Page 4 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 5:32 pm

Quote:
Quote:
I put a fairy in a proton decelerating matrix, and it turned into
a cat.


No! Don't put fairies in a matrix! GIGO; Only use the reals, quotients, or complexes! :P

Quote:
Atheists are anti-religion. That definitely exists, and is designed to control how people act and think. One of the major problems is that religions are supposed to be the perfect word of a deity and don't adapt - so Christians, for instance, are still operating with "laws" that are two thousand years old and take no account of technology, democracy, modern medicine, multiculturalism, the environment, space travel, global economy, the internet...


well said :)


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

18 May 2011, 5:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
Only theists do this, applying their ideology to other systems of thought?


If people impose their beliefs upon me, I will b***h. Theists do that in my country (blasphemy laws, catholic run education). So I b***h.


And here in America various laws had been passed in the 1990's denying the ability of either teachers or students to pray in public school

The US constitution does not date from 1990.

Not like your Christian elites wouldn't say "Screw the constitution" every once in a while and violate it throughly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer


_________________
.


Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

18 May 2011, 5:35 pm

I just don't think all religions are bad or wrong. It's an assumption that many make. Possibly because so many are bad/wrong. What's the rule about 99% of things being s**t? Well it applies to secular influences as well.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 5:36 pm

Thom_Fuleri wrote:
Christians, for instance, are still operating with "laws" that are two thousand years old and take no account of technology, democracy, modern medicine, multiculturalism, the environment, space travel, global economy, the internet...


Technology changes but human nature doesn't. As for the application of the moral Torah, it is the same. The situation in most western nations now is only slightly better than it was in Rome during Rome's heyday, and it's headed back down there.

As for application to technological issues, like driving a car, the general principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can be applied specifically. Economic situations, "differing weights are abhorrent" as per having items in different units so as to confuse a buyer, etc.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 5:38 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
Only theists do this, applying their ideology to other systems of thought?


If people impose their beliefs upon me, I will b***h. Theists do that in my country (blasphemy laws, catholic run education). So I b***h.


And here in America various laws had been passed in the 1990's denying the ability of either teachers or students to pray in public school

The US constitution does not date from 1990.

Not like your Christian elites wouldn't say "Screw the constitution" every once in a while and violate it throughly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer


Oh yes, and having an optional and voluntary time of prayer is in violation of the principle of not allowing the Anglican church to control the state or the state to control the churches?



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 5:49 pm

Quote:
Private, silent, and individual, in other words, only in one's mind can one pray at a government run schools. However, exceptions can be made for "cultural minorities". Catholicism may be annoying, especially when Catholics or their clone of Anglicans have control of governments, but I doubt a Catholic or Anglican state can be any worse than a secular state.


Prayer is protected under free speech; American kids can pray in the cafeteria, halls, or even in groups. State-scheduled prayer isn't, as it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

What would be wrong with a Secular State? People of all faiths would be legally allowed, by free speech, to practice their faith as they wish, so long as they don't impose it on other.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2011, 6:15 pm

BurntOutMom wrote:
There are only two logical reasons for debate; 1) to challenge your own thinking, or 2) to challenge another's thinking.
Anything else is just mudslinging and provocation.

Are mudslinging and provocation illogical? :P



BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

18 May 2011, 6:38 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
BurntOutMom wrote:
There are only two logical reasons for debate; 1) to challenge your own thinking, or 2) to challenge another's thinking.
Anything else is just mudslinging and provocation.

Are mudslinging and provocation illogical? :P


Smart ass! :wink:
Not illogical if your purpose is self gratification!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 6:50 pm

ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
Private, silent, and individual, in other words, only in one's mind can one pray at a government run schools. However, exceptions can be made for "cultural minorities". Catholicism may be annoying, especially when Catholics or their clone of Anglicans have control of governments, but I doubt a Catholic or Anglican state can be any worse than a secular state.


Prayer is protected under free speech; American kids can pray in the cafeteria, halls, or even in groups. State-scheduled prayer isn't, as it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

What would be wrong with a Secular State? People of all faiths would be legally allowed, by free speech, to practice their faith as they wish, so long as they don't impose it on other.


Free speech? America has that in anything other than name only? And a secular state is not nonsectarian if they regulate which religious groups are more free than others. For as much as it sounds nice to allow freedom for people to do what is right in their own eyes and all that sort, that doesn't really exist.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 6:59 pm

Quote:
Free speech? America has that in anything other than name only? And a secular state is not nonsectarian if they regulate which religious groups are more free than others. For as much as it sounds nice to allow freedom for people to do what is right in their own eyes and all that sort, that doesn't really exist.


A hyperbolic response to the existence of free speech in the US does not change the fact that people are legally entitled to pray whenever they wish.

A Secular state wouldn't regulate Religion, but it would prosecute criminal action. If a person practiced human sacrifice, pedophilia (as is sometimes the case with cults), or any other action that an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for, that person would be jailed, like any other citizen.

Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 7:29 pm

ryan93 wrote:
Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.


Yes, and private schools, if they receive any federal or state funding, have to allow the federal or state governments to select their curricula.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 7:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.


Yes, and private schools, if they receive any federal or state funding, have to allow the federal or state governments to select their curricula.


Seems fair; "our money, our rules". Although frankly state education sucks in all forms.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 8:01 pm

ryan93 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.


Yes, and private schools, if they receive any federal or state funding, have to allow the federal or state governments to select their curricula.


Seems fair; "our money, our rules". Although frankly state education sucks in all forms.


Yeah, it does. Government control of education is like having the efficiency of the Social Security Administration combined with the essence of political correctness along with myriad games of musical chairs, show-and-tell, and boxing. It's about as effective at educating children as putting them in a box and droning on for a few hours about stuff that they'd know if they read the textbook but wont be able to remember since "education" essentially is treated as paying one's time in a box rather than learning. It tends to do the opposite of encouraging anyone's desire to learn, since "learning" consists of being treated like cattle rather than human beings.



Philologos
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Age: 77
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,987

19 May 2011, 12:29 am

You got BOXING?

By us it was squaredancing [ever been an uncoordinated 4th-grader forced to square-dance with your teacher?].

I would have killed for boxing instead.

Oh, and I have said much the same thing on other issues, I AM a bit broken record, but while the topic may play SOME role strident atheists are - I would say - strident people who are atheists.

Even about Chomsky I am not all that strident.



91
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2010
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,063
Location: Australia

19 May 2011, 1:24 am

I really do not know why atheists are so strident. It appears that over the last few years they have absolved themselves of their requirement to be polite. While many of the atheists I know and interact with are quite polite, there is a large and growing number of quite aggressive atheists. This is not to say that many people do not have good reasons for disliking religion, there certainly are good reasons.

What the strident atheists do not seem to understand, really at all, is that debate does not favor their position. I personally attribute the rise of atheism to a general, but quiet, lowering of the importance of religious thought in society. Many young people today, take the message as be good, figure that they got it and don't really see the need to go to church on Sunday to appreciate it. That is the message that has been going out from mainstream Christianity for decades. It has been this factor, really more than any other, that has prompted the rise in atheism, agnosticism and apatheism.

While this has been happening, the debate really has gone to the extremes. Atheists have become increasingly intolerant and seem to have laid siege to moderate religious people. Before I took to studying apologetics in any serious way, seldom did a week go by when people would attack me, a Catholic backslider with a center left political membership (who lobbied for rights for same-sex couples). The new atheists basically decided it was time for me and those like me, to go.... I have to say, that I disagree.

What is striking to me, is that it was the general apathy towards religion, especially in my own country, that really produced the downward spiral in numbers. People in Australia really do care more about the football than politics and religion. The problem is, that the new atheists picked a fight, when it was the peace that was killing us. That is ok though, because now its pretty much game on. Atheistic philosophy peaked with Russell and Ayer and the subject been dominated the Christian resurgence ever since. The fight is at the wrong time for atheism, they have next to no good arguments, it probably has never been a worse time to be an atheistic philosopher than now (at least since St. Thomas Aquinas put pen to paper).

Secondly, they completely missed the point of the martyrdom of St. Steven. When it was no longer safe to be Christian in Jerusalem, the Christian faith exploded all over the place. People could not hide anymore and as a result, the didn't.... So basically, thank you new atheism for shining a light on the Christian faith... its the best opportunity we have had in decades.


_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.


CaptainTrips222
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2009
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,100

19 May 2011, 3:17 am

91 wrote:
I really do not know why atheists are so strident. It appears that over the last few years they have absolved themselves of their requirement to be polite.


Or because it's the internet. People can say whatever they want (following terms of service of the forums) at a safe distance. I attend a free thought alliance club at ASU with its share of athiests, and having talked to them over time, they are nowhere near as forceful as on wrong planet. And I've got a gut feeling some of them here wouldn't be quite so strident in person.