[Gunnair]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

First of all thank you for the compliment I try to keep my commentary on any subject about more then simply making a point.

I think it's very clear that you don't even remotely view this from the same angle that I do. Everyday I see very clear and concrete examples of religious institutions trying to pass laws or ensure a monopoly on aspects of society that effect everyday life. From the strict adherence to Christian prayer at publicly paid events (which trust me I see a lot of as an employee of the city) to having my doorbell go off every Saturday morning it seems religion and it's people are never content to simply let people be people.

These people have every right to say what they wish to say and do what they wish to do in the safety of their own homes or churches but in my experience are simply never content to stay out of the public sphere.

Not only does that violate the secular basis of North American society (sorry but America was NOT founded on god) but it shows great ignorance of the diversity of the populace. I am not ashamed to say that I am proud to see such diversity in our population as more and more of the rest of the world flocks to Canadian shores.

I think you do not see religion in this context at all I think what you see and correct me if I'm wrong is much simpler.

"Why can't we live and let live." It certainly explains the annoyance stated earlier and dismissal of all speech against religion as being religious.

Am I wrong?

Yep, you're wrong.

That live and let live goes both ways here. Which means those of faith should also be free to practise their faith without being dogged by atheists out to convert them from it. Should we have prayer at sporting events? That's something the public will decide on, frankly. If the majority don't like it, it'll stop. If the majority don't mind, it'll carry on. More likely it'll depend on which screeling vocal minority makes the most noise.

The expectation of religious folk keeping their beliefs in home and church and outside the public sphere truly demonstrates the depths of your ignorance on religion, frankly and it is amazingly hypocritical. It is a lifestyle, Jeff, and they are no more going to check their beliefs at the door than you will keep your atheist beliefs in your home and keep it out of the public sphere (like these forums)

As for the ignorance of diversity, well Jeff, you're guilty. Obviously your focus on Christianity here - and yes the moment you bring up diversity confirms which dead horse you are flogging - shows willful ignorance here that most of the diverse groups have and practise their own religious beliefs. Oddly, for the most part they aren't the ones crying out for more secularism its atheists doing it on their behalf.

Mind, those diverse groups (insert foreigners) will take the blame for it when society changes.

[Gunnair]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Very fair to say both sides are smug. However, there is a difference between an athiest saying "I don't believe in God, I've seeen no proof and the concept is not logical to me" and "You beliefs in make believe stories, fantasy characters, and superstitious ideals is not something I want to do."

The message is the same, you just don't like how it's being said in the second example. It's rude and condescending.

I agree, believe what you want, but there's no need to make fun of what others believe.

Wouldn't that make the world a nicer place?

[Thanos]

That which deserves to be made fun of shall be made fun of
.
- Emperor Palpatine

[ShepherdsDog]

I'm funny how? I mean funny, like I'm a clown? I amuse you?

Joe Pesci

[Thanos]

What the fuck's the matter with you Carmella? Can't you even wrap the mortadella separate from the gabbagool?

- Tony Soprano

* gabbagool = capicollo (apparently)

[BartSimpson]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Gunnair Gunnair:

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

Maybe the reason Atheists are so vocal is because religious institutions never seem to be happy unless they are trying to force the rest of us to live by their dogma.

None here do that from the 'those of faith side'. Can't say so from the other though.

The day any Atheist marches into your church and tries to rip the cross off the wall you will have an actual point.

That might happen any day now.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&scli ... 83&bih=742

[Dayseed]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The message is the same, you just don't like how it's being said in the second example. It's rude and condescending.

I agree, believe what you want, but there's no need to make fun of what others believe.

Sure there is. There is a need to mock the underpinnings that cause doctors in Ireland watch a woman die because of what they believe. There is a need to mock a religion that claims peace, yet wants to put anyone to the sword that draws a picture of their holy man. There is a need to mock the idea that global warming simply cannot be happening because a God would not allow Man to destroy His Creation.

Those are the causes of those beliefs. They are given legitimacy because there are people out there who say "Well, I sort of believe what the crazies do, but it's not my God that would do [insert horrible thing here]".

If somebody stood on a street corner and denied abortions because ZulKruk the Elder Tree forbade it in a dream, people would walk on past. Change the name, keep the belief and measure the number of people who believe or simply don't question it and you've got a dead girl in Ireland.

So, is it "not nice" to make fun of somebody's belief? Certainly it's kinder than allowing religiously motivated hurt, death and destruction.

[Dayseed]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

That might happen any day now.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&scli ... 83&bih=742

And the atheist that rips a cross of a church wall ought to be made to put it back up.

[Gunnair]

Dayseed Dayseed:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

The message is the same, you just don't like how it's being said in the second example. It's rude and condescending.

I agree, believe what you want, but there's no need to make fun of what others believe.

Sure there is. There is a need to mock the underpinnings that cause doctors in Ireland watch a woman die because of what they believe. There is a need to mock a religion that claims peace, yet wants to put anyone to the sword that draws a picture of their holy man. There is a need to mock the idea that global warming simply cannot be happening because a God would not allow Man to destroy His Creation.

Those are the causes of those beliefs. They are given legitimacy because there are people out there who say "Well, I sort of believe what the crazies do, but it's not my God that would do [insert horrible thing here]".

If somebody stood on a street corner and denied abortions because ZulKruk the Elder Tree forbade it in a dream, people would walk on past. Change the name, keep the belief and measure the number of people who believe or simply don't question it and you've got a dead girl in Ireland.

So, is it "not nice" to make fun of somebody's belief? Certainly it's kinder than allowing religiously motivated hurt, death and destruction.

Not sure what you think you'll accomplish with the 'not nice' approach.

Right...nothing.

Thoughts on the non-religiously motivated hurt, death and destruction whilst on your soapbox or is today not a multi-tasking day?

[BartSimpson]

Dayseed Dayseed:

And the atheist that rips a cross of a church wall ought to be made to put it back up.

A pastor of mine once said that hospitals are for sick people and churches are for sinners and the imperfect. That said, I'm afraid that the atheist who vandalizes my church would find out why I belong there.

[CanadianJeff]

My apologies on the late response. I've worked a LOT of OT this week and I've also been in excessive pain so I'm writing this while I have one of the few breaks from both in the next few weeks.

First of all Gunnair even if I disagree with you I do value the dialog so please don't think I'm simply dismissive of what you say.

I do however still find myself in disagreement (surprise!) that I was right. You do see it as live and let live your disagreement stems from the fact you do not feel I wish to live and let live.

So I was correct but so are you. I do not wish to ever let such nonsense live and let live in this day and age. Bronze age systems of belief do not belong in the modern age and I beleive threaten to keep us all chained to ignorance.

To address your first point you may wish to go look up the fallacy of ad populum. It does not matter if the majority wish for something if it is wrong. By that definition if the majority of people oppose allowing gays to marry it makes it right. It does not.

On that first point you are correct. Public prayer likely will come down to whatever group makes the most noise and in the same way that gay people fought for their equal rights so will we non religious folks fight for our right to be free of religious ceremony in public. It is not whining to find the courage and conviction to stand up and take ridicule for fighting what you beleive is correct.

On your second point I shouldn't need to point out that you are the party that started this thread calling us "smug" and ignorant of science fiction. In this case I am standing up for myself from such accusations. The only ignorance that would occur on my part would be if I somehow thought that it was wrong of religious people to respond if I made open mockery of their religion. Non religious preference in public events is not mockery but simply non commentary.

[Gunnair]

CanadianJeff CanadianJeff:

My apologies on the late response. I've worked a LOT of OT this week and I've also been in excessive pain so I'm writing this while I have one of the few breaks from both in the next few weeks.

First of all Gunnair even if I disagree with you I do value the dialog so please don't think I'm simply dismissive of what you say.

I do however still find myself in disagreement (surprise!) that I was right. You do see it as live and let live your disagreement stems from the fact you do not feel I wish to live and let live.

So I was correct but so are you. I do not wish to ever let such nonsense live and let live in this day and age. Bronze age systems of belief do not belong in the modern age and I beleive threaten to keep us all chained to ignorance.

To address your first point you may wish to go look up the fallacy of ad populum. It does not matter if the majority wish for something if it is wrong. By that definition if the majority of people oppose allowing gays to marry it makes it right. It does not.

On that first point you are correct. Public prayer likely will come down to whatever group makes the most noise and in the same way that gay people fought for their equal rights so will we non religious folks fight for our right to be free of religious ceremony in public. It is not whining to find the courage and conviction to stand up and take ridicule for fighting what you beleive is correct.

On your second point I shouldn't need to point out that you are the party that started this thread calling us "smug" and ignorant of science fiction. In this case I am standing up for myself from such accusations. The only ignorance that would occur on my part would be if I somehow thought that it was wrong of religious people to respond if I made open mockery of their religion. Non religious preference in public events is not mockery but simply non commentary.

Actually it was the writer that made up the title, not me. You could take it up with him.

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Actually it was the writer that made up the title, not me. You could take it up with him.

CJ =/= Logic


Just saying.

[Wada]

Why Smug Atheists Should Read More Science Fiction

is that a punishment?

[Gunnair]

Wada Wada:

Why Smug Atheists Should Read More Science Fiction

is that a punishment?

You sound like a Twilight fan.