Florida Christians protest atheist billboard
gina-ghettoprincess
Veteran
Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)
I think there is a contradiction here somewhere. Perhaps here:
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"
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
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.
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
Joined: 8 Nov 2008
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,669
Location: The Town That Time Forgot (UK)
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.
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"
Logic is a human invention. I'm not sure what you mean - are you saying that logic is superior to faith?
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
I think there is a contradiction here somewhere. Perhaps here:
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
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.
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
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
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.
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.
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.
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.?
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.)
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.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
We don't girls here - Parents protest outside school |
31 Jan 2024, 4:20 pm |
A Florida Man |
24 Feb 2024, 1:42 pm |
Apparently, America doesn't want to be Florida, after all... |
21 Jan 2024, 11:00 pm |
Florida judge tosses out Disney's lawsuit against DeSantis |
31 Jan 2024, 6:13 pm |