From: SlymDayspring | #029 This is wrong though. Some of the best and most vicious parodies (I dare say most of the best, even) come from people who dearly love what they are ripping to shreds, and the mockery is a way to express how deeply they know their subject. Same way you probably call some of your friends by nicknames that are demeaning when taken out of context, but in context imply affection. Mockery doesn't come from ignorance, that's hatred - which sometimes leads to mockery, but not always.
He isn't talking about parody or poking fun at your buddies. He is talking about vicious mockery with the intent to hurt people. I don't think he is complaining about brilliant, loving parody of religion.
But I wasn't talking about him, but you. Your definition of mockery is faulty.
I view the militant/reddit brand of atheism as little more than a vehicle to feel superior to other people who don't share one's beliefs.
I'm strongly opposed to bigotry resulting from some religions, but not religion itself. I identify as Jewish and don't necessarily write off the existence of a higher power.
I'm not saying anything is wrong with atheism or their beliefs. I'm saying something is wrong with being needlessly confrontational without provocation - as has been seen quite often.
the only reason you see it quite often is because there is no reason you should actually be seeing atheism that isn't confrontational and thus your sample is inherently flawed
The idea that religious beliefs shouldn't be open to criticism/are inherently worthy of respect is a very dumb one, for the record. If you believe that your god is telling you you need to oppress people, then you definitely don't deserve to have that belief respected!
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
Panthera posted... The idea that religious beliefs shouldn't be open to criticism/are inherently worthy of respect is a very dumb one, for the record. If you believe that your god is telling you you need to oppress people, then you definitely don't deserve to have that belief respected!
It's attitudes like this that destroy our board.
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
From: MRNlCEWATCH | #055 Panthera posted... The idea that religious beliefs shouldn't be open to criticism/are inherently worthy of respect is a very dumb one, for the record. If you believe that your god is telling you you need to oppress people, then you definitely don't deserve to have that belief respected!
It's attitudes like this that destroy our board.
Yeah judging people for holding hateful views and wanting to hurt people is pretty awful.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: Panthera | #054 The idea that religious beliefs shouldn't be open to criticism/are inherently worthy of respect is a very dumb one, for the record. If you believe that your god is telling you you need to oppress people, then you definitely don't deserve to have that belief respected!
Its not that black and white. What if a majority of a country belonged to a religion that felt that wearing hats caused you to suffer pain in the after life. Suppose that the majority of those people democratically banned hat wearing because the majority felt that it was in the best interest of everyone to not wear hats, whether they understood it or not.
Would they be at fault? Would you hate the majority for their oppression? Would you hate them for acting in a way that they feel is benevolent and shows that they care about you?
--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg
Panthera posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #055 Panthera posted... The idea that religious beliefs shouldn't be open to criticism/are inherently worthy of respect is a very dumb one, for the record. If you believe that your god is telling you you need to oppress people, then you definitely don't deserve to have that belief respected!
It's attitudes like this that destroy our board. Yeah judging people for holding hateful views and wanting to hurt people is pretty awful.
Views that YOU misinterpret or skew to be hateful to suit your own personal vendetta.
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
Yes. I'd rather people who holds beliefs in the supernatural mind their own business than that we all try to convince each other our belief is the right one.
From: masterplum | #059 Its not that black and white. What if a majority of a country belonged to a religion that felt that wearing hats caused you to suffer pain in the after life. Suppose that the majority of those people democratically banned hat wearing because the majority felt that it was in the best interest of everyone to not wear hats, whether they understood it or not.
Would they be at fault? Would you hate the majority for their oppression? Would you hate them for acting in a way that they feel is benevolent and shows that they care about you?
Yes, they would be at fault, because they are taking their beliefs that have no demonstrable basis in reality and forcing everyone who doesn't agree with them to obey them anyway. You don't get to just "think you know what's best" without having any way of showing that it's true and expect it to be forced on everyone. Turn the tables and I bet you wouldn't approve of being thrown in jail if you mentioned your religion at all simply because other people decided, with no convincing proof, that it would be better for you.
They're not being benevolent or caring at all, they're being tyrannical for showing absolutely no respect for anyone but themselves.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
Panthera posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #061 Views that YOU misinterpret or skew to be hateful to suit your own personal vendetta. What personal vendetta is this? My vendetta against people who act out in ways that harm people? Yeah, those people who flat out say that it is their religious beliefs that justify their harmful actions definitely don't believe those things and I'm just pretending it so hard I re-write their brains.
It's pretty obvious that you are a militant "Reddit" atheist who is trying to front with some "oh I just hate oppression" bulls***
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
From: MRNlCEWATCH | #061 Views that YOU misinterpret or skew to be hateful to suit your own personal vendetta.
What personal vendetta is this? My vendetta against people who act out in ways that harm people? Yeah, those people who flat out say that it is their religious beliefs that justify their harmful actions definitely don't believe those things and I'm just pretending it so hard I re-write their brains.
But maybe I've missed out on the memo and somewhere along the lines "religion" became a monolithic entity that is incapable of manifesting itself in negative ways, and most people who believe in a form of it not being jackasses officially grants free passage to those who *are* being jackasses.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
From: MRNlCEWATCH | #064 It's pretty obvious that you are a militant "Reddit" atheist who is trying to front with some "oh I just hate oppression" bulls***
Yep, only a total jerk thinks that people should be judged on an individual basis rather than saying "oh, religious? well most of those guys are good so all of them must be!"
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
Panthera posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #064 It's pretty obvious that you are a militant "Reddit" atheist who is trying to front with some "oh I just hate oppression" bulls*** Yep, only a total jerk thinks that people should be judged on an individual basis rather than saying "oh, religious? well most of those guys are good so all of them must be!"
Except you don't judge theists individually...you lump them into the same category of "stupid, hateful idiots" and then play it off like you a some champion of morality. Grow up.
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
I find it moderately hillarious that the least tolerant person in the topic so far has been Sess >_>.
Was he also the person that made that topic a few weeks ago making fun of atheists posting about their beliefs on other websites (or lack of beliefs, I guess)?
-- Zachnorn - <D http://board8.wikia.com - Board 8 Wiki | http://www.stickam.com/profile/zachnorn - Game broadcasts
From: MRNlCEWATCH | #066 Except you don't judge theists individually...you lump them into the same category of "stupid, hateful idiots" and then play it off like you a some champion of morality. Grow up.
Yeah man I know, saying that individuals should be judged for how they act is totally saying that every religious person is a moron, you're totally right, reality be damned.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
I don't post on b8 enough to know people here, someone tell me if I'm arguing with someone who genuinely believes it's impossible for religion to ever manifest in harmful ways or if I'm being trolled.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
important people (lawmakers, public figures) who say "global warming isn't real and it doesn't matter anyway since God will take care of it, so we should continue our current energy path"
people who push their religious choices on everyone else in a free society in a way that damages other people (marriage rights, killing people for being gay, whatever)
moral police (who break up casual conversations because they heard a bad word or w/e)
the rest of them I think are either fine or actually quite good. I've met plenty of non-judgmental religious people who seem to be pretty nice and it's cool to be around them.
and of course it goes without saying that I hate those same characteristics out of atheists: people who want to outlaw religion, people who break into other people's conversations with a "actually there is no God" and all that. in most cases it's the behavior itself that's offensive, not whether it comes from a religious or non religious person.
"I don't hate religious people at all unless they try to enforce their beliefs on the rest of us. Well that's not true, I also hate them if their beliefs are morally abhorrent. Or if they're just bad people for non-religious reasons too! And especially if they think I hate them just because I'm an atheist."
"The idea that religious beliefs shouldn't be open to criticism/are inherently worthy of respect is a very dumb one, for the record. If you believe that your god is telling you you need to oppress people, then you definitely don't deserve to have that belief respected!"
"Except you don't judge theists individually...you lump them into the same category of "stupid, hateful idiots" and then play it off like you a some champion of morality. Grow up."
I don't see how that third quote describes the first two quotes, at all.
-- ICON: the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops
From: MRNlCEWATCH | #066 Panthera posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #064 It's pretty obvious that you are a militant "Reddit" atheist who is trying to front with some "oh I just hate oppression" bulls*** Yep, only a total jerk thinks that people should be judged on an individual basis rather than saying "oh, religious? well most of those guys are good so all of them must be!"
Except you don't judge theists individually...you lump them into the same category of "stupid, hateful idiots" and then play it off like you a some champion of morality. Grow up.
Why are you trying to tell him what he thinks? It's almost like you're judging him based on some sort of predetermined stereotype you have in your mind or something.
-- You have no time to ponder such questions, as Link has just grabbed a Smash Ball. http://backloggery.com/herodeltiempo/sig.gif
I don't post on b8 enough to know people here, someone tell me if I'm arguing with someone who genuinely believes it's impossible for religion to ever manifest in harmful ways or if I'm being trolled.
HeroDelTiempo17 posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #066 Panthera posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #064 It's pretty obvious that you are a militant "Reddit" atheist who is trying to front with some "oh I just hate oppression" bulls*** Yep, only a total jerk thinks that people should be judged on an individual basis rather than saying "oh, religious? well most of those guys are good so all of them must be!"
Except you don't judge theists individually...you lump them into the same category of "stupid, hateful idiots" and then play it off like you a some champion of morality. Grow up. Why are you trying to tell him what he thinks? It's almost like you're judging him based on some sort of predetermined stereotype you have in your mind or something.
Because atheists are the most predictable demographic on the planet. That's just stone cold fact.
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
From: Panthera | #062 They're not being benevolent or caring at all, they're being tyrannical for showing absolutely no respect for anyone but themselves.
Yes they are wrong But you can not hate someone who is only acting in your self interest
If your mother made you a sandwich that unknowingly contained meat that made you sick for the next week, do you hate her for giving you food poisoning?
--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg
people who push their religious choices on everyone else in a free society in a way that damages other people (marriage rights, killing people for being gay, whatever)
I'd consider this one an oversimplification, assuming that by "marriage rights" you mean "gays have a right to be married." Granted, most anti-homosexual marriage advocates are bigoted, but there are legitimate concerns from within the Christian community about the status of marriage. The best thing to do, in my mind, would be to distinguish between civil unions and marriage, and allow those churches that wish to wed gays to do so.
"I don't post on b8 enough to know people here, someone tell me if I'm arguing with someone who genuinely believes it's impossible for religion to ever manifest in harmful ways or if I'm being trolled."
It's Sess. He recently made a topic that stated:
"A year ago, I led this board on an inspirational crusade to stop the rampant racism that stained our home. We all vowed to stop being racist, and since that day we have become a shining example of progress and tolerance when it comes to racial attitudes.
There is another area, however, that we are falling behind in. That is the area of religious discrimination. Board 8 is a place where atheism is the dominant religion. That is perfectly fine. However, I have noticed over the past year that theists are often times the victims of bullying and discrimination by the majority of the board. They are forced to keep their views and beliefs to themselves out of fear of being mocked and ridiculed.
We are a place where anyone of any race, gender, class, or belief can come and post freely. In the past year, you all showed that you support that notion and will fight to uphold it. Tonight, I ask you to do that one more time. Please sign this pledge to end religious discrimination on Board 8:
I, _______, hereby pledge to not discriminate against other users based on their religious beliefs. I will respect all faiths regardless of if they agree with mine or not. I will treat each person equally, and will not post in a manner that forces another user to feel uncomfortable about their religion. "
Meanwhile, the last time in the chat I saw him say:
sdk249: that n**** tiger w/ a birdie on 1
and
sdk249: lil b sdk249: is f***ing gay as s*** tehicon: (happy) sdk249: nah like dicksucking gay RustyMrMokka: I'm Gay (I'm Happy)
so, it's safe to ignore his posts here
-- ICON: the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops the raindrops
Because atheists are the most predictable demographic on the planet. That's just stone cold fact.
I'm an atheist who hates most other atheists and considers the scientific method a highly flawed way of approaching truth. Does this make me "predictable"?
masterplum posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #075 Because atheists are the most predictable demographic on the planet. That's just stone cold fact. Your an idiot
How moral of you.
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
Westbrick posted... Because atheists are the most predictable demographic on the planet. That's just stone cold fact.
I'm an atheist who hates most other atheists and considers the scientific method a highly flawed way of approaching truth. Does this make me "predictable"?
Yes
After progressing pass the original militant stage atheists tend to overcompensate for their previous ways by taking more moderate stances.
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
I don't like dealing with crap. Especially if you are arguing on the same side as me. I hate people who make my views look bad because they are ignorant or arrogant.
--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg
From: masterplum | #076 Yes they are wrong But you can not hate someone who is only acting in your self interest
If your mother made you a sandwich that unknowingly contained meat that made you sick for the next week, do you hate her for giving you food poisoning?
Uh, yeah, I can hate someone for "acting in my self-interest" when that means they're telling me I'm incapable of making decisions for myself and trying to rule my life for me. Because that's not my self-interest, that's what they THINK is my self-interest, and what I actually think is beneficial be damned. Why are their beliefs allowed to take precedence over mine? I believe that there is no after life, which means this is the only life that matters - they aren't doing me any favours by trying to make the only time I'll ever have worse.
That's a faulty analogy; it would be more like my mother making me a sandwich that contains, say...red pepper, which she knows I'm allergic to, but she gives it to me anyway and has me fined or thrown in jail for refusing because "red pepper is healthy and goof for you". (as a side note I'm not allergic to red pepper and would like a sandwich with it now <_<). They aren't "unknowingly" doing anything, they know full well that if I don't follow their belief system, I consider having their beliefs forced on me harmful.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
masterplum posted... From: MRNlCEWATCH | #082 How moral of you. I don't like dealing with crap. Especially if you are arguing on the same side as me. I hate people who make my views look bad because they are ignorant or arrogant.
How moral of you.
--
no more mr. nice sess....hello mr. nice watch! somebody call the brinks truck!
From: Westbrick | #077 I'd consider this one an oversimplification, assuming that by "marriage rights" you mean "gays have a right to be married." Granted, most anti-homosexual marriage advocates are bigoted, but there are legitimate concerns from within the Christian community about the status of marriage. The best thing to do, in my mind, would be to distinguish between civil unions and marriage, and allow those churches that wish to wed gays to do so.
This doesn't work as long as the government recognizes marriage. Either gay marriage has to be legal, or marriage itself can't be legal, and you need to advocate civil unions are *all* that are recognized by the government and marriage is a purely religious matter that has no legal benefits/responsibilities. But that doesn't really work because marriage has been a legal institution for long enough and exists in various forms across various cultures to the point that you really can't argue "marriage" is the exclusive property of Christianity.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.
After progressing pass the original militant stage atheists tend to overcompensate for their previous ways by taking more moderate stances.
Right. So let me see if my small atheist mind understands you correctly:
If an atheist is militant, then he's predictably young, rebellious, and counter-culture. If an atheist is non-militant, then he's predictably overcompensatory, ashamed at his past actions, and ostensibly moderate.
Glad your tolerance has an entire demographic pegged into a winless scenario. Bravo.
From: Panthera | #080 This doesn't work as long as the government recognizes marriage. Either gay marriage has to be legal, or marriage itself can't be legal, and you need to advocate civil unions are *all* that are recognized by the government and marriage is a purely religious matter that has no legal benefits/responsibilities. But that doesn't really work because marriage has been a legal institution for long enough and exists in various forms across various cultures to the point that you really can't argue "marriage" is the exclusive property of Christianity.
Problem then is you would end up forcing Churches to marry homosexuals otherwise they would be breaking discrimination law and could be sued.
You don't want to go there for a number of nonreligious reasons
--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg
Unless you mean you hate "most people" in general, I'm not sure why you hate most people who lack a belief in the supernatural.
This would require a more in-depth conversation than is probably appropriate here, but I find most militant atheists (i.e. New Atheists) insufferable. They act under a pretense of "rationality," but are unwilling to ask themselves even the most basic philosophical questions. Sess' assessment of all atheists is just silly, but he's got a point: a certain part of the atheist demographic is rather predictable.
But then cults being predictable isn't particularly worth pointing out.
From: masterplum | #093 Problem then is you would end up forcing Churches to marry homosexuals otherwise they would be breaking discrimination law and could be sued.
You don't want to go there for a number of nonreligious reasons
This problem isn't TOO hard to work around really, the then-premier of my province said when Canada officially legalized gay marriage federally basically said "we won't raise a fuss as long as people who don't believe in it aren't forced to take part in it" and no one has really made an issue of it, to the point that I don't even know if that's legally on the books or just taken as an unofficial policy.
The thing is though, as long as Church officials have the ability to officially handle the legal aspect of marriage, they kind of have a responsibility to obey the law (or else we end up like that judge in...somewhere in the southern US who refused to marry a couple because he doesn't believe in interracial marriage), so unless they give that up entirely, they're being given the right to deny legal status to people, which is obviously pretty screwed up. You can't give the Churches the ability to deny people their legal rights without it being obviously preferential.
That said, it's a problem that probably doesn't even come up much; the average gay couple isn't going to want to get married by a Church that hates them anyway, and they'll probably not be too miffed about waiting until someone who *doesn't* have a problem with it will be available for the ceremony/whatever they feel like doing. Then as long as you set precedent that trying to force someone whose religious beliefs oppose gay marriage to marry you is just as guilty of violating discrimination laws as they would be for turning you down, you're fairly set; this still favours the Churches/priests/ministers/etc, since they're the ones who get to ignore legal responsibilities they've chosen to take on themselves, but it's good enough that I doubt it bothers people much.
--
We clasped our hands, our hands in praise of a conquerors right to tyranny
@Panthera: Assuming America employed some sort of state-church split in regards to partnerships, how would you feel about keeping the word "marriage" out of civil unions? Would it bother you if gays were not "married" (though they retained all legal rights) unless they could find a church that got on board?
From: Westbrick | #098 @Panthera: Assuming America employed some sort of state-church split in regards to partnerships, how would you feel about keeping the word "marriage" out of civil unions? Would it bother you if gays were not "married" (though they retained all legal rights) unless they could find a church that got on board?
Yes, because I don't believe that "marriage" is inherently religious. I don't have a problem (well, not too much of one) with churches defining their own style of marriage, only with the insistence that the government definition should be a religious one. You can have legal marriage and religious marriage both exist as concepts in society and recognize only the former if you want without it being a contradiction.
--
Mistake you're making - overlooking the fact that we might not want to be saved.