Florida Christians protest atheist billboard

Page 13 of 13 [ 206 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 8:21 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think there is a contradiction here somewhere. Perhaps here:


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


How is that a contradiction?


Well, in one you're saying that it's acceptable to side with someone who has your same views and in the other you say it is unacceptable.


No, I'm not. In the first quote, I'm saying that if you prefer to side with agnostics because they are calm and objective, that's ok, because you are making your mind up based on the evidence (or more specifically, the fact that someone gives actual evidence and is respectful, as opposed to being militant and judgmental). That is NOT the same as simply judging by the religious "label" of the person giving the opinion.

In the second quote, I'm saying that giving your religion as a reason for your own beliefs is ok because it makes sense that your beliefs are the ones which your religion dictates. But siding with someone simply because of their religion is stereotyping, which is wrong.

I fail to see how this is a contradiction. I'm not even addressing the same point in both of those quotes. I've given an example of "wrong" that remains constant in both (agreeing or disagreeing with someone based solely on a religious label), and then in each quote I talk about something that could be seen as being in the same league as the thing that I just said is "wrong", but is actually a different thing (and is, IMO, acceptable). In the first quote: agreeing with someone who presents a good argument. In the second quote: believing something because that is what your religion dictates*.

* this may be causing some confusion. What I mean here is something that is actually a core belief of whichever religion you associate yourself with (in this case, Christianity), such as belief in God. But something that is NOT core to Christianity (eg. the supremacism displayed by the protestors in the article) is a different matter - just because someone is the same religion as you doesn't mean you should endorse their actions and/or beliefs by default.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


MissConstrue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 17,052
Location: MO

19 Aug 2009, 8:28 pm

Democracy people....Democracy.

If people who have the right to voice their opinions against politics, government, city hall, banks, and so forth then in a sick twisted way some people have this strange notion that it's also free speech to express their hatred towards groups that don't concern the people such as racism, religionism, atheism, gayism, genderism, povertyism, occultism, and so forth. Although they play somewhat of a role in society, they don't have as much power....at least in the minds of ignoramuses....

Yes I thought there were boundaries to free speech especially ones involving racism. But it seems everyone including bigots are entitled to their own opinions. Not that I'm opting for the republican parties.....since we know where that goes.

Anyway, there it is. If one gets to beat the other down then so does the other. Kind of like the traditional saying "An eye for an eye." found in plenty of culture revolved around religion especially Judaism and Islam.

And before you sit here and say I'm discriminating against Jews and Muslims because I'm a racist...then you missed my whole point completely. I'm kind of getting sick and tired of the double standards in being assumed racist if I don't agree to a particular religion that has nothing to do with race and yet religions that're close in my area are ok to voice my opinions against. I'm not a religious person period.

There I said it.


_________________
I live as I choose or I will not live at all.
~Delores O’Riordan


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

19 Aug 2009, 9:11 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Quote:
I don't think I can base a solid opinion on that article, since it has its own bias and certainly isn't trying to present those who object in the most favorable light. My knee-jerk reaction, though, would be to disagree with them, because however irritating the poster might be for them, in the end it comes down to free speech. (And, of course, they can object, but then people can object to their objection...)
I am not talking about siding with someone despite wrong arguments, I'm talking about siding with someone because they are on your side.


Now we appear to be in agreement on the main issue.

That isn't the main issue. It may have been the main issue for the OP, but for the last several pages it has hardly been mentioned. The main issue is the extent to which making assumptions and agreeing with those from your "party" (for lack of a better term) without having made a thorough analysis of the issue can be considered reasonable.

Quote:
However, your last sentence confuses me - you say you would side with the people who are on your side. Do you mean the people who agree with what you say in the bold text, or the people who are Christians?

I'm making a general point, not talking about the situation the OP mentioned specifically. If you belong to two groups which have two mutually exclusive opinions on something, then making a knee-jerk reaction based on group membership without looking at the situation probably isn't reasonable.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)

19 Aug 2009, 9:19 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Quote:
I don't think I can base a solid opinion on that article, since it has its own bias and certainly isn't trying to present those who object in the most favorable light. My knee-jerk reaction, though, would be to disagree with them, because however irritating the poster might be for them, in the end it comes down to free speech. (And, of course, they can object, but then people can object to their objection...)
I am not talking about siding with someone despite wrong arguments, I'm talking about siding with someone because they are on your side.


Now we appear to be in agreement on the main issue.

That isn't the main issue. It may have been the main issue for the OP, but for the last several pages it has hardly been mentioned. The main issue is the extent to which making assumptions and agreeing with those from your "party" (for lack of a better term) without having made a thorough analysis of the issue can be considered reasonable.

Quote:
However, your last sentence confuses me - you say you would side with the people who are on your side. Do you mean the people who agree with what you say in the bold text, or the people who are Christians?

I'm making a general point, not talking about the situation the OP mentioned specifically. If you belong to two groups which have two mutually exclusive opinions on something, then making a knee-jerk reaction based on group membership without looking at the situation probably isn't reasonable.


That's what I've been trying to say.


_________________
'El reloj, no avanza
y yo quiero ir a verte,
La clase, no acaba
y es como un semestre"


Claradoon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,964
Location: Canada

19 Aug 2009, 9:30 pm

Sand wrote:
Through experience I have discovered that belief in God is based on deep emotional foundations and has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. All this discussion on the impossibility of events described in the Bible is totally ineffective because there is no logic involved. To accept logic against religious faith is equivalent to applying an oxy-acetylene torch to jello and this is simply not permitted by people of faith.


Logic is a human invention. I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that logic is superior to faith?



Claradoon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,964
Location: Canada

19 Aug 2009, 9:33 pm

history_of_psychiatry wrote:
I live in Florida and the goddamn fundies make me sick. It's perfectly ok for them to erect billboards spreading their message, but the second an atheist, agnostic, or non-biblical puts something on a billboard all hell breaks loose. The pilgrim puritans to this day still own this country.


I'm under the impression that Americans often do or say something just to prove that they can, under the various freedoms. Could it be that the billboard is about American freedom of speech more than about God?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 9:36 pm

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

I think there is a contradiction here somewhere. Perhaps here:


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
There is nothing wrong with preferring to side with someone who presents a calm and objective view of an issue. That is completely different from simply siding with someone because they are the same religion as you.


gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
To say "I agree with x because I am a Christian" when "x" equals your opinion, is different from when "x" is someone else's opinion which you do not have details of, except that you know that person is a Christian. The first example is merely a religious justification of your personal beliefs, which is fair game. But the second example is a biased judgment of someone else (here's the important part) based on a label which covers a very broad range of beliefs.


How is that a contradiction?


Well, in one you're saying that it's acceptable to side with someone who has your same views and in the other you say it is unacceptable.


No, I'm not. In the first quote, I'm saying that if you prefer to side with agnostics because they are calm and objective, that's ok, because you are making your mind up based on the evidence (or more specifically, the fact that someone gives actual evidence and is respectful, as opposed to being militant and judgmental). That is NOT the same as simply judging by the religious "label" of the person giving the opinion.

In the second quote, I'm saying that giving your religion as a reason for your own beliefs is ok because it makes sense that your beliefs are the ones which your religion dictates. But siding with someone simply because of their religion is stereotyping, which is wrong.

I fail to see how this is a contradiction. I'm not even addressing the same point in both of those quotes. I've given an example of "wrong" that remains constant in both (agreeing or disagreeing with someone based solely on a religious label), and then in each quote I talk about something that could be seen as being in the same league as the thing that I just said is "wrong", but is actually a different thing (and is, IMO, acceptable). In the first quote: agreeing with someone who presents a good argument. In the second quote: believing something because that is what your religion dictates*.

* this may be causing some confusion. What I mean here is something that is actually a core belief of whichever religion you associate yourself with (in this case, Christianity), such as belief in God. But something that is NOT core to Christianity (eg. the supremacism displayed by the protestors in the article) is a different matter - just because someone is the same religion as you doesn't mean you should endorse their actions and/or beliefs by default.


I've forgotten about the article, what was it? An Atheist group putting up a billboard and a journalist making a few choice quotes?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 9:43 pm

Claradoon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Through experience I have discovered that belief in God is based on deep emotional foundations and has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. All this discussion on the impossibility of events described in the Bible is totally ineffective because there is no logic involved. To accept logic against religious faith is equivalent to applying an oxy-acetylene torch to jello and this is simply not permitted by people of faith.


Logic is a human invention. I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that logic is superior to faith?


Logic is just rules and laws of propositions. It addresses things like coherence, validity, cogency. Thing is that logic says nothing of the content, just of the consistency.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Aug 2009, 9:50 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Claradoon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Through experience I have discovered that belief in God is based on deep emotional foundations and has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. All this discussion on the impossibility of events described in the Bible is totally ineffective because there is no logic involved. To accept logic against religious faith is equivalent to applying an oxy-acetylene torch to jello and this is simply not permitted by people of faith.


Logic is a human invention. I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that logic is superior to faith?


Logic is just rules and laws of propositions. It addresses things like coherence, validity, cogency. Thing is that logic says nothing of the content, just of the consistency.


Exactly. Logic applied to observed phenomena excluding emotionally based suppositions does not accept the bulk of religious conclusions. A coherent examination of religious phenomena does not logically mix with analytical observations of perception.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

19 Aug 2009, 9:53 pm

Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Claradoon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Through experience I have discovered that belief in God is based on deep emotional foundations and has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. All this discussion on the impossibility of events described in the Bible is totally ineffective because there is no logic involved. To accept logic against religious faith is equivalent to applying an oxy-acetylene torch to jello and this is simply not permitted by people of faith.


Logic is a human invention. I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that logic is superior to faith?


Logic is just rules and laws of propositions. It addresses things like coherence, validity, cogency. Thing is that logic says nothing of the content, just of the consistency.


Exactly. Logic applied to observed phenomena excluding emotionally based suppositions does not accept the bulk of religious conclusions. A coherent examination of religious phenomena does not logically mix with analytical observations of perception.


And reading comprehension becomes a thing of the past too.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

19 Aug 2009, 9:56 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Sand wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Claradoon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Through experience I have discovered that belief in God is based on deep emotional foundations and has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. All this discussion on the impossibility of events described in the Bible is totally ineffective because there is no logic involved. To accept logic against religious faith is equivalent to applying an oxy-acetylene torch to jello and this is simply not permitted by people of faith.


Logic is a human invention. I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that logic is superior to faith?


Logic is just rules and laws of propositions. It addresses things like coherence, validity, cogency. Thing is that logic says nothing of the content, just of the consistency.


Exactly. Logic applied to observed phenomena excluding emotionally based suppositions does not accept the bulk of religious conclusions. A coherent examination of religious phenomena does not logically mix with analytical observations of perception.


And reading comprehension becomes a thing of the past too.


It's rare that anybody has that good an internal personal insight.



greenblue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,896
Location: Home

19 Aug 2009, 9:58 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
Henriksson wrote:
That sounds suspiciously like, I don't know, bias.

The same exact kind of bias that you show when you assume your opinions are correct.

If it really is so objectionable to assume that you are correct, then please explain to me how anyone can reasonably hold any opinion whatsoever.

Probably no one can, I tend to think that one assuming to be correct is not enough of a justification and can indeed be objectionable, cognitive bias is often the problem.

gina-ghettoprincess wrote:
Hang on a minute here...this has gone from "assuming someone is correct because they are a Christian" to "assuming you yourself are correct". Those are two completely different things.

well, the issue about assuming one to be correct leads to the question if one who does it puts more trust to their own perception and own intuition above any objection and other propositions, assuming reality according to one's own personal intuition seems a problem.


_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?


Claradoon
Supporting Member
Supporting Member

User avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,964
Location: Canada

20 Aug 2009, 1:32 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Logic applied to observed phenomena excluding emotionally based suppositions does not accept the bulk of religious conclusions. A coherent examination of religious phenomena does not logically mix with analytical observations of perception.


I'm really trying to follow you, but I'm not getting there (yet). I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, I just don't know what you mean.

"Logic ... does not accept" - do you mean that what logic does not accept is false?

Where does the terminology come from - "logic accepts" ? (sorry, i'm undereducated.)



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

20 Aug 2009, 1:37 am

Claradoon wrote:
Sand wrote:
Through experience I have discovered that belief in God is based on deep emotional foundations and has nothing whatsoever to do with logic. All this discussion on the impossibility of events described in the Bible is totally ineffective because there is no logic involved. To accept logic against religious faith is equivalent to applying an oxy-acetylene torch to jello and this is simply not permitted by people of faith.


Logic is a human invention. I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that logic is superior to faith?


Admittedly faith is an inhuman invention. I find it has its uses, like hypnotism, and a good sales pitch.