numerous books (which he has made quite the profit from), have any meaning to you? Lets see, he's Vice President of the British Humanist Associations. Everytime you here or see the word "Meme", you can thank him. He coined the term. I think it's fair to say he's representative and has followers.
But lets back up. You mentioned Burqas and the forcing of women to wear them. Tell me, in the enlightened lands of Western Europe are there any restriction on what people can wear? Can you walk around nude all the time in most European countries? Can I wear a T-shirt with a Swastika on it in Germany? Or do people make you wear certain clothes or prevent you wearing other clothes?
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 09:52:49 AM
I am not sure I understand any more what your point is, Raz.
It seems that enough Christians want this that such laws actually get passed in certain US states (I think Arizona or Florida had this on their books). On the other hand, as far as I am aware, a law to ban Christians from adopting has never been even put to a vote.
It seems to me that ascribing to all atheists alleged views of Dawkins seems more disingenuous than ascribing to Christians actual views (as expressed in the laws they adopt) of the majority of their elected representatives.
I suppose we can play this game. What do Atheists "Want" What laws have Atheistic regimes passed?
LOL Raz. High quality trolling. You really need to get a job, it's a shame that you are wasting your intelligence and eloquence on this kind of crap.
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 10:21:41 AM
LOL Raz. High quality trolling. You really need to get a job, it's a shame that you are wasting your intelligence and eloquence on this kind of crap.
Is there something I said that was incorrect? Please point me to what statement I made that was inaccurate. Or are you bowing out?
Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations. You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.
The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid. It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 10:24:52 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 10:21:41 AM
LOL Raz. High quality trolling. You really need to get a job, it's a shame that you are wasting your intelligence and eloquence on this kind of crap.
Is there something I said that was incorrect? Please point me to what statement I made that was inaccurate. Or are you bowing out?
Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.
Dawkins is the world leader of the church of atheism. All atheists follow him, except for the heretical splitters. We know this because he gets invited to speak at places and has made money from writing books.
Western Europeans have no more choice when it comes to clothing then women in Saudi Arabia.
All atheists are sanctimonious and smug, following in the footsteps of their Fuhrer Dawkins
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 10:48:16 AM
Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.
You need to get your priorities right.
Yeah, I'm having a hard time grasping what Marty is getting at.
What I don't like about Dawkins is the sense he against freedom of speech and religion. Of course he doesn't say that, but some ideas and statements indicate this opinion. In particular the idea of "memes". Memes are popular nonsense. It's supporters call it "protoscience", but the idea has been kicking around since the 1970's and the fact that it hasn't fruited into an actual science indicates to me that it never will. I think it's fairer to call it pseudoscience and relegate to phrenology and the like. However, meme theory has deeply unpleasant implications. That ideas aren't your own, they are sort of "mind viruses". When viewed through this lens the freedom of to hold and promulgate ideas is eroded. You don't have a right to have a virus. You can sometimes be put under quarantine for having a virus. If we view ideas in the same way as viruses then it makes sense for the state to step in and prevent the spread of "bad ideas".
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2012, 10:50:52 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 10:48:16 AM
Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.
You need to get your priorities right.
I've got my priorities right. My boss is the problem.
Apparently there's no financial upside for him in me spending hours on the internet. I'm sure Raz would put him straight though.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2012, 10:50:52 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 10:48:16 AM
Bowing out. You're a pro. I'm a well-meaning amateur fitting the odd post in around lawyering.
You need to get your priorities right.
Or at least cut down on the strawman statements. Christ, leave some hay for the rest of us.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 10:56:30 AM
Or at least cut down on the strawman statements. Christ, leave some hay for the rest of us.
Now, that's what I'm talking about. Pure quality. Years of training.
Do you deny that
QuoteDawkins is the world leader of the church of atheism. All atheists follow him, except for the heretical splitters. We know this because he gets invited to speak at places and has made money from writing books.
Is a strawman statement. I don't think I or anyone else has argued this.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 10:53:35 AM
Yeah, I'm having a hard time grasping what Marty is getting at.
"Yeah" to what? He is saying "don't be like Marty by making stupid analogies in response to Marty's post." That doesn't mean "Marty is not making sense". It means you aren't making sense.
QuoteWhat I don't like about Dawkins is the sense he against freedom of speech and religion. Of course he doesn't say that, but some ideas and statements indicate this opinion. In particular the idea of "memes". Memes are popular nonsense. It's supporters call it "protoscience", but the idea has been kicking around since the 1970's and the fact that it hasn't fruited into an actual science indicates to me that it never will. I think it's fairer to call it pseudoscience and relegate to phrenology and the like. However, meme theory has deeply unpleasant implications. That ideas aren't your own, they are sort of "mind viruses". When viewed through this lens the freedom of to hold and promulgate ideas is eroded. You don't have a right to have a virus. You can sometimes be put under quarantine for having a virus. If we view ideas in the same way as viruses then it makes sense for the state to step in and prevent the spread of "bad ideas".
That interpretation makes no sense at all. The idea of memes means simply that our ideas and the way we view the world is deeply affected by the society and the community in which we grow up - and some ideas are more likely to spread in communities than others. Surely, there is nothing controversial about this statement - or are you claiming that people develop ideas entirely independently of everything and with no external influence (and for some reason, this is the justification for freedom of speech and religion, too).
Anyway, I'm gonna agree with Gupta and stop arguing with you. You do not respect basic intellectual honesty.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations. You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.
The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid. It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.
Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 11:15:44 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 10:53:35 AM
Yeah, I'm having a hard time grasping what Marty is getting at.
"Yeah" to what? He is saying "don't be like Marty by making stupid analogies in response to Marty's post." That doesn't mean "Marty is not making sense". It means you aren't making sense.
QuoteWhat I don't like about Dawkins is the sense he against freedom of speech and religion. Of course he doesn't say that, but some ideas and statements indicate this opinion. In particular the idea of "memes". Memes are popular nonsense. It's supporters call it "protoscience", but the idea has been kicking around since the 1970's and the fact that it hasn't fruited into an actual science indicates to me that it never will. I think it's fairer to call it pseudoscience and relegate to phrenology and the like. However, meme theory has deeply unpleasant implications. That ideas aren't your own, they are sort of "mind viruses". When viewed through this lens the freedom of to hold and promulgate ideas is eroded. You don't have a right to have a virus. You can sometimes be put under quarantine for having a virus. If we view ideas in the same way as viruses then it makes sense for the state to step in and prevent the spread of "bad ideas".
That interpretation makes no sense at all. The idea of memes means simply that our ideas and the way we view the world is deeply affected by the society and the community in which we grow up - and some ideas are more likely to spread in communities than others. Surely, there is nothing controversial about this statement - or are you claiming that people develop ideas entirely independently of everything and with no external influence (and for some reason, this is the justification for freedom of speech and religion, too).
Anyway, I'm gonna agree with Gupta and stop arguing with you. You do not respect basic intellectual honesty.
I am not sure you grasp the idea of memes.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 11:18:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations. You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.
The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid. It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.
Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.
It just occured to me that I've haven't seen Grumbler post at all today, yet you've adopted his posting style almost entirely. I wonder... :ph34r:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 11:35:43 AM
It just occured to me that I've haven't seen Grumbler post at all today, yet you've adopted his posting style almost entirely. I wonder... :ph34r:
:wacko:
The only similarity I can see between Martinus and grumbler is they both have a tendency to treat any point they disagree with as the stupidest idea ever held.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 11:18:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations. You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.
The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid. It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.
Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.
I'm not sure that CC said anything inaccurate in his post.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2012, 11:48:16 AM
The only similarity I can see between Martinus and grumbler is they both have a tendency to treat any point they disagree with as the stupidest idea ever held.
They also ignore me. And shout out "ad hom" when backed into a corner.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 11:50:17 AM
They also ignore me.
That probably describes a lot of posters.
Religious people are obviously more stupid than non-religious people. But luckily you don't have to be intelligent to go to Heaven.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 11:18:43 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 07, 2012, 10:33:38 AM
Raz, you might want to reflect on the fact that there is no point in following Marti down the road of grossly inaccurate generalizations. You make a couple of good points about Dawkins but you your argument loses force when you start engaging in Marti style generalizations.
The thing I dislike most about Dawkins is that he also has a lot of valid points to make, particulary when he points out the stupidity of the literalist creationists who believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. But then he loses points by assuming that because some people who call themselves Christian are raving lunatics all Christians must be equally stupid. It is, in short, Dawkins' Marti moment.
Anyway, thanks for this post. Nothing like attacking me personally while you are essentially saying my opponent in this discussion is wrong. Classy. It's like a meta ad hom.
You really should stop with the analogies. Its like a meta ad hom? No for it to be an ad hom I would be critical of what you say because it is you saying it. Rather I am critical of what you say because your argument is based on a gross generalization and I was pointing out to Raz that he was beginning to make the same mistake.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 09:24:54 AM
Raz, Christians actually do want to curtail rights of people they consider sinful - e.g. by legislating bans on adoptions by gay people (and not even by gay couples, but also trying to ban individual homosexuals from adopting).
I don't think even Dawkins ever gone so far as to want to ban adoptions by Christians.
I'm sure that you have though.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 09:37:41 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 09:24:28 AM
Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.
Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.
They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.
They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism
They don't make their followers take poison.
We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.
I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Really? Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement. He has quite a few devoted followers. I think he is quite representative. I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.
What have atheists done?
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
What have atheists done?
I too am anxious (possibly even a-twitter!) to hear the enumerated and detailed misadventures of the "New Atheist movement".
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 09:37:41 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 09:24:28 AM
Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.
Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.
They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.
They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism
They don't make their followers take poison.
We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.
I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Really? Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement. He has quite a few devoted followers. I think he is quite representative. I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.
What have atheists done?
They type long and annoying screeds on the internet.
Quote from: Barrister on February 07, 2012, 04:36:17 PM
They type long and annoying screeds on the internet.
Something must be done! :ph34r:
Quote from: Jacob on February 07, 2012, 03:53:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 09:37:41 AM
Quote from: Gups on February 07, 2012, 09:24:28 AM
Assuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.
Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.
They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.
They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism
They don't make their followers take poison.
We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.
I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Really? Mr. Dawkins has positioned himself as a major leader of the "New Athiests" movement. He has quite a few devoted followers. I think he is quite representative. I suspect you are a bit naive about what some atheists have done.
What have atheists done?
Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count? -_-
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count? -_-
If not, then the Christero War certainly should.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 07, 2012, 11:48:16 AM
The only similarity I can see between Martinus and grumbler is they both have a tendency to treat any point they disagree with as the stupidest idea ever held.
Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive. ;)
The reason the "new athiests" to the extent they are a movement are harmless is the same as why they are ineffectual: that despite being fundamentally right, they only get notice or press when they say exaggerated and extreme stuff that pisses (most) people off (the article discussed upthread being a good example). While that gets them notice, it also tends to get them filed in the same mental niche as radical vegetarians and the like.
You don't make waves with 'there is no evidence for any supernatural aspect of any religion'. It is better if you say something like 'only very stupid or insane people could possibly believe in magic sky unicorns' and, even better, 'teaching kids frightening things about magic sky unicorns is worse than having them buggered'.
I can't imagine what possible good this sort of "argument" does. People become athiests for various reasons - most commonly by simple observation of science - but I can't imagine many are insulted into it.
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count? -_-
Are they part of Dawkins' "movement"?
Quote from: Malthus on February 07, 2012, 05:07:46 PM
The reason the "new athiests" to the extent they are a movement are harmless is the same as why they are ineffectual: that despite being fundamentally right, they only get notice or press when they say exaggerated and extreme stuff that pisses (most) people off (the article discussed upthread being a good example). While that gets them notice, it also tends to get them filed in the same mental niche as radical vegetarians and the like.
You don't make waves with 'there is no evidence for any supernatural aspect of any religion'. It is better if you say something like 'only very stupid or insane people could possibly believe in magic sky unicorns' and, even better, 'teaching kids frightening things about magic sky unicorns is worse than having them buggered'.
I can't imagine what possible good this sort of "argument" does. People become athiests for various reasons - most commonly by simple observation of science - but I can't imagine many are insulted into it.
Disagree. What makes them noteworthy is their hatred of religion. They are not content to simply be Atheists, but are devoted to destroying religion. This of course isn't new, but previous groups tended to be communist or fellow travelers. The "New atheists" are the post-communist variant and have for the most part tried to distant themselves from communists. Christopher Hitchens was sort of the link between the old and the new. This hatred is what makes them say silly things and entertain silly ideas like memetics and the Bicameral Mind.
Meh. Not so much hatred as resentment. Only understandable, when religion is always pushing to impose its creed on others.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 07, 2012, 06:38:04 PM
Disagree. What makes them noteworthy is their hatred of religion. They are not content to simply be Atheists, but are devoted to destroying religion. This of course isn't new, but previous groups tended to be communist or fellow travelers. The "New atheists" are the post-communist variant and have for the most part tried to distant themselves from communists. Christopher Hitchens was sort of the link between the old and the new. This hatred is what makes them say silly things and entertain silly ideas like memetics and the Bicameral Mind.
:lol:
Quote from: fahdiz on February 07, 2012, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count? -_-
Are they part of Dawkins' "movement"?
I don't know what Dawkins eats. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 07:42:42 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 07, 2012, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count? -_-
Are they part of Dawkins' "movement"?
I don't know what Dawkins eats. :rolleyes:
His diet consists of pure smug.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 07, 2012, 07:58:19 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 07:42:42 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 07, 2012, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count? -_-
Are they part of Dawkins' "movement"?
I don't know what Dawkins eats. :rolleyes:
His diet consists of pure smug.
With a side of pomposity. Just like any true believer.
Quote from: rufweed on February 07, 2012, 04:47:51 AM
If you can tell me I'm going to a non-existent, evidenceless Hell (usually with a smirk), ...that's all the excuse I need to mock the totality of your superstition.
If I don't know that's what you think, we have no problem. As it should be.
Bibles, Qurans, Torahs and etc. are for your personal delusions, keep it that way.
Thanks :)
The problem with that point of view is it seems to be along the same lines as the argument that homosexuality is OK as long as homosexuals stay in the closest. Both seem to say, in essense, "Be who you are, just don't show it to others".
Quote from: GupsI'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Dawkins does bang on about what he believes, which is what pisses some people off.
He has a right to believe and say what he wants, and those who disagree with him have the right to ignore him, express their disagreement, or just point and laugh.
Quote from: Iormlund on February 07, 2012, 06:46:22 PM
Meh. Not so much hatred as resentment. Only understandable, when religion is always pushing to impose its creed on others.
Perhaps he just resents child abusers as well. I wouldn't see how he has anything to resent. Atheism has made him a very rich man.
The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal :lol:. I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that, or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.
I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 07, 2012, 06:19:11 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 07, 2012, 04:45:41 PM
Not to provide ammunition, but do the CPSU and CCP count? -_-
Are they part of Dawkins' "movement"?
They got grandfathered in, I think. Virtuous Non-believers.
Lenin is in limbo hanging out with Virgil.
Quote from: HVC on February 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal :lol:. I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that, or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.
I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.
There is one good reason to be vocal: some openly consider you to be an inferior person for being an atheist. That kind of idiotic behavior kinda understandably provokes backlash.
Quote from: DGuller on February 08, 2012, 01:08:23 AM
Quote from: HVC on February 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal :lol:. I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that, or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.
I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.
There is one good reason to be vocal: some openly consider you to be an inferior person for being an atheist. That kind of idiotic behavior kinda understandably provokes backlash.
2 Wrongs make a Right?
Often.
Quote from: HVC on February 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal :lol:. I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that, or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.
I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.
This opinion makes no fucking sense. You are essentially arguing for a special treatment/double standards for religions because "that's part of [the] religion" (with, incidentally, the religions themselves deciding what's part of them and what's not) while you are denying atheists the same right to decide that vocal and outspoken "preaching" is part of their world view. That's not just offensively moronic, that's actively discriminatory.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:10:35 AM
2 Wrongs make a Right?
Are you against the right of self defense?
Anyway, this is a classic case of double standards, something also I am familiar with as a gay person.
Straight people can tell everyone about their spouses, their kids, have their pictures all over the desk, can wear a wedding ring, can embrace in public and have other PDAs. But when gay people do anything other than being apologetic "sorry that I live", e.g. hold hands in public, they are "flaunting their sexuality."
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Edit: and if you think that these are not comparable, it just goes to show that atheists are currently more discriminated against than gays.
Quote from: dps on February 07, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Quote from: rufweed on February 07, 2012, 04:47:51 AM
If you can tell me I'm going to a non-existent, evidenceless Hell (usually with a smirk), ...that's all the excuse I need to mock the totality of your superstition.
If I don't know that's what you think, we have no problem. As it should be.
Bibles, Qurans, Torahs and etc. are for your personal delusions, keep it that way.
Thanks :)
The problem with that point of view is it seems to be along the same lines as the argument that homosexuality is OK as long as homosexuals stay in the closest. Both seem to say, in essense, "Be who you are, just don't show it to others".
Quote from: GupsI'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Dawkins does bang on about what he believes, which is what pisses some people off.
He has a right to believe and say what he wants, and those who disagree with him have the right to ignore him, express their disagreement, or just point and laugh.
Wrong. 'Being" who you are is fundamentally different than 'being' what you choose to believe.
Quote from: rufweed on February 08, 2012, 04:20:15 AM
Quote from: dps on February 07, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Quote from: rufweed on February 07, 2012, 04:47:51 AM
If you can tell me I'm going to a non-existent, evidenceless Hell (usually with a smirk), ...that's all the excuse I need to mock the totality of your superstition.
If I don't know that's what you think, we have no problem. As it should be.
Bibles, Qurans, Torahs and etc. are for your personal delusions, keep it that way.
Thanks :)
The problem with that point of view is it seems to be along the same lines as the argument that homosexuality is OK as long as homosexuals stay in the closest. Both seem to say, in essense, "Be who you are, just don't show it to others".
Quote from: GupsI'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Dawkins does bang on about what he believes, which is what pisses some people off.
He has a right to believe and say what he wants, and those who disagree with him have the right to ignore him, express their disagreement, or just point and laugh.
Wrong. 'Being" who you are is fundamentally different than 'being' what you choose to believe.
However, being a dick about either isn't.
I don't know about it. I think being a dick is often as much an inborn trait as being gay or being a lunatic (aka "religious").
As I said before, I don't think the distinction between "choice" and "nature" is a helpful one. I think we just should treat everyone equally. The argument that religious people can spout their nonsense to strangers and semi-strangers (e.g. coworkers) because "it's part of their religion" but atheists cannot do so, is simply ridiculous. Whether religion is an inborn lunacy or a result of acquired brainwashing is irrelevant.
Also, I think that the ability to be a dick about almost anything (whether it is the brands you wear, healthy dieting, sucking cock or believing in invisible faeries in the sky) is perhaps the single unifying trait of the human race. So we should cherish it, not besmirch it.
Without being a dick (and other people being dicks), our lives would be incomparably more boring and monotone.
Quote from: rufweed on February 08, 2012, 04:23:32 AM
Quote from: rufweed on February 08, 2012, 04:20:15 AM
Quote from: dps on February 07, 2012, 10:45:00 PM
Quote from: rufweed on February 07, 2012, 04:47:51 AM
If you can tell me I'm going to a non-existent, evidenceless Hell (usually with a smirk), ...that's all the excuse I need to mock the totality of your superstition.
If I don't know that's what you think, we have no problem. As it should be.
Bibles, Qurans, Torahs and etc. are for your personal delusions, keep it that way.
Thanks :)
The problem with that point of view is it seems to be along the same lines as the argument that homosexuality is OK as long as homosexuals stay in the closest. Both seem to say, in essense, "Be who you are, just don't show it to others".
Quote from: GupsI'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Dawkins does bang on about what he believes, which is what pisses some people off.
He has a right to believe and say what he wants, and those who disagree with him have the right to ignore him, express their disagreement, or just point and laugh.
Wrong. 'Being" who you are is fundamentally different than 'being' what you choose to believe.
However, being a dick about either isn't.
I don't think that I'm being a dick about it. I'm saying that both atheists and people who hold religious beliefs have a right to hold their opinions, and to be vocal about them. But members of neither group should be considered exempt from criticism about it. In both cases, though, I think that saying that they're wrong and you disagree is OK, but calling for state action to silence them is wrong, because it violates their freedom of speech.
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 05:05:34 PM
Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive. ;)
No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 05:05:34 PM
Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive. ;)
No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.
It could be, but in almost all instances it's failry clearly a fig leaf since the only policy outcome of such a position is always that gay people can't adopt. There is never for example any suggestion that adopting couples lose their right to seperate or divorce.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 08:03:08 AM
No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.
That may be optimal(depending on the people involved of course), but surely being raised by a gay couple is better than growing up in an orphanage or with foster parents who see you as nothing but a meal ticket.
Quote
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
This actually reminds me of an underling when I was LORD OF THE CORPORATE UNIVERSE. Dude was off for a bit and came back a hard core atheist. He was a Shiite Atheist. Fucker wouldn't shut up about it, and wouldn't leave this chick alone who wore this giant cross everyday. I think it came off a building. Thing was, she didn't bother anybody with godtalk. But goddamn it, he was going to tell us stupid fuckers about his shit. And his first target, the obvious believer.
Eventually, I gave a sermon from the mount to the dude, because a)he was being a cunt and b) she was going to go to HR, and they would have tore him a new asshole. HR ladies would have cast him into the lake of fire. Even though Shiite atheist was a jerk, I hated HR interference more.
Eventually, there was peace. The heathen gave godgirl a wide birth. AMEN.
From the book of Monkeybutt, 3:16
Quote from: Gups on February 08, 2012, 08:37:01 AM
It could be, but in almost all instances it's failry clearly a fig leaf since the only policy outcome of such a position is always that gay people can't adopt. There is never for example any suggestion that adopting couples lose their right to seperate or divorce.
I think there are jurisdictions that give preference to married heteros over single heteros, which suggests it's more than a fig leaf.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 03:16:08 AM
Anyway, this is a classic case of double standards, something also I am familiar with as a gay person.
Straight people can tell everyone about their spouses, their kids, have their pictures all over the desk, can wear a wedding ring, can embrace in public and have other PDAs. But when gay people do anything other than being apologetic "sorry that I live", e.g. hold hands in public, they are "flaunting their sexuality."
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Edit: and if you think that these are not comparable, it just goes to show that atheists are currently more discriminated against than gays.
There isn't much to say if you are an Atheist other than I don't believe in God. What else is there to do? You can't really hope to "convert" anyone, you can't pray or dress in funny ways. So what it is that you want to do?
Quote
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
1: Overly preachy and annoying religious folk are regarded as pricks too.
2: Religious people believe something, people do tend to go on about what they believe. Athiesm however is the lack of belief.
I mean, I like football, I talk about football a lot and this is fine. I don't however like cricket- it makes absolutely no sense for me to go on and on about cricket.
I hate athiests because they make such a big song and dance about not being religious...if you're not religious then religion should be a non-issue for you as it for the vast majority of irreligious people. I hate the way some make a religion out of non-religion.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 08:47:31 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 08:03:08 AM
No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.
That may be optimal(depending on the people involved of course), but surely being raised by a gay couple is better than growing up in an orphanage or with foster parents who see you as nothing but a meal ticket.
I'm not so sure.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 03:16:08 AM
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
I dunno Marty. When religious types go door to door proseltyzing they are also being annoying assholes. I don't know of anyone who enjoys having Witnesses coming by dropping off copies of the Watchtower. Dressing in a funny way and attracts odd looks no matter whether it is burkha or a mesh top. Anyone can hold a street gathering - whether it be for Easter or for Gay Pride.
Fair point about the gay double standard, but I don't see a double standard for atheists. Annoying is annoying, regardless of beliefs or lack thereof.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 03:16:08 AM
Anyway, this is a classic case of double standards, something also I am familiar with as a gay person.
Straight people can tell everyone about their spouses, their kids, have their pictures all over the desk, can wear a wedding ring, can embrace in public and have other PDAs. But when gay people do anything other than being apologetic "sorry that I live", e.g. hold hands in public, they are "flaunting their sexuality."
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
Edit: and if you think that these are not comparable, it just goes to show that atheists are currently more discriminated against than gays.
You are so goddamn stupid. Nobody said atheists
can't do these things. On the other hand, atheists like you have problem telling people who are religious that they should only do in their homes and keep it out of the public sphere. Of course you are an Eastern European, so persecuting people who do things like that is probably a natural reaction. It is troubling seeing that sort of behavior occurring in Western Europe as well.
I'm curious, are there a lot of "Straight" parade? Have you ever seen "Straight" pride day or something similar?
At least we know what Marty's Atheism stems from. The same place as his homosexuality. His attention whoring desire to be a "Victim" of a cruel society that doesn't appreciate him.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv211%2Fprestondean%2Fjokercornlolz.gif&hash=dd052b5cd31cd5623397cc1694159c7d069333c5)
At the risk of generalizations (and that is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? "The religious" vs. "atheists"), my sense is that most prominent atheists (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and you are a moron for your belief system'. Conversely, leading respectable Christian figures (e.g. the Pope) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and I hope for the sake of your soul and peace of mind, you change your mind.'
Fact: the Pope is almost as Nazi as Günter GraSS.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 08:47:31 AM
That may be optimal(depending on the people involved of course), but surely being raised by a gay couple is better than growing up in an orphanage or with foster parents who see you as nothing but a meal ticket.
I don't know. Orphanages have a horrible history but I don't know why, given proper administration you couldn't have a good state run orphanage that would be superior to some parents.
Tampax's beets are superior to some parents.
Quote from: Tyr on February 08, 2012, 09:17:25 AM
Quote
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
1: Overly preachy and annoying religious folk are regarded as pricks too.
2: Religious people believe something, people do tend to go on about what they believe. Athiesm however is the lack of belief.
I mean, I like football, I talk about football a lot and this is fine. I don't however like cricket- it makes absolutely no sense for me to go on and on about cricket.
I hate athiests because they make such a big song and dance about not being religious...if you're not religious then religion should be a non-issue for you as it for the vast majority of irreligious people. I hate the way some make a religion out of non-religion.
I wonder where people like you or garbon, who say that for an atheist religion is a non-issue come from - because that certainly is no country or place on earth where people argue that we should respect "Christian values" or bullshit like that. :huh:
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 10:08:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 03:16:08 AM
Religious people can pray in public, can dress in a funny way, can kill animals in a special way, can hold street gatherings, can bother total strangers in the street or by going door to door and preach their hodge podge, can tell everyone who is willing to listen what god means to them and why Jesus is the best thing that can happen not just to them but to you. But when atheist people are not "keeping it to themselves" but are "vocal", they are obnoxious annoying assholes.
Seriously, go fuck yourself.
I dunno Marty. When religious types go door to door proseltyzing they are also being annoying assholes. I don't know of anyone who enjoys having Witnesses coming by dropping off copies of the Watchtower. Dressing in a funny way and attracts odd looks no matter whether it is burkha or a mesh top. Anyone can hold a street gathering - whether it be for Easter or for Gay Pride.
Fair point about the gay double standard, but I don't see a double standard for atheists. Annoying is annoying, regardless of beliefs or lack thereof.
With the door to door etc. stuff I was responding to HVC's claim that "if religious people do it, that's admirable" but when atheists do it it's annoying.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 10:25:23 AM
I'm curious, are there a lot of "Straight" parade? Have you ever seen "Straight" pride day or something similar?
Actually I did. Next question.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
I wonder where people like you or garbon, who say that for an atheist religion is a non-issue come from - because that certainly is no country or place on earth where people argue that we should respect "Christian values" or bullshit like that. :huh:
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Can you answer my question about what you'd like to be able to do as an Atheist that you can't do?
Actually, I'm not even sure what the post I quoted is supposed to mean.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 08, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
At the risk of generalizations (and that is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? "The religious" vs. "atheists"), my sense is that most prominent atheists (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and you are a moron for your belief system'. Conversely, leading respectable Christian figures (e.g. the Pope) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and I hope for the sake of your soul and peace of mind, you change your mind.'
Not really but nice strawman.
Atheists that you mention approach the other side from the perspective of "you are wrong and I hope for the sake of the psychological and physical wellbeing of you and those around you, you change your mind."
An irrational religion mindset can lead to innumerable damage to people - from suicide attempts by gay kids raised as Baptists to inter-religion conflicts to Jehovah witnesses refusing to have blood transfussion.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 05:05:34 PM
Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive. ;)
No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.
I guess those people who legitimately argue that have some plan to enact that then? I mean, beyond discriminating against homosexuals when it comes to adoption. Maybe we're looking at outlawing divorce? Or maybe taking kids away from single parents and assigning them to married couples?
Raz, I'm still waiting for you to explain what "atheists have done" that Gups is apparently being naive about.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 12:32:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:28:57 PM
I wonder where people like you or garbon, who say that for an atheist religion is a non-issue come from - because that certainly is no country or place on earth where people argue that we should respect "Christian values" or bullshit like that. :huh:
I'm not sure what that has to do with my post. Can you answer my question about what you'd like to be able to do as an Atheist that you can't do?
Actually, I'm not even sure what the post I quoted is supposed to mean.
A pop startlet here said recently that Bible was written by a bunch of crazy old dudes who were high on weed. She was prosecuted and fined for this and technically has a criminal conviction.
A prominent Catholic journalist here said recently that technically there is no difference between gay marriage and a marriage of a man to a goat - since both are unnatural perversions. He was sued by a gay rights organisation for defamation and won.
So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 12:38:58 PM
So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?
Yeah that seems to be an entirely different issue.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 12:38:58 PM
So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?
It has freedom of speech when it comes to religious people spouting their nonsense, but it doesn't when it comes to atheists criticising religion.
Saying this is not an issue of discrimination of atheists but an issue of a lack of freedom of speech is like saying that gay marriage bans are not an issue of discrimination of gays but an issue of "freedom of marriage". It obfuscates the discrimination at the heart of the problem.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:41:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 12:38:58 PM
So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?
It has freedom of speech when it comes to religious people spouting their nonsense, but it doesn't when it comes to atheists criticising religion.
Saying this is not an issue of discrimination of atheists but an issue of a lack of freedom of speech is like saying that gay marriage bans are not an issue of discrimination of gays but an issue of "freedom of marriage". It obfuscates the discrimination at the heart of the problem.
The heart of the problem is allowing different standards for free speech by special interest groups. Are there any other issues you have, if Poland adopted sensible free speech laws?
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 12:37:19 PM
Raz, I'm still waiting for you to explain what "atheists have done" that Gups is apparently being naive about.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjKJNP.jpg&hash=afc19ecd97c97f36e7bbd5dfc55b933d1b265210)
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:30:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 10:25:23 AM
I'm curious, are there a lot of "Straight" parade? Have you ever seen "Straight" pride day or something similar?
Actually I did. Next question.
Well, since I posted two questions then don't have to come back to me to ask for another question.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:37:42 PM
A prominent Catholic journalist here said recently that technically there is no difference between gay marriage and a marriage of a man to a goat - since both are unnatural perversions. He was sued by a gay rights organisation for defamation and won.
Well if it makes the goat-marrier happy, then that's what counts. Human rights and all that shit, right?
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 08, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
At the risk of generalizations (and that is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? "The religious" vs. "atheists"), my sense is that most prominent atheists (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and you are a moron for your belief system'. Conversely, leading respectable Christian figures (e.g. the Pope) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and I hope for the sake of your soul and peace of mind, you change your mind.'
Not really but nice strawman.
Atheists that you mention approach the other side from the perspective of "you are wrong and I hope for the sake of the psychological and physical wellbeing of you and those around you, you change your mind."
An irrational religion mindset can lead to innumerable damage to people - from suicide attempts by gay kids raised as Baptists to inter-religion conflicts to Jehovah witnesses refusing to have blood transfussion.
Really? Hitchens expressed dismay that he didn't get to see the Pope die before he did. That doesn't sound very nice.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 12:34:52 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 05:05:34 PM
Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive. ;)
No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.
I guess those people who legitimately argue that have some plan to enact that then? I mean, beyond discriminating against homosexuals when it comes to adoption. Maybe we're looking at outlawing divorce? Or maybe taking kids away from single parents and assigning them to married couples?
Yi gets into trouble by saying "should be".
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
However that's clearly not always possible. People die. People get divorced. People have a midlife crisis and discover their homosexuality.
While a traditional family might be the ideal, government foster care is just about the worst situation imaginable. Taking children from, say, a single parent and putting them into care would be a disaster. The single parent might be ideal, but few things in life are, and a single parent can certainly raise a successful and well-adjusted child - as can a same sex couple. The foster care system on the other hand has consistently shown it has trouble raising successful well-adjusted children.
So absolutely not - kids shouldn't be taken away from parents just because they are not ideal.
However when it comes to adoption it's a different story. I have no problem with traditional couples being given preference. However, since I think the system does a terrible job, I certainly wouldn't prohibit non-traditional families from adopting.
Quote from: HVC on February 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal :lol:. I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that, or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.
I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.
I would agree with you if political decisions were not being informed by the religious beliefs of the majority. However, we do not and cannot live in such a world. Therefore, I think it is important for people, particularly young people, to hear the other side as it were.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as I actually find it rather offensive. :(
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.
I agree. The best environment for raising children is a loving caring enviornment. I see no evidence that two mothers or two fathers are any less able to provide such an enviornment than a man and a woman. Rather, I think the evidence is to the contrary.
So let me see if I understand your reasoning Raz...
Gups says he thinks you mischaracterize Dawkins and that even if your characterization is correct, it does not reflect what most Atheists, such as Gups, think.
You respond to that with saying that Dawkins claims to lead the "New Atheist" movement, that that is representative of Atheists and that Gups is naive about what some Atheists have done.
And what you meant by "what some Atheists have done" was "death camps" (I'm assuming that's what your picture is supposed to refer to).
So if I understand what you're trying to say correctly, it is that Gups is naive about Atheists because he doesn't realize that Dawkins supports Nazi death camps? That seems a bit outlandish.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:22:28 PM
So if I understand what you're trying to say correctly, it is that Gups is naive about Atheists because he doesn't realize that Dawkins supports Nazi death camps? That seems a bit outlandish.
Crazier things have been proven true. :D
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as I actually find it rather offensive. :(
It certainly is a premise that can not be "proven". It's such a political sensitive topic on both sides of the "culture war" that I think it would be difficult to conclusively establish one way or another.
I certainly agree with CC that the best environment is a loving, caring environment, and that gender / sexuality issues are not the first and last consideration. Indeed I thuoght I said just that.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
Yi gets into trouble by saying "should be".
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
However that's clearly not always possible. People die. People get divorced. People have a midlife crisis and discover their homosexuality.
While a traditional family might be the ideal, government foster care is just about the worst situation imaginable. Taking children from, say, a single parent and putting them into care would be a disaster. The single parent might be ideal, but few things in life are, and a single parent can certainly raise a successful and well-adjusted child - as can a same sex couple. The foster care system on the other hand has consistently shown it has trouble raising successful well-adjusted children.
So absolutely not - kids shouldn't be taken away from parents just because they are not ideal.
However when it comes to adoption it's a different story. I have no problem with traditional couples being given preference. However, since I think the system does a terrible job, I certainly wouldn't prohibit non-traditional families from adopting.
I don't think the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father. The best environment for raising children is in a traditional extended family with two pairs of engaged grandparents within easy reach, as well as uncles and aunts who are willing to pitch in as necessary. Clearly we should limit adoption to couples who themselves have healthy active parents willing to take on part of the responsibility.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as I actually find it rather offensive. :(
It is, yes.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:26:27 PMIt certainly is a premise that can not be "proven". It's such a political sensitive topic on both sides of the "culture war" that I think it would be difficult to conclusively establish one way or another.
I certainly agree with CC that the best environment is a loving, caring environment, and that gender / sexuality issues are not the first and last consideration. Indeed I thuoght I said just that.
So "non-traditional" families are inferior but we shouldn't discriminate too much against them, just a little bit? They shouldn't be prevented from adopting, just be put in the back of the queue?
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:26:37 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
Yi gets into trouble by saying "should be".
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
However that's clearly not always possible. People die. People get divorced. People have a midlife crisis and discover their homosexuality.
While a traditional family might be the ideal, government foster care is just about the worst situation imaginable. Taking children from, say, a single parent and putting them into care would be a disaster. The single parent might be ideal, but few things in life are, and a single parent can certainly raise a successful and well-adjusted child - as can a same sex couple. The foster care system on the other hand has consistently shown it has trouble raising successful well-adjusted children.
So absolutely not - kids shouldn't be taken away from parents just because they are not ideal.
However when it comes to adoption it's a different story. I have no problem with traditional couples being given preference. However, since I think the system does a terrible job, I certainly wouldn't prohibit non-traditional families from adopting.
I don't think the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father. The best environment for raising children is in a traditional extended family with two pairs of engaged grandparents within easy reach, as well as uncles and aunts who are willing to pitch in as necessary. Clearly we should limit adoption to couples who themselves have healthy active parents willing to take on part of the responsibility.
Fair point about extended families.
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:34:10 PM
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on February 08, 2012, 10:41:49 AM
At the risk of generalizations (and that is what this whole discussion is about, isn't it? "The religious" vs. "atheists"), my sense is that most prominent atheists (e.g. Hitchens, Dawkins) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and you are a moron for your belief system'. Conversely, leading respectable Christian figures (e.g. the Pope) approach the other side from the perspective of 'you are wrong, and I hope for the sake of your soul and peace of mind, you change your mind.'
Not really but nice strawman.
Atheists that you mention approach the other side from the perspective of "you are wrong and I hope for the sake of the psychological and physical wellbeing of you and those around you, you change your mind."
An irrational religion mindset can lead to innumerable damage to people - from suicide attempts by gay kids raised as Baptists to inter-religion conflicts to Jehovah witnesses refusing to have blood transfussion.
Not at all. As illustrated here, you can pick and choose and generalize to find good in the side you support and bad in the side that you don't, when the groups are this vague and diverse. Indeed, this whole us vs. them discussion is largely based on broad generalizations of diverse groups - i.e. why "atheists" are perceived as being more irksome than "religious types". So the particular generalizations or 'strawmen' one chooses to make in such a discussion largely depend on one's personal preferences on the topic and/or random life experiences.
Based on my personal beliefs and life experiences - which no doubt contain a significant dose of irrationality and self-justification (as do yours and anyone else's) - I find today's atheists as the more irksome, and can point to the supremely annoying condescending aspect of modern atheism as proof. You choose to point to, as one example, an issue near and dear to your heart - suicide attempts by gay kids raised as Baptists - to help illustrate your cause. I'm sure we could each point at example and counter example until the Second Coming.
In any event, at the end of the day, I think it's fair to say both modern atheists and modern Christians both kind of shitty PR in the marketplace of ideas (unfairly so in one case, if you are partisan). I suspect it's because shrill assholes on both sides are more likely to get heard, and drown out the dull but more reasonable voices. Beyond that, in the current pluralistic environment in which we live, which group you think is a bigger martyr for their cause is more a matter of idiosyncratic/ideological preference than anything else.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:32:17 PMFair point about extended families.
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Right, we should just discriminate a little bit against people with inferior families. As long as there're enough kids to go around, what's the harm in that? There's clearly an important objective in officially classify peoples' families as good or not.
Of course, if there isn't enough babies to go around then you are, in fact, limiting adoption to particular groups in spite of claiming not to.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:22:28 PM
So let me see if I understand your reasoning Raz...
Gups says he thinks you mischaracterize Dawkins and that even if your characterization is correct, it does not reflect what most Atheists, such as Gups, think.
You respond to that with saying that Dawkins claims to lead the "New Atheist" movement, that that is representative of Atheists and that Gups is naive about what some Atheists have done.
And what you meant by "what some Atheists have done" was "death camps" (I'm assuming that's what your picture is supposed to refer to).
So if I understand what you're trying to say correctly, it is that Gups is naive about Atheists because he doesn't realize that Dawkins supports Nazi death camps? That seems a bit outlandish.
Actually, that's not a death camp. That's Mexico during the Christeros war. You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done. :contract: I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.
Also I didn't say Dawkin's leads the New Atheist movement, I said he was a leader in it. Dawkins of course has no political power, but if he really believes that religious education may be worse then child abuse and calling a child a "Christian child" or "Muslim child" qualifies as child abuse then I shudder to think what he would do if he had political power.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.
Is being called "not ideal" denigrating? :hmm:
And I knew that post would stir the pot. :)
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.
Is being called "not ideal" denigrating? :hmm:
Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:40:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.
Is being called "not ideal" denigrating? :hmm:
Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating. :huh:
No offense was intended. If you choose to take offense there is unfortunately little I can do. :(
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:40:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.
Is being called "not ideal" denigrating? :hmm:
Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating. :huh:
No offense was intended. If you choose to take offense there is unfortunately little I can do. :(
Actually there is but don't let that bother your bigoted little head. :console:
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
Right, we should just discriminate a little bit against people with inferior families. As long as there're enough kids to go around, what's the harm in that? There's clearly an important objective in officially classify peoples' families as good or not.
Of course, if there isn't enough babies to go around then you are, in fact, limiting adoption to particular groups in spite of claiming not to.
Of course we should discriminate against inferior families. We're supposed to be looking out for the welfare of the adoptive child. Anything that has a negative impact on that should be looked at.
It's a totally fair question to ask whether a gay couple (or single) has a negative impact compared with a straight couple, but you seem to be positing the adoptive child as some sort of public resource that everyone has an equal right to.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2012, 01:12:46 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal :lol:. I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that, or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.
I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.
I would agree with you if political decisions were not being informed by the religious beliefs of the majority. However, we do not and cannot live in such a world. Therefore, I think it is important for people, particularly young people, to hear the other side as it were.
I agree, with the caveat that the "other side" is not well served by those who write exaggerated polemics about the evils of religion.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 01:36:32 PMActually, that's not a death camp. That's Mexico during the Christeros war. You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done. :contract: I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.
Yeah, I asked what "some atheists have done" because that's what you replied to Gups when he claimed you were mischaracterizing Dawkins, and when Gups said he - and mosts atheists - are not like you characterize Dawkins and do not have any issues with religious people except when they impose their religion on the body politic.
And to that your answer is some minor Mexican civil war from almost a century ago? It's still not really making any sense.
QuoteAlso I didn't say Dawkin's leads the New Atheist movement, I said he was a leader in it. Dawkins of course has no political power, but if he really believes that religious education may be worse then child abuse and calling a child a "Christian child" or "Muslim child" qualifies as child abuse then I shudder to think what he would do if he had political power.
But what does that have to do with the Cristeros war? Or the Spanish Civil War where apparently some nuns were shot? Or any of the other bits of exciting political history of the last century?
Gups made the point that right now people are killing themselves and others in the name of religion while no one is doing so in the name of atheism. If your best counter is something that happened almost a century ago in an entirely different context then that's not much of a counter at all.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
Right, we should just discriminate a little bit against people with inferior families. As long as there're enough kids to go around, what's the harm in that? There's clearly an important objective in officially classify peoples' families as good or not.
Of course, if there isn't enough babies to go around then you are, in fact, limiting adoption to particular groups in spite of claiming not to.
Of course we should discriminate against inferior families. We're supposed to be looking out for the welfare of the adoptive child. Anything that has a negative impact on that should be looked at.
It's a totally fair question to ask whether a gay couple (or single) has a negative impact compared with a straight couple, but you seem to be positing the adoptive child as some sort of public resource that everyone has an equal right to.
I was just going to post something like that. There's no right to adopt.
If you want to say that being a same-sex family is not a negative factor that's completely fair point of view. But it's simply wrong to look at it in terms of rights of the parents.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 01:43:56 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:36:19 PM
Right, we should just discriminate a little bit against people with inferior families. As long as there're enough kids to go around, what's the harm in that? There's clearly an important objective in officially classify peoples' families as good or not.
Of course, if there isn't enough babies to go around then you are, in fact, limiting adoption to particular groups in spite of claiming not to.
Of course we should discriminate against inferior families. We're supposed to be looking out for the welfare of the adoptive child. Anything that has a negative impact on that should be looked at.
It's a totally fair question to ask whether a gay couple (or single) has a negative impact compared with a straight couple, but you seem to be positing the adoptive child as some sort of public resource that everyone has an equal right to.
I agree, though I'd point out that any actual evidence that gay couples are inferior at raising children (as a generality) is somewhat lacking. Single parents, yes, and in adoption they should (rightfully) lose 'marks' as it were for their single-ness, since a decent amount of evidence exists that the kids of single parents have a tougher time - or at least, so I understand.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
No offense was intended. If you choose to take offense there is unfortunately little I can do. :(
Well, you could try not actually being offensive you cheeky pot-stirrer you :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:43:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:42:34 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:40:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:38:29 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:32:17 PM
But I'm pretty sure that if you'd actually look past my first couple lines I'm pretty sure you'd see I didn't think adoption should be limited to any particular group. :contract:
Sure you just denigrated them and then said well at least they are better than government foster care.
Is being called "not ideal" denigrating? :hmm:
Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating. :huh:
No offense was intended. If you choose to take offense there is unfortunately little I can do. :(
Actually there is but don't let that bother your bigoted little head. :console:
Hardly. As Jacob implied, my family is not "ideal" - our extended family is widely scattered and not as involved in our little guy's life as I'd like. I didn't feel insulted when he brought it up.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 01:49:38 PM
Hardly. As Jacob implied, my family is not "ideal" - our extended family is widely scattered and not as involved in our little guy's life as I'd like. I didn't feel insulted when he brought it up.
Not sure if you're honestly suggesting those are the same...:hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:27:27 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:19:07 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 12:48:33 PM
I think I would agree with the statement that 'other things being equal, the best environment for raising children is in a traditional family with a mother and father'.
I think right there that we are starting from a flawed premise.
I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post as I actually find it rather offensive. :(
It is, yes.
You're not even a faggot.
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:40:13 PM
Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating. :huh:
Then you should improve yourself.
Quote from: Neil on February 08, 2012, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:40:13 PM
Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating. :huh:
Then you should improve yourself.
Okay Mr. Haggard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 01:43:56 PMOf course we should discriminate against inferior families. We're supposed to be looking out for the welfare of the adoptive child. Anything that has a negative impact on that should be looked at.
It's a totally fair question to ask whether a gay couple (or single) has a negative impact compared with a straight couple, but you seem to be positing the adoptive child as some sort of public resource that everyone has an equal right to.
No, I don't think so.
I think it's totally fair to do a complete assessment of any given candidate(s) to adopt a child: Do they have a stable life? Are they economically stable? Do they understand the nature of the commitment and are they ready and capable of taking it on? Do they have a support network to draw on? What is the quality of that support network? Do they have any experience that indicates they would be good parents? Is there anything in their history - medical, psychological, criminal, family - that raises red flags about their potential as parents?
That shit is all completely fair, because we want what's best for the child. Look at the particulars and make a decision, no problem. But immediately deciding that people in large abstract categories are de facto less suitable has little to do with caring for the welfare of the child and a lot to do with scoring political points, IMO.
It seems the best would be to have a whole mess of mothers and fathers then, maybe kids raised by 10-20 people.
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 01:44:47 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2012, 01:12:46 PM
Quote from: HVC on February 07, 2012, 11:44:53 PM
The thing that annoys me about vocal atheists, i think, is that fact that there's no reason for them to be vocal :lol:. I don't mind a religious person preaching because in most cases that's part of their religion. They're supposed to do that, or at the very least, in their own weird way, they're trying to "save" me. That's admirable if not a bit condescending. Atheists can't claim the same defense. In most if not all cases atheists come across as asses when they try to prove their point.
I'm not including atheist who argue against "forceful use" (can't think of a better term) of religion like making public school students pray and stuff like that.
I would agree with you if political decisions were not being informed by the religious beliefs of the majority. However, we do not and cannot live in such a world. Therefore, I think it is important for people, particularly young people, to hear the other side as it were.
I agree, with the caveat that the "other side" is not well served by those who write exaggerated polemics about the evils of religion.
Yes, I accept that. I would much rather have the athiest point of view be championed by someone a bit less prone to hyperbole.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 02:00:42 PM
No, I don't think so.
I think it's totally fair to do a complete assessment of any given candidate(s) to adopt a child: Do they have a stable life? Are they economically stable? Do they understand the nature of the commitment and are they ready and capable of taking it on? Do they have a support network to draw on? What is the quality of that support network? Do they have any experience that indicates they would be good parents? Is there anything in their history - medical, psychological, criminal, family - that raises red flags about their potential as parents?
That shit is all completely fair, because we want what's best for the child. Look at the particulars and make a decision, no problem. But immediately deciding that people in large abstract categories are de facto less suitable has little to do with caring for the welfare of the child and a lot to do with scoring political points, IMO.
Not sure I grasp the distinction between red flags raised about their potential as parents and deciding that large abstract categories are de facto less suitable. :hmm:
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 01:48:29 PMI agree, though I'd point out that any actual evidence that gay couples are inferior at raising children (as a generality) is somewhat lacking. Single parents, yes, and in adoption they should (rightfully) lose 'marks' as it were for their single-ness, since a decent amount of evidence exists that the kids of single parents have a tougher time - or at least, so I understand.
I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:
- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.
I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.
*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 01:36:32 PM
You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done. :contract: I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.
That's a pretty bad anti-atheist argument. It isn't too hard to think up of relgious campaigns that take death tolls well over "thousands"
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:58:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on February 08, 2012, 01:54:37 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 08, 2012, 01:40:13 PM
Yes being told that one is subpar is denigrating. :huh:
Then you should improve yourself.
Okay Mr. Haggard.
Merle Haggard? Or did you do a typo while typing Mike Haggar?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 02:08:20 PMNot sure I grasp the distinction between red flags raised about their potential as parents and deciding that large abstract categories are de facto less suitable. :hmm:
Let me start with some examples:
Large abstract politically charged categories: Republican, Muslim, gay, Black, immigrant et. al.
Individually assessed red flags: history of violence and losing your temper, unstable personal economy, personal history of drug use, demonstrated ability to not take care of a animals in their care, criminal record, hostile or no ties with rest of family
Basically the large abstract categories are the ones that are part of the "culture war" in the US. The red flags are based on individual assessment of the potential adopter and are concerned with personal circumstances and qualities that I believe everyone, whatever their political inclination, agree would make someone more or less suitable as a parent.
So because it's poltically charged we rule it out as a red flag? That doesn't make any sense to me. I say we look at the science and let the chips fall as they may.
Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 02:17:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 02:08:20 PMNot sure I grasp the distinction between red flags raised about their potential as parents and deciding that large abstract categories are de facto less suitable. :hmm:
Let me start with some examples:
Large abstract politically charged categories: Republican, Muslim, gay, Black, immigrant et. al.
Individually assessed red flags: history of violence and losing your temper, unstable personal economy, personal history of drug use, demonstrated ability to not take care of a animals in their care, criminal record, hostile or no ties with rest of family
Basically the large abstract categories are the ones that are part of the "culture war" in the US. The red flags are based on individual assessment of the potential adopter and are concerned with personal circumstances and qualities that I believe everyone, whatever their political inclination, agree would make someone more or less suitable as a parent.
It seems to me that you're the one trying to draw a bright line around certain politically charged categories and say "these can never be discussed or considered", when in fact some of them probably should.
Lets take race. Right now social services takes race as a very big consideration, and tries to place children with families of similar background. This has been a big topic around aboriginal children, because aboriginal communities (which unfortunately have very disproportinately large involvement from child welfare agencies) see it as an attempt to 'steal their children'.
Or politics - I doubt you could draw any real distinction between republic and democratic parents, but someone with radical militant politics (say a violent anarchist or white supremacist)? Yeah I think that's a mark against them.
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 08, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.
Don't even try, these guys are just ignoring the sensible options.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 02:09:16 PM
I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:
- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.
I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.
*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".
I think the main disadvantage for single parents has always been the time crunch, especially for lower income workers.
Quote from: PDH on February 08, 2012, 02:32:33 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 08, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.
Don't even try, these guys are just ignoring the sensible options.
I guess I'll save my 'turn them into potted meat' idea then.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 02:37:25 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 02:09:16 PM
I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:
- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.
I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.
*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".
I think the main disadvantage for single parents has always been the time crunch, especially for lower income workers.
In my experience the parents most absent are the ones busy with successful careers. The parents that show up most of the time are the poorer parents who work more of a 9-5 type job. Anecdotal yes, but the only parent that comes and stays at every single practice and comes to every single game of our club basketball team is a single mother.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:47:15 PM
Gups made the point that right now people are killing themselves and others in the name of religion while no one is doing so in the name of atheism. If your best counter is something that happened almost a century ago in an entirely different context then that's not much of a counter at all.
Falun Gong?
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 02:09:16 PM
I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:
- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.
I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.
*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".
There is a reasonable literature on the subject.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x/full
QuoteRecent debates have emerged about the advantage of marriage for adults and children (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are consistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children living with two married, biological parents (e.g., Acs & Nelson, 2002; Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001).
Obviously this is a generality, not a rule. But it does make intuitive sense. Two-parent families are more likely to be stable, they will on average have more resources in terms of both money and time.
And what if they can't get a 9 to 5 job, or the one they can get isn't enough? That's when the second parent would come in especially handy.
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 02:09:16 PM
I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:
- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.
I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.
*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".
There is a reasonable literature on the subject.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x/full
QuoteRecent debates have emerged about the advantage of marriage for adults and children (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are consistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children living with two married, biological parents (e.g., Acs & Nelson, 2002; Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001).
Obviously this is a generality, not a rule. But it does make intuitive sense. Two-parent families are more likely to be stable, they will on average have more resources in terms of both money and time.
Interesting.
Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 03:00:16 PM
And what if they can't get a 9 to 5 job, or the one they can get isn't enough? That's when the second parent would come in especially handy.
Certainly, all kinds of people have all kinds of problems which makes generalizations difficult.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 03:04:03 PM
Interesting.
Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".
Fair enough. :D I'm not certain how not being biologically related to the kids would affect matters, but there is probably more specific studies out there that address the question - I'm simply too lazy to look.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2012, 03:05:35 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 03:00:16 PM
And what if they can't get a 9 to 5 job, or the one they can get isn't enough? That's when the second parent would come in especially handy.
Certainly, all kinds of people have all kinds of problems which makes generalizations difficult.
Yup, which is why no doubt social workers would have some sort of 'score card' looking at a bunch of factors when deciding who should be matched up for adoption.
This will never of course be a perfect system, because of the lack of perfect information. Hence, reliance on approximations and generalities.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 02:26:10 PM
So because it's poltically charged we rule it out as a red flag? That doesn't make any sense to me. I say we look at the science and let the chips fall as they may.
Social sciences are too complex and not conclusive enough to address in those sorts of ways. We must make moral decisions, not scientific ones.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 01:36:32 PM
You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done. :contract: I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.
That's a pretty bad anti-atheist argument. It isn't too hard to think up of relgious campaigns that take death tolls well over "thousands"
I could pick out ones that have millions. But the cry from the atheist camp is 'oh, but there this was done because they were communists or whatever'. So I picked a situation was where the only factor was fighting religion. Of course, religious campaigns almost always have other aspects as well, such as the 9/11 attacks or wars against Israel.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:37:42 PM
A prominent Catholic journalist here said recently that technically there is no difference between gay marriage and a marriage of a man to a goat - since both are unnatural perversions. He was sued by a gay rights organisation for defamation and won.
Oh fuck no! That shit ain't right.
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 01:47:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 01:36:32 PMActually, that's not a death camp. That's Mexico during the Christeros war. You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done. :contract: I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.
Yeah, I asked what "some atheists have done" because that's what you replied to Gups when he claimed you were mischaracterizing Dawkins, and when Gups said he - and mosts atheists - are not like you characterize Dawkins and do not have any issues with religious people except when they impose their religion on the body politic.
And to that your answer is some minor Mexican civil war from almost a century ago? It's still not really making any sense.
QuoteAlso I didn't say Dawkin's leads the New Atheist movement, I said he was a leader in it. Dawkins of course has no political power, but if he really believes that religious education may be worse then child abuse and calling a child a "Christian child" or "Muslim child" qualifies as child abuse then I shudder to think what he would do if he had political power.
But what does that have to do with the Cristeros war? Or the Spanish Civil War where apparently some nuns were shot? Or any of the other bits of exciting political history of the last century?
Gups made the point that right now people are killing themselves and others in the name of religion while no one is doing so in the name of atheism. If your best counter is something that happened almost a century ago in an entirely different context then that's not much of a counter at all.
Gups made that point? I thought it was Marty.
Here's what I was originally responding to
QuoteAssuming that your summary of Dawkins' view is correct (it's not but that doesn't matter), he is just a single atheist, hardly representative.
Atheists don't turn up a soldiers' funerals waving placards about fags and the army.
They don't force women to wear burquas or children to strap on explosives.
They don't protect priests who abuse children or blame that abuse on liberalism
They don't make their followers take poison.
We don't really do anything. I've never been at a meeting for atheists. Never knocked on someone's door to bore them about the good news that God doesn't exist. Never made my kids go to atheist school. Never struck up a conversation with a total stranger to tell them they aren't really saved.
I'm not smug or sanctomonious about Christians or Jews or Muslims. I don't really give a shit what you believe in as long as you don't bang on about it.
Gups is giving the impression that Atheists are harmless and don't care what anyone else does. So I suggest he is naive about Athiests have done in the past. You ask me what atheists have done. So I point to a series of persecutions and atrocities committed by a government for the purpose of suppressing religion. You are saying this makes no sense because it happened in the past and in another place.
What is the point here Raz?
It sounded like you were coming at it that people were correct to hate Atheists in this country....and now you have moved the goalposts to some Atheists have done rotten things in the past...or not all of them are completely tolerant people as Gups suggests.
Well so fucking what? Lots of all sorts of groups have done rotten things in the past I do not see why it is right to hate them.
Quote from: Valmy on February 08, 2012, 03:57:31 PM
What is the point here Raz?
It sounded like you were coming at it that people were correct to hate Atheists in this country....and now you have moved the goalposts to some Atheists have done rotten things in the past...or not all of them are completely tolerant people as Gups suggests.
Well so fucking what? Lots of all sorts of groups have done rotten things in the past I do not see why it is right to hate them.
No, I merely shifted to meet a separate argument. Gups seemed to be suggesting that Athiests were harmless, I point out that this isn't really the case. Atheists can murder and slaughter with the best of them.
I didn't say that it was right to hate atheists, but one the main reasons that atheists are disliked is summed up in that little cartoon at the beginning. The smug 'I take enjoyment in mocking the things you hold sacred' attitude that reminds me of a the older kids on the playground who tell the younger ones there is no Santa Claus just so they can get them to cry.
I also touched on Dawkins and his ilk (the New Athiests), who hate religion and view it as either an illness or something that should be treated as criminal.
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 02:59:35 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 02:09:16 PM
I think the evidence* against single parents are predicated on two things:
- American political code speak meant to invoke poor Black mothers receiving welfare.
- the repercussion of divorce.
I rather expect that if you looked at kids who grew up with a stable single parent as their baseline, rather as a result of cataclysmic changes in the family structure, you'd find that there's no real difference between those kids and those of stable two parent families. In fact, I'm rather certain that the kids growing up with one single, stable parent are better off than those growing up with a pair of flaky unstable ones.
*and I don't know how much of it actually exists and how much of it is simply "common sense".
There is a reasonable literature on the subject.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00876.x/full
QuoteRecent debates have emerged about the advantage of marriage for adults and children (e.g., Waite & Gallagher, 2000). Adolescents in married, two-biological-parent families generally fare better than children in any of the family types examined here, including single-mother, cohabiting stepfather, and married stepfather families. The advantage of marriage appears to exist primarily when the child is the biological offspring of both parents. Our findings are consistent with previous work, which demonstrates children in cohabiting stepparent families fare worse than children living with two married, biological parents (e.g., Acs & Nelson, 2002; Brown, 2001; DeLeire & Kalil, 2002; Hao & Xie, 2001).
Obviously this is a generality, not a rule. But it does make intuitive sense. Two-parent families are more likely to be stable, they will on average have more resources in terms of both money and time.
Interesting. Though I don't think that the conclusion that two-biological-parent families being the best are that relevant to adoption discussions since there are no biological parents involved at all.
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 03:04:03 PMInteresting.
Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".
I was just gonna say that.
Oh wait... I did :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 03:08:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 03:04:03 PM
Interesting.
Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".
Fair enough. :D I'm not certain how not being biologically related to the kids would affect matters, but there is probably more specific studies out there that address the question - I'm simply too lazy to look.
Well apparently it does, because the conclusion you quoted says that two biological parents are better than one biological parent and a step parent.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 03:44:57 PM
I could pick out ones that have millions. But the cry from the atheist camp is 'oh, but there this was done because they were communists or whatever'. So I picked a situation was where the only factor was fighting religion. Of course, religious campaigns almost always have other aspects as well, such as the 9/11 attacks or wars against Israel.
Seems to me the better move for the anti-atheist is to argue that the "people have killed X in the name of religion" is not in fact a good argument against theism. It is not an argument at all against the existence or qualities of God. And it is not even a good argument against religion generally or specifically because people have always killed people for whatever reason they happened to have at hand. But accepting the premise and trying to argue body counts seems like a losing fight.
Why, may I ask? The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. They are confident in their answer. Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society. That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 05:27:52 PM
Why, may I ask? The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. They are confident in their answer. Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society. That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.
No, Dawkins is pretty active in arguing that the Christian God does not exist and that it is foolish to believe in creationism - he wrote a whole book on that topic alone. He also goes on to say that Christian theology is flawed in a number of ways.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 12:41:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 08, 2012, 12:38:58 PM
So your issue is that Poland doesn't have freedom of speech?
It has freedom of speech when it comes to religious people spouting their nonsense, but it doesn't when it comes to atheists criticising religion.
Saying this is not an issue of discrimination of atheists but an issue of a lack of freedom of speech is like saying that gay marriage bans are not an issue of discrimination of gays but an issue of "freedom of marriage". It obfuscates the discrimination at the heart of the problem.
The problem with making that argument to Americans is that if Poland had US-style freedom of speech, there wouldn't be any discrimination between the two cases.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2012, 05:34:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 05:27:52 PM
Why, may I ask? The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. They are confident in their answer. Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society. That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.
No, Dawkins is pretty active in arguing that the Christian God does not exist and that it is foolish to believe in creationism - he wrote a whole book on that topic alone. He also goes on to say that Christian theology is flawed in a number of ways.
Which one is that? Lots of people are athiests, but few go so far as rant about 'viruses of the mind' and the like. It's this type of antipathy that has raised eyebrows. I don't know how much theology Dawkins actually knows about. In fact he doesn't seem to care, when pointed out he doesn't know a great deal of theology he mere said 'would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?'
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 03:08:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 03:04:03 PM
Interesting.
Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".
Fair enough. :D I'm not certain how not being biologically related to the kids would affect matters, but there is probably more specific studies out there that address the question - I'm simply too lazy to look.
Well apparently it does, because the conclusion you quoted says that two biological parents are better than one biological parent and a step parent.
Again, as I said to BB (is there an echo? ;)), a more specific study would be preferable. I just grabbed the first at hand to show that two parents are preferable to one, which was the point at issue.
However, other studies show that - for example - adoption by two gay parents is prferable to single parent adoption:
QuoteAnti-gay marriage activists have argued vigorously that children need a mother and father. Now a new research study shows that kids do need two parents — but that gender doesn't matter.
The research, which also speaks to the issue of gay adoption, is summarized in the lead article of the new Journal of Marriage and Family. Scholars, at USC and New York University, looked at a range of existing studies, including research on gay and lesbian parents, finding that it's ideal if a child is raised by two parents who are "responsible, committed, stable," but that the gender doesn't cause radical differences.
[Emphasis added]
What say you to that?
http://io9.com/5458304/research-shows-two-gay-parents-are-better-than-a-single-straight-one
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 05:27:52 PM
Why, may I ask? The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. They are confident in their answer. Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society. That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.
That makes the body count argument even more of a weak response. It's at the "I'm rubber, you glue" level in that context.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 05:52:25 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 08, 2012, 05:34:15 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 05:27:52 PM
Why, may I ask? The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. They are confident in their answer. Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society. That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.
No, Dawkins is pretty active in arguing that the Christian God does not exist and that it is foolish to believe in creationism - he wrote a whole book on that topic alone. He also goes on to say that Christian theology is flawed in a number of ways.
Which one is that?
http://www.amazon.com/Greatest-Show-Earth-Evidence-Evolution/dp/B004AYCWY4/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1328741725&sr=1-5
QuoteLots of people are athiests, but few go so far as rant about 'viruses of the mind' and the like. It's this type of antipathy that has raised eyebrows. I don't know how much theology Dawkins actually knows about. In fact he doesn't seem to care, when pointed out he doesn't know a great deal of theology he mere said 'would you need to read learned volumes on Leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?'
But that is his whole point. You dont need to know the answer to the old age question of how many angels can dance on the head of the pin to make a good case that there is no God. He is not in the same business and Ehrman (who has become an agnostic for purely theological reasons).
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 05:57:02 PM
That makes the body count argument even more of a weak response. It's at the "I'm rubber, you glue" level in that context.
I agree it's a silly debate - for one, things like religion are really no different from any other badge of identity people fight about. Atheists are just as likely to be motivated by nationality or ideology to fight other people as religious folks. Pacifism is a fringe ideology among religious people and atheists alike.
I didn't read that one. I just read that last one he wrote. His statement is absurd. He merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance. It's like those people who assume Evolution is wrong and then go on about the lack of transitional fossils.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 05:27:52 PM
Why, may I ask? The New Atheist movement is not interested in proving or disproving the existence of God. They are confident in their answer. Their arguments aren't really concerned about the existence of God, but that the belief in religion is actively harmful to society. That Religion is destructive 'Mind-virus', that must be stamped out.
That makes the body count argument even more of a weak response. It's at the "I'm rubber, you glue" level in that context.
Ah, so what would you suggest as the silver bullet argument then?
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 08, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.
In fact all children should be neither heard nor seen nor encountered until the age of 15 as they should be kept away in government-run camps.
Also CC you put to much stock in Erhleman. Translations problems have been know for quite a while. It's nothing knew and it's not as bad as he makes it out to be.
Quote from: Martinus on February 08, 2012, 06:07:20 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on February 08, 2012, 02:28:09 PM
Orphans should be trained as soldiers, and used as cannon fodder.
In fact all children should be neither heard nor seen nor encountered until the age of 15 as they should be kept away in government-run camps.
Okay Perez.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.hollywoodgrind.com%2Fimages%2F2010%2F6%2Fperez-hilton-arrested-going-to-jail.jpg&hash=f21c8bdc9cebc683f1e70e464bea3eb9d24ba2fe)
Don't call me that. He used to be edgy but mellowed out. :yuk:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 06:09:02 PM
Also CC you put to much stock in Erhleman. Translations problems have been know for quite a while. It's nothing knew and it's not as bad as he makes it out to be.
He did not make his decision based on the translation problems. He was a devout born again christian when he wrote his books about that. His change of opinion came when he could not find a satisfactory reason for why bad things happen to good people if God is all loving and all powerful.
If you read his stuff from about "God's Problem" and on you will see the shift in his thinking.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
I didn't read that one. I just read that last one he wrote. His statement is absurd.
QuoteHe merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Raz wins the internet. :D
It's the best thing I have read all day.
I am not sure if that is commentary on a) how unintentionally funny it is, b) how little I have read today that has been funny, or c) a combination of a) and b).
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 06:06:43 PM
Ah, so what would you suggest as the silver bullet argument then?
I don't know enough about the "New Atheist" position to say with confidence.
The atheist-religion debate tends to devolve pretty quickly into two ships passing in the night. Any religious claim is by nature a non-falsifiable hypothesis incapable of scientific proof or verification. Pointing that out to a theist is kind of pointless because their belief, as belief, is not founded on reason, but faith. And pointing out the latter to in atheist is pointless because anyone who lacks faith and requires demonstration according to reason can never be convinced because no such proof is possible.
As to the question whether religion is "good" - it is a giant question begging exercise. Good for what and for whom and how? to define the nature of the question is to answer it.
So I guess the silver bullet answer to the atheist if there is one is:
1) Your disproof of the truths of religion involved a category error - you are conflating different conceptions of truth.
2) If you are serious about strict reliance on reason and its limitation, then honesty should force you to acknowledge that there is no way to reach an objectively valid answer to the question of whether religion generally is good or bad.
Quote from: fahdiz on February 08, 2012, 06:23:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
I didn't read that one. I just read that last one he wrote. His statement is absurd.
QuoteHe merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
The man's output is prolific. I made an honest attempt to understand his ideas. I did buy his God Delusion and read it. I haven't had a chance at "The Selfish Gene".
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 07:19:22 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 06:06:43 PM
Ah, so what would you suggest as the silver bullet argument then?
I don't know enough about the "New Atheist" position to say with confidence.
The atheist-religion debate tends to devolve pretty quickly into two ships passing in the night. Any religious claim is by nature a non-falsifiable hypothesis incapable of scientific proof or verification. Pointing that out to a theist is kind of pointless because their belief, as belief, is not founded on reason, but faith. And pointing out the latter to in atheist is pointless because anyone who lacks faith and requires demonstration according to reason can never be convinced because no such proof is possible.
As to the question whether religion is "good" - it is a giant question begging exercise. Good for what and for whom and how? to define the nature of the question is to answer it.
So I guess the silver bullet answer to the atheist if there is one is:
1) Your disproof of the truths of religion involved a category error - you are conflating different conceptions of truth.
2) If you are serious about strict reliance on reason and its limitation, then honesty should force you to acknowledge that there is no way to reach an objectively valid answer to the question of whether religion generally is good or bad.
Okay, pretend I said all that.
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 05:53:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on February 08, 2012, 04:28:28 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 08, 2012, 03:08:42 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 08, 2012, 03:04:03 PM
Interesting.
Not sure what that implication of that kind of research is when discussing adoption though, since the big factor mentioned was being with "biological parents".
Fair enough. :D I'm not certain how not being biologically related to the kids would affect matters, but there is probably more specific studies out there that address the question - I'm simply too lazy to look.
Well apparently it does, because the conclusion you quoted says that two biological parents are better than one biological parent and a step parent.
Again, as I said to BB (is there an echo? ;)), a more specific study would be preferable. I just grabbed the first at hand to show that two parents are preferable to one, which was the point at issue.
However, other studies show that - for example - adoption by two gay parents is prferable to single parent adoption:
QuoteAnti-gay marriage activists have argued vigorously that children need a mother and father. Now a new research study shows that kids do need two parents — but that gender doesn't matter.
The research, which also speaks to the issue of gay adoption, is summarized in the lead article of the new Journal of Marriage and Family. Scholars, at USC and New York University, looked at a range of existing studies, including research on gay and lesbian parents, finding that it's ideal if a child is raised by two parents who are "responsible, committed, stable," but that the gender doesn't cause radical differences.
[Emphasis added]
What say you to that?
http://io9.com/5458304/research-shows-two-gay-parents-are-better-than-a-single-straight-one
Look - I freely admit I'm arguing from instinct and not scientific study. I'm a lawyer not a sociologist, dammit!
That being said - that result doesn't necessarily surprise me. I hypothesize that the 'ideal' is a child living with both biological parents (I didn't say as much at first, but Malthus first study makes sense) gives the best chance of 'success' in raising healthy, happy children (recognizing of course that there are many other variables at play).
I would further hypothesize that the further you go from that 'ideal' you are decreasing that best chance of success. Maybe the next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent, and so on and so forth. I don't know - that's only what I would imagine to be true.
And I will keep repeating - this is only one of a number of factors to consider. Just about any imaginable family
could raise a very successful, healthy and happy family. I know plenty of heterosexual, middle-class, married couples who have raised psycopaths. I have known kids raised in very turbulent single-parent, substance-abusing families to be very successful.
Beeb, I think the problem is with this statement, which you are putting forward with no evidence to support:
Quotethe next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent
The question to you is: why do you not consider these two situations to be equal (all other things being equal, of course)?
If you are going to claim that a situation A is better than a situation B, you should present some justification for this statement, especially if this is supposed to affect people's rights.
Incidentally, this entire discussion started from Yi implying that these arguments
justify outright ban on adoptions by people who are gay, whether single, or living in same sex or opposite sex relationships (not "simply" a preference for opposite sex couples over same sex couples in adoption). To refresh your memory, I put forward such bans (that actually were passed in some states) as an example of religious prejudice affecting people's lives. Yi responded that such bans are not an expression of religious prejudice but are based in concerns for the wellbeing of the child. Are you really arguing that point?
Edit: And also, saying (in an adoption debate) that being raised by two biological parents is the best is kind of a red herring, no? ;)
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 10:14:27 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 08, 2012, 06:23:45 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 06:05:40 PM
I didn't read that one. I just read that last one he wrote. His statement is absurd.
QuoteHe merely assumes something is ridiculous, without bothering to actually look into it, and then criticizes from ignorance.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
The man's output is prolific. I made an honest attempt to understand his ideas. I did buy his God Delusion and read it. I haven't had a chance at "The Selfish Gene".
Scratch that. I don't care anymore. Fahdiz is right (whatever his point was.)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 08, 2012, 08:03:08 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 07, 2012, 05:05:34 PM
Well, you just said (or at least implied that it can legitimately be said) that a category of people to which I belong is unfit to raise children by the very quality of our birth, which if you think about it, is kinda offensive. ;)
No, I implied that it can legitimately be said that children should be raised by a man and a woman.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Quote from: rufweed on February 09, 2012, 05:23:40 AM
How did you come to that conclusion?
I don't know. How does one generally come to the conclusion that a point of view is not conclusively bullshit? Sniff test? Lack of strong evidence to the contrary?
Assuming the study I cited has any validity, two gay parents would be - on average - better candidates for adoption than a straight single parent.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 09, 2012, 04:51:30 AM
Fahdiz is right (whatever his point was.)
He must have been agreeing with me. :smarty:
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2012, 03:13:00 AM
Beeb, I think the problem is with this statement, which you are putting forward with no evidence to support:
Quotethe next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent
The question to you is: why do you not consider these two situations to be equal (all other things being equal, of course)?
If you are going to claim that a situation A is better than a situation B, you should present some justification for this statement, especially if this is supposed to affect people's rights.
Incidentally, this entire discussion started from Yi implying that these arguments justify outright ban on adoptions by people who are gay, whether single, or living in same sex or opposite sex relationships (not "simply" a preference for opposite sex couples over same sex couples in adoption). To refresh your memory, I put forward such bans (that actually were passed in some states) as an example of religious prejudice affecting people's lives. Yi responded that such bans are not an expression of religious prejudice but are based in concerns for the wellbeing of the child. Are you really arguing that point?
Edit: And also, saying (in an adoption debate) that being raised by two biological parents is the best is kind of a red herring, no? ;)
I hate it when I have to agree with Marti. -_-
I'm with the Schola Progenium crowd. We need stormtroopers and commissars, we don't need gay adoption.
Quote from: Martinus on February 09, 2012, 03:13:00 AM
Beeb, I think the problem is with this statement, which you are putting forward with no evidence to support:
Quotethe next best situation is one biological parent and a different-sex step-parent, then a biological parent and a same-sex step-parent
The question to you is: why do you not consider these two situations to be equal (all other things being equal, of course)?
If you are going to claim that a situation A is better than a situation B, you should present some justification for this statement, especially if this is supposed to affect people's rights.
Incidentally, this entire discussion started from Yi implying that these arguments justify outright ban on adoptions by people who are gay, whether single, or living in same sex or opposite sex relationships (not "simply" a preference for opposite sex couples over same sex couples in adoption). To refresh your memory, I put forward such bans (that actually were passed in some states) as an example of religious prejudice affecting people's lives. Yi responded that such bans are not an expression of religious prejudice but are based in concerns for the wellbeing of the child. Are you really arguing that point?
Edit: And also, saying (in an adoption debate) that being raised by two biological parents is the best is kind of a red herring, no? ;)
My very first post in this was to say Yi was wrong (or mis-spoke) when he said gay couples should be banned from adopting. I only spoke up to say "but wait a minute, I think it is something that could be considered".
Eh, when did I say gay couples should be banned from adopting?
I said the opinion that couples composed of a man and a woman raise better adjusted children can't be dismissed as illegitimate.
When I made that comment I was unaware that Arizona and whoever had passed laws banning gays (couples or otherwise) from adopting but allowing single straights to adopt. I agree that is a case of anti-gay bias unrelated to the welfare of the adoptive child.
Quote from: PDH on February 08, 2012, 02:00:54 PM
It seems the best would be to have a whole mess of mothers and fathers then, maybe kids raised by 10-20 people.
iirc there are, or were, certain tribes where this happened after a fashion.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 09, 2012, 01:25:31 PM
Quote from: PDH on February 08, 2012, 02:00:54 PM
It seems the best would be to have a whole mess of mothers and fathers then, maybe kids raised by 10-20 people.
iirc there are, or were, certain tribes where this happened after a fashion.
Hawaiian kinship, for one.
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2012, 09:34:07 AM
Assuming the study I cited has any validity, two gay parents would be - on average - better candidates for adoption than a straight single parent.
In theory, I agree and I would be more willing to ban single parents from adopting that to ban gay couples from adopting.
In practice, I wouldn't ban either, because children who are wards of the state seem to be worse off on average than children in all but the worst homes, and there aren't enough people willing to adopt to fill the need. (Actually, IIRC that's not exactly right--there are people who want to adopt who can't, but the problem is that many people who want to adopt want an infant or toddler, and few want the older children in the system, and very few want to take on troubled children--which many of those in the system are).
Another anecdotal story for you all. I know two well off couples who adopted troubled kids in their early teens after their own kids were off on their own. In both cases things worked out remarkably well and the adopted kids have actually done better academically then the others.
It wasnt easy and in both cases their was definitely some tough love involved - especially early on (no Seedy not in the way you are thinking) but, as I say, those kids turned out very well.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 09, 2012, 09:16:39 AM
Quote from: rufweed on February 09, 2012, 05:23:40 AM
How did you come to that conclusion?
I don't know. How does one generally come to the conclusion that a point of view is not conclusively bullshit? Sniff test? Lack of strong evidence to the contrary?
Fail.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 01:36:32 PM
You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done. :contract: I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.
That's a pretty bad anti-atheist argument. It isn't too hard to think up of relgious campaigns that take death tolls well over "thousands"
Particularly when the people killing priests are not, in fact, atheists. The Mexican episcopate generally supported the government.
I thought the killings of priests in South America was largely about right winger (catholic) governments and juntas taking out liberation theology aficionados? Which incidentally is the third sin on Karol Wojtyla's head (after the pedophilia cover ups and AIDS epidemic in Africa).
imo, the "lol spaghetti monster!11, fuck ur religion" type atheists are akin to book burning christians, and i'm saying this as an atheist
edit: some of the worst atheists i've known were those born into it, as in their parents were atheists and so they were indoctrinated into atheism. i think the self-discovery of rejecting religion is important and encourages humility. otherwise it is treated as a religion, and they attack others for their beliefs
Quote from: LaCroix on February 12, 2012, 09:22:51 AM
edit: some of the worst atheists i've known were those born into it, as in their parents were atheists and so they were indoctrinated into atheism. i think the self-discovery of rejecting religion is important and encourages humility. otherwise it is treated as a religion, and they attack others for their beliefs
It's important to believe in Santa Fairy? OK.
santa clause was never a world view
edit: santa claus :D
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2012, 03:52:17 AM
I thought the killings of priests in South America was largely about right winger (catholic) governments and juntas taking out liberation theology aficionados? Which incidentally is the third sin on Karol Wojtyla's head (after the pedophilia cover ups and AIDS epidemic in Africa).
Aids in Africa? Was he personally going down there fucking people?
Quote from: grumbler on February 11, 2012, 09:04:06 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 08, 2012, 02:11:31 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 08, 2012, 01:36:32 PM
You asked "What some Athiests have done", not what Dawkins has done. :contract: I think it's fair to say that Mexico's anti-religious campaign was an act by atheists motivated by atheism, and it resulted in thousands of deaths.
That's a pretty bad anti-atheist argument. It isn't too hard to think up of relgious campaigns that take death tolls well over "thousands"
Particularly when the people killing priests are not, in fact, atheists. The Mexican episcopate generally supported the government.
They supported their own murders and confiscation of property? Is this kinda like how the Soviet Government got "Confessions" from people?
Quote from: dps on February 09, 2012, 05:33:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on February 09, 2012, 09:34:07 AM
Assuming the study I cited has any validity, two gay parents would be - on average - better candidates for adoption than a straight single parent.
In theory, I agree and I would be more willing to ban single parents from adopting that to ban gay couples from adopting.
In practice, I wouldn't ban either, because children who are wards of the state seem to be worse off on average than children in all but the worst homes, and there aren't enough people willing to adopt to fill the need. (Actually, IIRC that's not exactly right--there are people who want to adopt who can't, but the problem is that many people who want to adopt want an infant or toddler, and few want the older children in the system, and very few want to take on troubled children--which many of those in the system are).
There is also the matter of the enormous fees needed to adopt. The only kids that are affordable are often so damaged the average family couldn't deal.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 10:04:00 AM
Aids in Africa? Was he personally going down there fucking people?
HIV was developed by a joint CIA/Vatican project. :pope:
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 10:04:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2012, 03:52:17 AM
I thought the killings of priests in South America was largely about right winger (catholic) governments and juntas taking out liberation theology aficionados? Which incidentally is the third sin on Karol Wojtyla's head (after the pedophilia cover ups and AIDS epidemic in Africa).
Aids in Africa? Was he personally going down there fucking people?
No, he's blaming the Pope for frowning on contraception. Really, the blame belongs to the gays who incubated the disease for so long.
Quote from: Neil on February 12, 2012, 02:48:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 10:04:00 AM
Quote from: Martinus on February 12, 2012, 03:52:17 AM
I thought the killings of priests in South America was largely about right winger (catholic) governments and juntas taking out liberation theology aficionados? Which incidentally is the third sin on Karol Wojtyla's head (after the pedophilia cover ups and AIDS epidemic in Africa).
Aids in Africa? Was he personally going down there fucking people?
No, he's blaming the Pope for frowning on contraception. Really, the blame belongs to the gays who incubated the disease for so long.
I didn't know the Pope had a lot of pull with non-Catholics. I thought the worst places for the epidemic were Southern Africa. I didn't know the Brits were converting those people to Catholicism. Anyway, it's "Sin" the wrong word? Marty doesn't even believe in sins.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 12, 2012, 04:52:36 PM
Anyway, it's "Sin" the wrong word? Marty doesn't even believe in sins.
Sure he does, he's mostly Catholic.