|
Finding Your People - Special Groups Are you a member of AA? Neurodiverse? a Vegan? Find your people here! |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
07-20-2011, 03:29 AM | #81 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Pascal's wager is often used tongue-in-cheek and that feels apt to me. The idea of making like God exists because I'd be more likely to go to heaven if indeed God (and heaven) exists is not a viable way of living for me. Pascal based his theoretical proposition on mathematical probability--and not on the probability of God's existence, but on the probabilities that apply if we posit God's existence.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
The Following User Says Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post: |
07-20-2011, 03:33 AM | #82 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Of course it is. I'm responding to Cherryfemme's pointed examples of ways it is not.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
The Following User Says Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post: |
07-20-2011, 09:50 AM | #83 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
"In God We Trust" did not begin appearing on US coins until 1864 and did not appear on paper currency until 1957. That means that the republic managed to get along quite well for the first 70 years of its existence without any mention of a divine being on the currency and managed through most of its first 200 years without it being the official motto of the USA until that was adopted in 1956. What's more if we look at the Constitution and how the federal courts have handled the issue of the First Amendment *after* the 14th Amendment was passed (which, more or less, made the Bill of Rights apply to the states) I think we detect a decidedly *anti-theocratic* strain. Along with First Amendment there is Article VI of the Constitution which states: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. Now, it's instructive to note here that it's no religious test. Not 'no denominational test'. Since the Founders were well aware of Jews, Muslims and Hindus we can, at least provisionally, presume that had they meant to limit that protection to Christians they would have said so. Many in the United States may wish that we *were* a theocracy or treat the nation 'as if' it were a theocracy but, at least at present, our laws protect us from being as theocratic as it appears a lot of Americans would like us to be. Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
|
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
07-22-2011, 12:04 PM | #84 |
Moderator
How Do You Identify?:
femme sub Preferred Pronoun?:
Baby Grrl Relationship Status:
Attached Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Posts: 6,778
Thanks: 52,862
Thanked 21,744 Times in 5,090 Posts
Rep Power: 21474857 |
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nycfem For This Useful Post: |
07-22-2011, 12:46 PM | #85 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
feminine dolly dyke Preferred Pronoun?:
Your Grace Relationship Status:
I put my own care first Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In a gauze of mystery
Posts: 1,776
Thanks: 2,426
Thanked 9,726 Times in 1,613 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
I think this is very key:
Quote:
I know people get battered by people in religions, but there's no need to bring out the guns before they open their mouths, imo, if atheism wants to be understood and respected. If I act like a dick and I am the only one they know, guess what people are going to think? I'm not saying I'm a martyr, I do let my opinions be known if someone is giving me shit - and real shit, not just slightly ignorant (read: not knowing, not ignorant as in asshole) but maybe not going in with "BLAH BLAH BLAH" gun blazing or making flippant comments might be an idea. I personally find it pretty damn helpful. |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to imperfect_cupcake For This Useful Post: |
07-22-2011, 03:26 PM | #86 | |
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,848 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
Something similar applies with atheists. As tempting as it might be to call names, we can't. It is simply not an option. The reason is straightforward. If I say "only a flipping idiot could believe in creationism" I've not just spoken for myself but in the eyes of nontrivial numbers of your fellow citizens (whatever Western nation you live in) I have spoken for *every* atheist that has *ever* lived or will ever live. From that moment on, ALL atheists think that people who are creationists are idiots. Now, does that street go both ways? No. If every third Christian said that atheists are low-down dirty dogs who should be shot on sight, that is simply those individuals expressing their opinions and the rest of us have to treat each incident as isolated. Even if you had a thousand Christians in a room and one out of three felt that atheists should be exterminated, we would *still* be required to treat all 333 of them as isolated from one another. If they then sallied forth and actually took their ideas to the streets and started killing atheists willy-nilly it would not be 333 people in a 'gang' (or, dare I say, terrorist group?) but 333 individual bad apples*. No, it's not right and no, it's not fair but that does not change the facts on the ground one bit. What's more, I maintain (and here I may be wrong) that if you think you're right, you can afford to be magnanimous. I have no reason to say that someone who is a creationist is deluded or illogical because I am just this side of certain that creationism is wrong. Not just mildly off or has a digit on the wrong side of the decimal point but is really, truly, catastrophically wrong. Now, I'm going to point out where creationism fails to deal with relevant questions in biology but I don't need to insult someone by calling them stupid to do so. The facts are on the side of evolution, the data is on the side of evolution and all of the experimental and observational evidence is on the side of evolution. Now, I *will* point out that the only way someone can maintain that nature shows 'perfect design' is to ignore very large swaths of how animals bodies are built and how they function--but that's not calling someone stupid, it is simply pointing out that anyone who thinks that building an eye with the light sensitive cells pointing *away* from the source of light (as the primate eye is built) is ignoring something very important. Evolution has an answer for why that is the case but creationism has *no* answer for it (and by the way, just as an aside, it doesn't have to be that way. The cephalopods (squids, etc.) have their eyes built the right-way-round so it's not like it's *impossible* it's just not something that happened on the evolutionary branch that led to us and it did happen on the branch that led to squids. Yet, none of that is calling someone stupid it is simply marshaling the facts. We can make the case for ethics and morality without saying that our morality is 'better'. In the post I did last week about morality, I was not saying that my morality is better because I'm an atheist (something I don't believe) but that there's no reason to believe that religion proceeds morality. In fact, I would argue that it is the moral horse that pulls the religious cart, as opposed to what many sectarians state they believe that the religious cart pulls the moral horse. Cheers Aj *Bad apples are *always* white. If it were, say, 333 Native American Christians then that's ALL Native Americans (not just Native American Christians). If it were every other white Christian in America that would still be a large number of isolated, 'one bad apples'.
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) Last edited by dreadgeek; 07-22-2011 at 03:36 PM. Reason: Needed to add explanation of the asterisk |
|
07-28-2011, 11:17 AM | #87 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
Queer, trans guy, butch Preferred Pronoun?:
Male pronouns Relationship Status:
Relationship Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,329
Thanks: 4,090
Thanked 3,903 Times in 1,030 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
@honeybarbara and dreadgeek (sorry, a lot to quote so just addressing the ideas posted):
While I agree that throwing insults around is counterproductive, at the same time I believe that address illogical conclusions is very important. I truly do think that religion (and particularly the "big three") has been one of the most destructive forces during the span of the Common Era, and continues to be today. Especially in nations like the US where freedom of religion gives free reign to fundamentalists who do still have an impact on the struggle for equality (particularly LGBT rights and women's rights). If atheists do not become more vocal, and present themselves as something more than just "another opinion" then the masses continue to maintain the delusion (and yes, I do believe it is a delusion) that judging law, civil rights, technology and so on based on a 2000 year old religion is somehow valid. Does that stop progression and advancement? No, it certainly doesn't. But at the same time it does present road blocks for researchers, f.ex. stem cell research (see stem cell reserach in Canada pre- and post-Harper, or under Bush in the US and so on). So while I agree that throwing insults around is pretty useless and childish, not to mention completely counterproductive, I do think that there needs to be more vocalization against the consequences of entertaining or humouring religious pseudoscience. |
07-28-2011, 12:02 PM | #88 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
feminine dolly dyke Preferred Pronoun?:
Your Grace Relationship Status:
I put my own care first Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: In a gauze of mystery
Posts: 1,776
Thanks: 2,426
Thanked 9,726 Times in 1,613 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 |
I don't really run into it that much (read: close to never) because religion where I am is considered to be private. People talk about wanking before they'll talk about beliefs. So I kind of see the other end of it a bit. when someone *does* talk about their belief systems (and please do not read that as "christian") someone will inevitably make a flip or mocking comment meant to change the subject to something more jovial and less embarrassing as one's personal relationship to the divine, whatever that is. So presently, I don't live in that kind of culture and I suppose my comment should really be taken in context to that.
I don't personally have an argument about validity if it very very rarely comes up. All I do is assert that I am an atheist and that although their beliefs are groovy (sincerely), I don't venture into the realm of belief. I *do* get sudden arguments about what they are saying is true (logically valid) and I just keep saying, over and over "that's a belief. beliefs are things that can't be proven or disproven, there's nothing wrong with that. No judgment, really. That's totally cool. But I'm an atheist. That means I'm a materialist and I don't do belief. Cool that you do, if it's healthy for you, rock on." And I DO have to repeat that about four times, occasionally explaining that atheism isn't just not believing in God or a religion, but not believing in souls, spirits, ghosts or astral travelling. but hey, if that makes you feel fullfilled, excellent. But please also understand one will never be able to prove or disprove that your spirit leaves your body to do things. Therefore it falls into belief, that's all I'm saying. I do not think I'm better, I'm not smug, I'm not judging you, I'm just an atheist and I don't really go for belief based ideology. If they try to tell me that they can prove their beliefs are concrete and testable, then I just change the subject cause I'm not interested in their argument. I've heard all of them, they aren't interested in mine and I'm not wasting my energy because I don't enjoy arguing with a brick wall. Those that love a debate, have at it. My life is too short. Plus I have the luxury of walking away and not hearing that again for another six months to two years. Plus here they'd probably be mocked by just general populace to the point of utter rage and frustration. You just don't talk about those things in the first place if you don't know someone, people will think you were all kinds of batshit... it would be like walking up to stranger and asking them if they like anal sex. |
07-30-2011, 01:23 PM | #89 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
.... Relationship Status:
On good days, in love. On bad days--well, there are no bad days with hym... Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Leeward
Posts: 129
Thanks: 134
Thanked 245 Times in 60 Posts
Rep Power: 1211852 |
.
First and foremost, I would like to apologize to the member who pointed out that I “de-railed” this thread. I did not mean to upset or disrespect you or anyone else. I know I already apologized to you personally, but as you mentioned, the “thread starter” did not begin this thread to debate democracy. I am apologizing to you both. Consider my hand slapped.
Before I leave, I want to thank the people who joined me down the garden path to “de-railment”. Your insights and comments were fantastic. I took a law class last semester and I miss deconstructing the US Constitution and discussing the religious affiliations of its creators. It was a great class. My intent was not to de-rail a thread but rather to establish a baseline (God is not in the Constitution) and see how Reception theory applies or does not apply. I did not think anyone would take my bait, and you can imagine how sad I am that I am not able to play the devil’s advocate and hash out this idea… This might seem random but the core of my question was really: What happens in the gap between policy and implementation when the policy is the US Constitution? BUT, I am sure that by even writing that sentence, I am offending someone, somewhere. I really do not do well in the threads since this is the second time I have been told that I have distressed someone by de-railing a thread unintentionally. Again, sorry for the de-railment. I give up. ~CF |
The Following User Says Thank You to CherryFemme For This Useful Post: |
07-30-2011, 03:29 PM | #90 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
Yeah. I find it pretty easy to say that creationism is nothing but hooey and that if you believe it, you simply must not have thought about it much. I also don't see where that's any different from saying that "all the evidence and all the research and all the science supports evolution, blah, blah, blah" except that the former is more succinct. The funny thing about all the evidence, research, science, and blah blah, is that creationists are already aware of that and still cling to creationism. Boy, is that dumb. Yep, dumb I said.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
|
07-30-2011, 04:34 PM | #91 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
malapropist Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
single Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New England
Posts: 2,169
Thanks: 6,367
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,209 Posts
Rep Power: 21474853 |
Quote:
Don't let a little hand-slap get you down. |
|
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Semantics For This Useful Post: |
07-30-2011, 04:50 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Understated butch. Preferred Pronoun?:
I Relationship Status:
Party of One Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474851 |
Quote:
I know we already talked about it, but I just want to say here publicly that as far as I'm concerned, that was fine. I'm not even sure it was a total derail.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you? |
|
The Following User Says Thank You to tapu For This Useful Post: |
12-04-2011, 08:26 PM | #93 |
Member
How Do You Identify?:
femme woman Preferred Pronoun?:
she Relationship Status:
solo Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 821
Thanks: 250
Thanked 1,945 Times in 584 Posts
Rep Power: 14065934 |
Just wanted to share with you a song I found on youtube tonight, performed by Holly Near with Emma's Revolution. The name of it is "I Ain't Afraid." It's also known as "The Atheist's Anthem."
Smooches, Keri |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to iamkeri1 For This Useful Post: |
12-18-2011, 01:38 PM | #94 |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Satan in a Sunday Hat Preferred Pronoun?:
Maow Relationship Status:
Married Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Chemical Valley
Posts: 4,086
Thanks: 3,312
Thanked 8,742 Times in 2,566 Posts
Rep Power: 21474855 |
http://munkdebates.com/Hitch
To honour the memory of Christopher Hitchens, "Munk Debates" has put up unlimited streaming of the debate between Hitch and Tony Blair on the subject of "Is Religion A Force Of Good For the World" for the next couple of days. It's interesting and entertaining and worth a watch.
__________________
bęte noire \bet-NWAHR\, noun: One that is particularly disliked or that is to be avoided.
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to betenoire For This Useful Post: |
01-08-2015, 12:41 PM | #95 |
Junior Member
How Do You Identify?:
- Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: -
Posts: 28
Thanks: 31
Thanked 40 Times in 16 Posts
Rep Power: 0 |
I am an Atheist
It was so nice to find this thread here. I just get so tired of answering the question "Well, what do you believe in then?" Like I owe someone who is religious and explanation for my lack of belief in a god. I don't tell anyone what they believe in and I want he same respect in return.
|
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Beachcomber For This Useful Post: |
01-08-2015, 03:16 PM | #96 | |
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?:
Femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
married Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Jersey City
Posts: 2,065
Thanks: 10,382
Thanked 5,242 Times in 1,243 Posts
Rep Power: 21474848 |
Quote:
I didn't really argue with him, because it would have been a complete waste of time. He obviously didn't want to listen to anyone else's opinion. But the difference in the way he treated me before and after the question was crazy! He was super polite before that and for the rest of the meal he was really rude and dismissive. |
|
|
|