Page 5 of 6 [ 84 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,339
Location: Reading, England

08 Aug 2015, 5:51 pm

glebel wrote:
Funny, you are attributing to Christians the proselytizing zeal of you atheists. We can't turn on T.V., listen to the radio, or hardly do or look at anything without having someone try to indoctrinate us into the " There is no God " cult. Your 'beliefs' have as much proof as ours, except we have God's Word and you have flawed science. Why do you people persist in attacking something which gives us comfort, when I would never dream of doing that to you? :roll:

Atheism is not a cult. It's a single belief shared by millions of people with a wide range of world views and no connection between each other aside from not believing in any gods.

I don't see atheist messages whenever I turn on the TV or listen to the radio. Do you deliberately seek them out? However, again, I can't walk down the high street at the weekends without being verbally assaulted by an eejit with a loudspeaker telling me I'll suffer for all eternity if I don't adopt his views on the nature of god (while hundreds of non-believers shuffle past without responding).

(And fwiw, atheism is the default position - it's what a reasonable person should believe until they have some strong evidence to the contrary. There is no strong evidence for the existence of any god)



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,348
Location: temperate zone

08 Aug 2015, 6:11 pm

AspieOtaku wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
AspieOtaku wrote:
naturalplastic wrote:
Another aspie site I used to go to did seem to be thick with religious members, and the atheists were not a loud presence.
Hmm Ill have to go to that site and make a loud presence then! Ill just say gods not real with a mischievous grin on my face.


That kinda mischief would've added some spice to the mix back when I was active on the site. :D

The site is still there:"The Aspie Hangout". But its kind of ghost town now. But go for it! I might see you, and Auntblabby there ( he said that he "likes ghost towns" and joined recently under the name of "AbbyNormal"), and I still drop in once in a while under the name of "radioactor" .
Ill have to post some Darkmatter2525 vids and Amazing Athiest vids as well as the Thinking Athiest vids to really stir things up! Then Ill be like "Gods not real so there! Nyaaaa!!" *sticks out his tongue* hehe


In all fairness the religious folks on the site were not obnoxious in their religiousness. Like all sites there were a number of obnoxious individuals (both religious, and not), but those folks were all obnoxious for reasons having nothing to do with religion. Though I did get into a long e-mail debate with one young lady about evolution vs creationism. She was quite a trip. But a perfectly nice person.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,162
Location: Australia

08 Aug 2015, 6:23 pm

Lintar wrote:
andrethemoogle wrote:
I don't see a problem with anyone being an atheist or religious, as long as they are not using it to harm anyone.

I'm Catholic myself yet could careless what religion people are, as long as they are good, kind individuals who do not harm others and aren't judgmental. I get along better with agnostics and atheists for some reason though, that's just from my personal experience.


You could care less? That means you do care, even if just a little, so that statement contradicts the overall message you are trying to impart here, which is one of acceptance.

I know, it's just a typo, but these things really stand out when I come across them, and the urge to correct such mistakes is often difficult to resist.


"Etymologists suggest that “I could care less” emerged as a sarcastic variant employing Yiddish humor. They point to the different intonations used in saying “I couldn’t care less” versus “I could care less.” The latter mirrors the intonation of the sarcastic Yiddish-English phrase “I should be so lucky!” where the verb is stressed."
http://blog.dictionary.com/could-care-less/


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,162
Location: Australia

08 Aug 2015, 6:36 pm

glebel wrote:

And as far as atheism being a cult, it is one simply by the fanatical behaviour of it's adherents.

Gross generalisation...
Sir, you do yourself a great, and dare I say gross, disservice to your credibility... :mrgreen:

Perhaps less emotionalism...
And more intellectualism is in order? :chin:


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,348
Location: temperate zone

08 Aug 2015, 6:37 pm

Someone (Leaguegirl right here on WP) finally gave an explanation for why folks use the annoying expression "I could care less" when they mean "I couldn't care less". She said that it means "I am able to not care, so I will stop caring". I guess that makes sense.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,162
Location: Australia

08 Aug 2015, 7:32 pm

pcuser wrote:
If there are fanatical behaviors by atheists, it's because they are fighting for their rights to be left alone. Christians seem always ready to put crap on the ballot to prune away our rights. That won't stand and when it ends, so will the fanaticism. Therefore, it's not a cult...


In principle I am in total agreement...
How dare others interfere with our hard won freedom of freedom of expression?
How dare others tell us not to engage our god given ability ;) of analytical analysis <sic>?

But!
Well, actually, I don't have a "but"... :mrgreen:

"In the sociological classifications of religious movements in English, a cult is a religious or social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practices."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult

Using this definition, atheism isn't a "cult" here in Australia, since most aussies have "seen the light" and are mostly secular... :P

"Equally present from colonial times, however, was the scientific spirit of the Enlightenment, with its goal of human improvement and progress, and a willingness to break with tradition.3 Enlightenment principles promoted a secular government, detached from the church, that encouraged tolerance and supported religious pluralism,2 including the right to practice no religion. By Federation, this diversity was enshrined in the Australian Constitution, which says that the Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.4

No religion is an option increasingly reported by Australians in the Census of Population and Housing."

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected] ... 30Nov+2013

Please note, the discrepancy between the *statistical* representation of individuals indicating a religious affiliation and that of the degree of secularisation of Australian society has been explain in terms of the selection (by many) of that option being influenced by family upbringing/'heritage" rather than a proactive commitment/embracing of that particular philosophy...

This could be explained by:
The garden variety NT has a reluctance to do the hard intellectual yacka and prefers the more instant emotional gratifications associated with life...

"You often hear clichés and truisms contrasting the place of religion in America and Australia: 'The USA is a very Christian country, and Australia is very secular'; 'While Americans wear their religion on their sleeve, Australians have a natural aversion to public displays of religion, and to religion in politics.' "
http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article. ... caYYG1jG9Y

The irony is, however, that the present Australian federal government is dominated by a religiously oriented right leaning faction...
Hardly a true representation of the constituents of Oz, in regards to religious/non-religious affiliations...

But I digress...
I have to...
As an aspie...
It's my job... ;)


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


yelekam
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jan 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 591

09 Aug 2015, 9:08 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:

We must remember that most people are religious. We are going to face more persecution if people think all autistics are atheists.

Only in America. I think most other countries that WP users post from generally hold favourable views of atheism, even religious people don't persecute atheists. Anyway, within a generation or two even America will probably be majority atheist.

If autistic people are more likely to be atheists, we shouldn't fear the consequences of that. We're persecuted (for want of a better word) due to misconceptions all the time, we need to fight those misconceptions with the truth, not with different misconceptions.

Your point about sampling error is a good one though.


According to the Pew Research Center, only six countries in the world have the religiously unaffiliated (Atheist, Agnostic, and holders of spiritual beliefs not associated with a particular religious denomination); in China, the Czech Republic, Japan, Hong Kong, Estonia, and North Korea.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

09 Aug 2015, 9:57 pm

Pepe wrote:
Using this definition, atheism isn't a "cult" here in Australia, since most aussies have "seen the light" and are mostly secular... :P


This claim of yours - "most Aussies have seen the light" - is contradicted by the statistics you link to, which tell us that only 22% selected 'no denomination' back in 2011.



DarthMetaKnight
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,105
Location: The Infodome

09 Aug 2015, 10:18 pm

adifferentname wrote:

I suppose this proves that Christians are still trying to silence us. They don't actually believe in free speech.


_________________
Synthetic carbo-polymers got em through man. They got em through mouse. They got through, and we're gonna get out.
-Roostre

READ THIS -> https://represent.us/


adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

10 Aug 2015, 12:29 am

DarthMetaKnight wrote:
adifferentname wrote:

I suppose this proves that Christians are still trying to silence us. They don't actually believe in free speech.


It just demonstrates that uncritical ideologues make bad decisions readily. I'm quite content to accept that, however misguided, the motivation stemmed from a belief that it was the morally correct thing to do.



Pepe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jun 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,162
Location: Australia

10 Aug 2015, 1:49 am

Lintar wrote:
Pepe wrote:
Using this definition, atheism isn't a "cult" here in Australia, since most aussies have "seen the light" and are mostly secular... :P


This claim of yours - "most Aussies have seen the light" - is contradicted by the statistics you link to, which tell us that only 22% selected 'no denomination' back in 2011.


You seemed to have missed this part of my post (you replied to):
Quote:
Please note, the discrepancy between the *statistical* representation of individuals indicating a religious affiliation and that of the degree of secularisation of Australian society has been explain in terms of the selection (by many) of that option being influenced by family upbringing/'heritage" rather than a proactive commitment/embracing of that particular philosophy...

This could be explained by:
The garden variety NT has a reluctance to do the hard intellectual yacka and prefers the more instant emotional gratifications associated with life...


_________________
Laughter is the best medicine. Age-appropriate behaviour is an arbitrary NT social construct.
Don't tell me white lies. Gaslight me at your peril. Don't give me your bad attitude.
If I'm so bad, pass me by. ;)


And one more thing,




Truth may be inconvenient but it is never politically incorrect...The Oracle of Truth has spoken...8)


pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

10 Aug 2015, 8:45 am

adifferentname wrote:
DarthMetaKnight wrote:
adifferentname wrote:

I suppose this proves that Christians are still trying to silence us. They don't actually believe in free speech.


It just demonstrates that uncritical ideologues make bad decisions readily. I'm quite content to accept that, however misguided, the motivation stemmed from a belief that it was the morally correct thing to do.

It's not the moral thing to do. It's a form of child abuse. This 'teacher' should be fired. If not for using public monies illegally, for stupidity. How dare she do something like that to a child who simply stated he and his family were atheists. Religion was probably being talked about in the playground and he simply put in his 2 cents worth and then gets punished for it...



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

10 Aug 2015, 4:02 pm

pcuser wrote:
It's not the moral thing to do. It's a form of child abuse.


Is this really something I have to explain again? Morality is the word we give to our personal code of right and wrong. My point was not that I think what the teacher did was right, it's that the teacher thought it was right. The automatic assumption that things done by <insert demographic> are done out of malice, because you happen to be politically opposed to them, is an infantile one.

Quote:
This 'teacher' should be fired. If not for using public monies illegally, for stupidity. How dare she do something like that to a child who simply stated he and his family were atheists.


I agree that the teacher should face disciplinary proceedings, but it's not our place to decide the severity of the punishment. How dare you appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner in a case you know only the slightest details of?

Quote:
Religion was probably being talked about in the playground and he simply put in his 2 cents worth and then gets punished for it...


I think this much is apparent from the little we have to go on. Nobody is questioning the stated facts of the matter.



pcuser
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Dec 2014
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 913

10 Aug 2015, 4:44 pm

adifferentname wrote:
pcuser wrote:
It's not the moral thing to do. It's a form of child abuse.


Is this really something I have to explain again? Morality is the word we give to our personal code of right and wrong. My point was not that I think what the teacher did was right, it's that the teacher thought it was right. The automatic assumption that things done by <insert demographic> are done out of malice, because you happen to be politically opposed to them, is an infantile one.

Quote:
This 'teacher' should be fired. If not for using public monies illegally, for stupidity. How dare she do something like that to a child who simply stated he and his family were atheists.


I agree that the teacher should face disciplinary proceedings, but it's not our place to decide the severity of the punishment. How dare you appoint yourself judge, jury and executioner in a case you know only the slightest details of?



Quote:
Religion was probably being talked about in the playground and he simply put in his 2 cents worth and then gets punished for it...


I think this much is apparent from the little we have to go on. Nobody is questioning the stated facts of the matter.


You brought up morality when you called what she did moral. And I didn't say it was right for any reason. It's simply wrong, whether she believed it or not. Trying to indoctrinate a child into religion and then punishing him for not accepting it is child abuse, as I said. I never said she did it with malice, although the malice was there when she punished him for believing his or his parent's truth. It has nothing to do with my politics. It is unconstitutional to do what she did, period. Politics have nothing to do with it except that the Constitution is political.

What part of this being unconstitutional don't you understand? It's not part of this teachers scope of teaching to do anything at all like this. She thrust her beliefs into her job. She should be fired.

I merely mentioned his playground experience which precipitated this as it shows he wasn't trying to convert anyone. There are religious people who would use his proselytizing as justification for this nonsense. There is no justification for this, thus my condemnation...



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

10 Aug 2015, 5:15 pm

pcuser wrote:

You brought up morality when you called what she did moral.


adifferentname wrote:
the motivation stemmed from a belief that it was the morally correct thing to do.


What part of the above is causing you confusion? Would you like me to break it down for you?

Quote:
And I didn't say it was right for any reason. It's simply wrong, whether she believed it or not. Trying to indoctrinate a child into religion and then punishing him for not accepting it is child abuse, as I said. I never said she did it with malice, although the malice was there when she punished him for believing his or his parent's truth. It has nothing to do with my politics. It is unconstitutional to do what she did, period. Politics have nothing to do with it except that the Constitution is political.


What on earth are you wibbling on about? You're all over the place.

I didn't say it's right but-
It's not right.
It's child abuse but-
It wasn't malicious but-
It is malicious.
It has nothing to do with politics but-
It's based on the constitution.

This is what happens when you try to attack a misrepresentation. You're floundering, blundering around, bumping into the walls of your own little box.

Quote:
What part of this being unconstitutional don't you understand? It's not part of this teachers scope of teaching to do anything at all like this. She thrust her beliefs into her job. She should be fired.


I'm sure these all seemed like reasonable arguments when you vomited them onto the page via your keyboard, but you're addressing a position that has not been stated nor even hinted at by myself.

Quote:
I merely mentioned his playground experience which precipitated this as it shows he wasn't trying to convert anyone. There are religious people who would use his proselytizing as justification for this nonsense. There is no justification for this, thus my condemnation...


You merely made the assumption that someone taking a view that wasn't in complete alignment with your own must be diametrically opposed to you. This kind of ignorant, ideology-centred intellectual laziness has no place in rational discourse. Kindly refrain from it.