To shit with respect!

Billy is going to kick off the atheist crusades.
 
Billy said:
Because that gets us nowhere. Isnt there a saying? "All evil needs to triumph is for good men to do nothing"?
Click to expand...

When indifference comes from a place of inwardly concentrated energy, it can also be hugely empowering and the source of positive change. I don't really understand what all the kerfuffle is about myself, when we all have free will over which threads we choose to read or engage in.
 
Billy said:
Its obviously dependent on the person. My reasons are my own, I just dont think some ideas are deserving of tact or respect. Would you discuss alien abductions with tact? Why? Its absurd. How about the Easter bunny, or Chupa Cabra? I certainly wouldnt, I would scoff at such things, and IMO rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Alien abductions...yes. It's a possibility.

You are into science and technology and in front of your eyes is a universe that appears to be infinite in all directions but the possibility of other life being capable of travelling around it is so ridiculous you wouldn't give the idea a moments consideration? Who, in the 1400s, would think mankind would ever be able to fly in an airplane like the ones we have today? Or go to the moon?!!

Why is it so impossible that there is other life and they have mastered something we have yet to? If we are always on the lookout for life in other places, why would they have not done the same at the point in their evolution when they were most like us? I'm not saying every single redneck who has had hallucinations is telling the truth but to dismiss the idea that it could happen to anyone - ever - is arrogant and a terrible attitude for a 'scientist' to have. You don't know enough about it because you can't so it is pure hubris that makes you dismiss it off hand.

The easter bunny has always been fiction and never literally believed in. Moot point.

I don't even know what a Chupa Cabra is but if it's anything like Bigfoot or Nessie; who cares? It would change nothing if these things were real - they would just be another animal that would be on the verge of extinction.

So, yes, anything a human being feels strongly enough about to put their personal reputation on the line for and has some kind of evidence for, even if it is simply compelling testimonial evidence that correlates with other accounts, should be treated with tact. Scoffing is totally unnecessary and will always lead to the end of rational, reasonable discussion so everybody loses because you couldn't drop the attitude when speaking to a fellow human being.

You'll always fall into the same trap with that attitude also:
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Click to expand...

This happened with so much in the scientific arena. Why is it necessary to continue this cycle, oh enlightened one?

Can't we cut out the first two stages and just treat new ideas with tact and courtesy - look into them honestly even if what we might find frightens us - and if they are wrong then they are wrong. While everyone is arguing based on information they've simply heard from others but do not really know, very few people are actually seeking the truth as they could be.
 
My main area of disagreement in this whole argument is that it is not actually factual that religious people have always held the reins of power, and my understanding after reading a bit of history is that historically, atheistic governments that seek to stamp out religions have proven themselves equally capable of performing atrocities and behaving irrationally as religious ones. (I'm specifically thinking of some of the things that happened in Russia in the 30s and 40s.) Those governments just think their reasons for doing the things they do are better than God.

In other words, stamp out religion harshly and other things take the place of God and they're not necessarily better. In fact, they seem awfully similar to me.
Same thing, really.

So, I do think some respect is a good idea. For one thing, if you keep bashing someone on the head, sooner or later they will bash you back and then what's happened to all these great ideas? Bashing contest. Whoopee, the thrill. :/ Rather not live in a world like that.

P.S. and, There is some evidence that people are born to be religious. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-we-born-to-be-religious
So, we're ready to forgive all the poor baby-eaters who can't control themselves, and cut them some slack, but if someone happens to have mild to moderate religious tendencies, then we are not going to treat them decently at all? That makes no sense.

P.P.S. And here's a test.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rotests-over-restaurants-near-holy-sites.html

Some Hindus in India do not want to have a McDonald's open near a holy site. It is a vegetarian McDonald's, but it is being protested by Hindus because "It's an attempt not only to make money but also to deliberately humiliate Hindus." and it is a company which slaughters cows, which are holy to Hindus. (I'd say yes, it is an attempt to make money, but I don't think anyone is trying to humiliate Hindus.) So, just wondering, in a showdown between religion and McDonald's who should win? And is anyone with me in wanting a 'Aloo McTikki burger'? I badly want one.

And whose rights are being trampled here? Is this the same thing as not being able to buy beer on Sunday?

So is the idea here to be all "DIE HINDUS DIE! We want our burgers!" Or are we going to be specific as to which religions we disrespect here? And what if you don't like religion OR capitalism? Does that just mean you're SOL? Who do you side with? Just wondering.
 
Last edited:
Concept - success

Delivery of concept - fail

Sorry Billy

Edit: Note that this thread hasn't become about whether you should talk about religion. It has become about whether you should write in such an aggresive tone

People will add their own tone to your words based on how you structure your sentences and key words that you use. Whether you feel aggressive or not, people will read it that way. The conversation then becomes about arguing with you, not about arguing for or against your idea
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: the
Alien abductions...yes. It's a possibility.
Click to expand...
Possible yes, likely? not very.

You are into science and technology and in front of your eyes is a universe that appears to be infinite in all directions but the possibility of other life being capable of travelling around it is so ridiculous you wouldn't give the idea a moments consideration? Who, in the 1400s, would think mankind would ever be able to fly in an airplane like the ones we have today? Or go to the moon?!!
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying, but traveling an ocean and traveling to the moon are not the same as traveling interstellar space. Again, is it possible? Yes. Likely? No. There is no evidence of aliens visiting earth.

Why is it so impossible that there is other life and they have mastered something we have yet to? If we are always on the lookout for life in other places, why would they have not done the same at the point in their evolution when they were most like us? I'm not saying every single redneck who has had hallucinations is telling the truth but to dismiss the idea that it could happen to anyone - ever - is arrogant and a terrible attitude for a 'scientist' to have. You don't know enough about it because you can't so it is pure hubris that makes you dismiss it off hand.
Click to expand...
I didnt say it was impossible, you are saying that. When I say discussing alien abductions seems ridiculous, I am not saying its impossible for other life to visit earth, what I am saying is that every single record of an alien abduction to date has been a hoax in 1 form or another.

The easter bunny has always been fiction and never literally believed in. Moot point.
Click to expand...
Heh, so is God. Only difference is that Adults still believe in god.

I don't even know what a Chupa Cabra is but if it's anything like Bigfoot or Nessie; who cares? It would change nothing if these things were real - they would just be another animal that would be on the verge of extinction.
Click to expand...
Exactly, its so unlikely, who cares, its not worth a discussion.

So, yes, anything a human being feels strongly enough about to put their personal reputation on the line for and has some kind of evidence for, even if it is simply compelling testimonial evidence that correlates with other accounts, should be treated with tact. Scoffing is totally unnecessary and will always lead to the end of rational, reasonable discussion so everybody loses because you couldn't drop the attitude when speaking to a fellow human being.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Just because you put your reputation on the line means nothing. In fact its idiotic to put your reputation on the line for something you cannot prove or at least show some evidence for. I do not agree that people who do that are somehow deserving of tact. If someone loses (not sure what theyre losing, the argument?) then that's their problem. Don't get so personally involved if you cant handle criticism.

You'll always fall into the same trap with that attitude also:


This happened with so much in the scientific arena. Why is it necessary to continue this cycle, oh enlightened one?
Click to expand...
Because truth is self evident, regardless of what the flock thinks.

Can't we cut out the first two stages and just treat new ideas with tact and courtesy - look into them honestly even if what we might find frightens us - and if they are wrong then they are wrong. While everyone is arguing based on information they've simply heard from others but do not really know, very few people are actually seeking the truth as they could be.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're trying to say that because say I or anyone else are not actual scientists we believe on faith. This is an ignorant comment. Faith requires blind belief, fact does not.
 
this is only temporary said:
My main area of disagreement in this whole argument is that it is not actually factual that religious people have always held the reins of power, and my understanding after reading a bit of history is that historically, atheistic governments that seek to stamp out religions have proven themselves equally capable of performing atrocities and behaving irrationally as religious ones. (I'm specifically thinking of some of the things that happened in Russia in the 30s and 40s.) Those governments just think their reasons for doing the things they do are better than God.

In other words, stamp out religion harshly and other things take the place of God and they're not necessarily better. In fact, they seem awfully similar to me.
Same thing, really.

So, I do think some respect is a good idea. For one thing, if you keep bashing someone on the head, sooner or later they will bash you back and then what's happened to all these great ideas? Bashing contest. Whoopee, the thrill. :/ Rather not live in a world like that.

P.S. and, There is some evidence that people are born to be religious. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-we-born-to-be-religious
So, we're ready to forgive all the poor baby-eaters who can't control themselves, and cut them some slack, but if someone happens to have mild to moderate religious tendencies, then we are not going to treat them decently at all? That makes no sense.

P.P.S. And here's a test.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...rotests-over-restaurants-near-holy-sites.html

Some Hindus in India do not want to have a McDonald's open near a holy site. It is a vegetarian McDonald's, but it is being protested by Hindus because "It's an attempt not only to make money but also to deliberately humiliate Hindus." and it is a company which slaughters cows, which are holy to Hindus. (I'd say yes, it is an attempt to make money, but I don't think anyone is trying to humiliate Hindus.) So, just wondering, in a showdown between religion and McDonald's who should win? And is anyone with me in wanting a 'Aloo McTikki burger'? I badly want one.

And whose rights are being trampled here? Is this the same thing as not being able to buy beer on Sunday?

So is the idea here to be all "DIE HINDUS DIE! We want our burgers!" Or are we going to be specific as to which religions we disrespect here? And what if you don't like religion OR capitalism? Does that just mean you're SOL? Who do you side with? Just wondering.
Click to expand...

Just say Stalin. I am happy your didn't say the Nazis since it s been proven that Adolph Hitler and Himmler were both Catholics, made deals with the Catholics, and spoke often about Christianity.

While Stalin may have been an atheist, his people were not. In fact Stalin was raised quite religious. As Cindylou says, religion effects everyone.
 
Poetic Justice said:
Concept - success

Delivery of concept - fail

Sorry Billy

Edit: Note that this thread hasn't become about whether you should talk about religion. It has become about whether you should write in such an aggresive tone

People will add their own tone to your words based on how you structure your sentences and key words that you use. Whether you feel aggressive or not, people will read it that way. The conversation then becomes about arguing with you, not about arguing for or against your idea
Click to expand...

And yet they are discussing it. -Success.

If they feel butthurt, well that's not my problem.
 
Billy said:
Just say Stalin. I am happy your didn't say the Nazis since it s been proven that Adolph Hitler and Himmler were both Catholics, made deals with the Catholics, and spoke often about Christianity.

While Stalin may have been an atheist, his people were not. In fact Stalin was raised quite religious. As Cindylou says, religion effects everyone.
Click to expand...

Well, I couldn't remember who it was, Stalin and his cronies. I'm sure he had cronies, they all do.

It was not Stalin's people who tried to stamp out religion though, and it was done in a very heavy-handed way that affected a lot more than people's ability to buy beer on Sunday. The point I was trying to make is that militant atheism can be just as harmful as militant religion.

Basically, it is just the flip side of the same old coin, with a different name. Especially when it comes from a place of enjoying causing butthurt to others. It essentially disrespects people. I don't know what to call it other than systematic shoving of ideas down people's throats, and yes religion does that sometimes but sometimes so does atheism.
 
this is only temporary said:
Well, I couldn't remember who it was, Stalin and his cronies. I'm sure he had cronies, they all do.

It was not Stalin's people who tried to stamp out religion though, and it was done in a very heavy-handed way that affected a lot more than people's ability to buy beer on Sunday. The point I was trying to make is that militant atheism can be just as harmful as militant religion.

Basically, it is just the flip side of the same old coin, with a different name. Especially when it comes from a place of enjoying causing butthurt to others. It essentially disrespects people. I don't know what to call it other than systematic shoving of ideas down people's throats, and yes religion does that sometimes but sometimes so does atheism.
Click to expand...

Stalin didn't rule an atheist country, he was an atheist who ruled a heavily christian country full of backwards religious peasants. So calling it an atheist regime is a little out of whack with reality. It would be like saying (if Mitt Romney won) that this country is a Mormon nation. And I disagree with your notion that its 2 sides of the same coin. We have never seen an atheist nation or government. It is my (albeit subjective) belief that if we did, and I believe we will one day, that it will be a much better place than any we have ever seen before. Since the main partition for division will be gone.
 
Kmal said:
you must get off like a rocket making others mad since your mom made you so mad as a child. i certainly have compassion for you billy, and i really cant expect you to act against what youve known your whole life, but there is hope! may you fulfill all your desires of getting back at the mean, cruel world! :D

i got the jist of what youre saying: to shit with respect, lets have the truth!
Click to expand...

attachment.php
 
Billy said:
Stalin didn't rule an atheist country, he was an atheist who ruled a heavily christian country full of backwards religious peasants. So calling it an atheist regime is a little out of whack with reality. It would be like saying (if Mitt Romney won) that this country is a Mormon nation. And I disagree with your notion that its 2 sides of the same coin. We have never seen an atheist nation or government. It is my (albeit subjective) belief that if we did, and I believe we will one day, that it will be a much better place than any we have ever seen before. Since the main partition for division will be gone.
Click to expand...

But he didn't so much rule them exactly, he more killed anyone who disagreed with him.

To be honest, I will have to read more about that poor depressing man who was abused as a child, which I really don't want to do, but even just looking on Wikipedia, I think it was an atheist regime. THis is what it says:

His government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[88]
Click to expand...

If that's not an atheist regime, then I don't know what is.

And yet in many countries today people are naturally becoming less religious, at least in the damaging sense of the word. Even here, 80+% of people recently voted to make alcohol sales on Sundays legal, which quite frankly is a record for having people agree with each other politically. I'm fairly certain even a lot of Baptists voted for it. Catholics regularly get divorced, people of all religions use birth control... what I mean is there are religious whack jobs, no doubt, but most religious people are more moderate, and I think forcing it out of people is not a strategy that will work or be helpful. For one thing, it will simply generate more opposition, cause more extremism, and close people's minds further.

Somehow I think persecuting or harshly disrespecting people for their religious beliefs would interfere in a natural process of having them think for themselves.
 
this is only temporary said:
But he didn't so much rule them exactly, he more killed anyone who disagreed with him.

To be honest, I will have to read more about that poor depressing man who was abused as a child, which I really don't want to do, but even just looking on Wikipedia, I think it was an atheist regime. THis is what it says:



If that's not an atheist regime, then I don't know what is.

And yet in many countries today people are naturally becoming less religious, at least in the damaging sense of the word. Even here, 80+% of people recently voted to make alcohol sales on Sundays legal, which quite frankly is a record for having people agree with each other politically. I'm fairly certain even a lot of Baptists voted for it. Catholics regularly get divorced, people of all religions use birth control... what I mean is there are religious whack jobs, no doubt, but most religious people are more moderate, and I think forcing it out of people is not a strategy that will work or be helpful. For one thing, it will simply generate more opposition, cause more extremism, and close people's minds further.

Somehow I think persecuting or harshly disrespecting people for their religious beliefs would interfere in a natural process of having them think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Yeah he did have those things but I think to call them schools would be a stretch. As would be calling a gulag a place of purification lol... but that doesn't help my case. FUCK.. ummm yeah... I dunno I still stand by the fact that he ruled at the end of a gun, not via personal influence, his nation was and still is largely Christian.

And I think saying what I am doing is persecuting is highly erroneous. That you can in 1 sense say that you can finally buy alcohol on Sunday (where from? I have the same deal here in CT) which is real persecution of freedoms by religion, and then liken what I am doing to persecution is a bit of a stretch. I have no power other than the power to form words and opinions. Atheists do not have the power christians do in the world, we cannot enforce our will on people the way Christians do.
 
No, of course you are not trying to persecute people, that is not what I meant!

But there is a sort of a continuum between disrespect ----------> persecution that seems to exist; persecution is at the very very far, extreme end of this continuum. And no, I do not think talking about atheism or questioning people's beliefs is persecution.

There is an extreme end of religion that is most definitely harmful, just like there is an extreme end of atheism that is also harmful, both extremes involve persecution, which to me has an awful lot in common with disrespect. Maybe we have too much of the extreme religion in the world today, probably we do, but I'd rather have moderate religion than extreme atheism, if I had a choice.

Overall, it would make more sense to say, "Hey, your laws are infringing upon my rights." than to say "Dumbass, why are you religious, fool?" And I think that is what seems to be happening in many places today -- the law thing, not the dumbass thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top