|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Asgara Member (Idle past 2333 days) Posts: 1783 From: Wisconsin, USA Joined:
|
I would assume that a student doing official announcements for the school means they are acting AS the school.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
True, I suppose. Legally, the complainers had a point. My gripe is that they found it so necessary to complain when it appeared everyone else had no problem with it.
Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
What do you suppose would happen if the student ended his announcements with "Allahu Akbar"? Think any Christians would be upset and complain?
Your gripe is based upon what you perceive as your Christian privilege. No one else complained because they perceive the same privilege. Along with so many changes over this past 50 years that privilege no longer exists. Not in a secular nation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18354 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I suppose that is true. I guess in all honesty I've never tried to see the whole big picture in terms of Privilege.
I don't think it spells the end of religion, but I DO think that religious views will someday be highly unfavorable to a majority of people.Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2137 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The problem with religion is that many people feel the need to share or even force their particular religions on others.
Mild examples are the blue laws, which fortunately are going the way of the dodo. The extreme of this is beheading those who won't kowtow to their particular gods.Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Cat Sci writes: Tolerance of a position would be: I see that there are other definitions, but I prefer to use this one.Fundamentalist disagreement would be: All of these other definitions are wrong and the one I am using is the only correct one. Disagreements about whether an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god or doesn't believe in god are worlds away from fundamentalism which has been flung around here in deliberately pejoritive and accusitive ways. Fundamentalism has a meaning that goes far beyond theoretical argument about the meaning of words, it's generally used to describe those whose beliefs drive them to take extreme positions that are demonstrably and evidentially wrong and to take actions that put them outside the law; from those who uses their beliefs to discriminate or preach hatred against others to those that fly planes into tall buildings. Once you start flinging it around indiscriminately at thoughtful people merely discussing ideas, you make a mockery of the word and yourself.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member
|
it's generally used to describe those whose beliefs drive them to take extreme positions that are demonstrably and evidentially wrong The whole of Christianity is 'demonstrably and evidentially wrong', yet we can still talk about a fundamentalist Christianity and a non-fundamentalist Christianity. Being 'wrong' does not make someone a fundamentalist, and it is not a prerequisite for being one either.
and to take actions that put them outside the law That's called an outlaw. And breaking the law is not an essential aspect of being a fundamentalist; I would say most fundamentalists are law-abiding.
Once you start flinging it around indiscriminately at thoughtful people merely discussing ideas, you make a mockery of the word and yourself. It isn't being flung around indiscriminately. It's being used to describe exactly what the word is meant to describe. Your insistence that there is a 'correct' way to be an atheist is every bit a position of fundamentalism; it doesn't matter whether your 'correct' way compels you to fly planes into buildings or just post stupid stuff on the Internet. Fundamentalism it is.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Jon writes: The whole of Christianity is 'demonstrably and evidentially wrong', yet we can still talk about a fundamentalist Christianity and a non-fundamental Christianity. Cobblers. We reserve the term fundamentalist to those whose views are extreme - 6,000 year old earth, homosexuals are an abhorrence, the bible is inerrant, man rides dinosaur, suicide bombers, martyrs, etc etc.
Your insistence that there is a 'correct' way to be an atheist is every bit a position of fundamentalism; it doesn't matter whether your 'correct' way compels you to fly planes into buildings or just post stupid stuff on the Internet. Fundamentalism it is. Who the hell is insisting that there's a correct way to be an atheist??? How can there be a right and a wrong way to not believe in something? The end result is nothing - you know, a non-belief. Zip. How is that in anyway comparable to a real religious fundamentalist? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Disagreements about whether an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god or doesn't believe in god are worlds away from fundamentalism which has been flung around here in deliberately pejoritive and accusitive ways. But its not the disagreement, itself. Its your behavior surrounding the disagreement that is a lot like fundamentalist behavior.
Fundamentalism has a meaning that goes far beyond theoretical argument about the meaning of words, it's generally used to describe those whose beliefs drive them to take extreme positions that are demonstrably and evidentially wrong Sure, like insisting that there is only one definition of atheism. Then posting a bunch of other definitions and claiming that they are all incorrect and only the one that you are using is right. Your position is demonstrably and evidentially wrong and yet you are insisting on it anyways. So much so that you're willing to claim that all the dictionaries that disagree with you are just wrong. That's exactly how fundamentalist behave. Can you not see that?
and to take actions that put them outside the law Not necessarily. Like, there's nothing illegal with thinking the Bible gets everything right and then saying that everything out in the real world that contradicts the Bible is wrong.
from those who uses their beliefs to discriminate or preach hatred against others to those that fly planes into tall buildings. There's a lot more to it than that - most of which is benign.
Once you start flinging it around indiscriminately at thoughtful people merely discussing ideas, you make a mockery of the word and yourself. Thank you for sharing your opinion. Sometimes it takes a little gall to get people to consider their own behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tangle writes:
No, that would be "extremists". "Fundamentalists" are people who believe that the "fundamentals" of any issue are black and white.
We reserve the term fundamentalist to those whose views are extreme....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Cat Sci writes: But its not the disagreement, itself. Its your behavior surrounding the disagreement that is a lot like fundamentalist behaviour. Exactly how? Did I walk the sidewalks with a banner shouting religionist remarks at passers by? Did I blow up something? Claim that the world must give up god and live in a totally secular way ruled by vegetarians? Or was I just arguing the meaning of words on forum and disagreeing with a couple of misguided agnostics?
Sure, like insisting that there is only one definition of atheism. Then posting a bunch of other definitions and claiming that they are all incorrect and only the one that you are using is right. Your position is demonstrably and evidentially wrong and yet you are insisting on it anyways. So much so that you're willing to claim that all the dictionaries that disagree with you are just wrong. That's exactly how fundamentalist behave. Can you not see that? I love your hyperbole. I also love your lack of irony. Here you are insisting that I'm wrong whilst calling me a fundamentalist for supposedly insisting that I'm right! You, you, you, you fundamentalist you!!! Oh my.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1436 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
And yet I agree with Dwise1 about atheism - see last post. So how can this be? Could you possibly be confusing disagreeing with you about it being fundamentalism? And he disagrees with you about your position on agnosticism. It is not the atheism that is the problem it is your fundamentalist approach and insistence your position being the only correct one. Ringo is also an atheist that disagrees with you.
I am utterly tolerant of other's positions - even yours. I just disagree with them. Which is why you call it insane, irrational, absurd ... words of tolerance? Curiously, when you argue with atheists, theists and agnostics and claim that you are right (because you are the one with the proper interpretation) ... I would think you might consider the possibility of being wrong.
I suppose that if I now said "golly gosh RAZD, you've been right all along, silly me", I'd no longer be a fundamentalist? Is that what it takes? Well it would be a rational move in my humble opinion, but you don't need to agree with me to cease being a fundamentalist, you just need to cease your fundamentalist behavior.
Do you recognise difference between tolerance of a position and disagreement with a position? Do you? Is it tolerance that led you to troll me on another thread with a comment that had no relation to the thread but was dismissive of my position? ... (What is the Latest On Dr Schweitzer Trex Soft Tissue Find? Message 33):
RAZD writes: advocate a policy of open-minded skepticism -- openly willing to consider another persons position\argument while at the same time being skeptical of it, looking for evidence pro and con to better understand the validity of the position. Who said Yanks don't do irony......? Is that tolerance? Is that just a disagreement? If it is disagreement what bearing does that comment have to that thread? What purpose did that post serve?
Message 535: So now we have atheists that believe in god......? ffs, this is a new order of insanity. What I'd like to discuss is ... not some other convoluted fabrication ... Love that tolerance, it just drips off that post ...
Message 524: You ignore the new main discussion point about the iniquitousness of calling atheists 'fundamentalists' and instead try to drag the argument back into the old one that's been thrashed to death using yet another false analogy. ... Another behavior I notice in fundamentalists is to focus on some perceived insult as an excuse to ignore the argument.... And an honest debater would show it is a false analogy rather than just dismiss it. Using petty reasons to dismiss a post rather than discuss it is not tolerance.
Message 514: I see your frantic searching and copy and paste, mining activity crashed EVC...It's a shame you didn't put as much effort into attempting to understand my position as you have is misrepresenting it. Again an honest debater would show the errors in what I posted instead of just dismissing them (with a post hoc fallacy). Using petty reasons to dismiss a post rather than discuss it is not tolerance.
Message 508: It's not as though I - and others - have only explained this once and not attempted to put it in different ways or corrected your errors in understanding. (That's your understanding of what I'm saying, not whether it's right or wrong.) So be it. This horse has been flogged enough. Perhaps, if nothing else, the next time you call yourself a deist, you'll ask yourself how you can say that if you don't actually believe in god. Try not to fool yourself. You only attempt to correct my thinking and make no attempt to reply honestly to my positions, which you misrepresent dismissively. Ya gotta love that tolerance don't you. ... ... ... Well, I wouldn't want to "crash" EvC with a long list of your intolerance (which you won't deal with or admit to anyway -- of which this is just a taste sample -- so I'll leave it at that: certainly it shows a pattern of disrespect and intolerance and not a pattern of disagreement (you know, where you actually discuss other people's positions ... and show why you disagree with them). What's your next ploy to avoid the issues I've raised? Enjoy.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9516 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
The words Pot and kettle spring to mind.
I suggest you have a bit of a think before you use the word fundamentalist to describe an online discussion about the meaning of a word. You've debased what little argument you had. Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
The words Pot and kettle spring to mind.
You've debased what little argument you had.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Cat Sci writes:
Exactly how? But its not the disagreement, itself. Its your behavior surrounding the disagreement that is a lot like fundamentalist behaviour. What? Have you not been reading my posts?
quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: quote: How much more exact do you need me to be?
Here you are insisting that I'm wrong whilst calling me a fundamentalist for supposedly insisting that I'm right! Wrong again. For one, I've supported my claims with evidence while you have provided evidence against your claims and then resorted to saying that you were still right and it was the evidence that was wrong. Too, I've accepted that your usage can work but then went on to explain why my way works better. You cannot even acknowledge that the other definitions can be used. Thirdly, you're only argument for your preferred usage of the words is that you are the correct one and everyone else is wrong. But the only support you have for that position disagrees with you and proves my claims. So our behavior is nothing like each other. I'm being reasonable and providing coherant and truthful arguments for why I am stating things correctly while you have resorted to simply going: "Nuh-uh I'm the right one and everyone else is wrong." That's why you're acting like a fundamentalist and I am not. Here's some quote from myself in reponse to your preferred usage of the word:
quote: quote: quote: quote: Here's some of your responses in this thread:
And therefore both atheists and agnostics disbelieve in God. QED I'm saying that agnostics don't exist. Agnostics do not exist - they seem desperately to want to avoid admitting it, but by definition they can not. I use the word atheist because it's the only one we have to describe a lack of belief in god. Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less. There's no 'types' of atheists. If you don't believe god exists, you're an atheist. If you don't know if you believe there's a god, you don't believe in god. You are therefore an atheist. I'm not arguing about how most people use the words. I'm saying that they're fooling themselves. If you don't know what to believe - as, in say Bigfoot - you can not believe in Bigfoot. It's impossible to discuss issues like this if you're going to use incorrect and illogical language. No. Because I don't accept any scale. As I've said, belief in god is binary. Well it simplifies things - those who profess to a belief in god are theists, all the rest, for whatever reason, are not. Given that the ONLY definition of an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in god, it's a bit of an all inclusive term isn't it? If atheism doesn't mean a lack of belief in god/s then it has no meaning at all. There is only one definition of an atheist! It's someone with a lack of belief in god/s. No other definition makes any sense at all. Can you see the differences in our behaviors? Can you see how yours is like fundamentalism and mine is not?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024