A bit of humor, for the people who can't understand what would make anyone be an atheist.
more humor
I like lolGod but readers should be warned that some posts aren't really that humorous. I'm sure the level of offensiveness is all over the map too. It's very bumper sticker sort of humor.
The Brick Testament has the distinction of being both hilarious to atheists and something that some Christians might want to use with their kids.
|
Yeah; it goes both ways.
And remember this: you can pretend that everything Stalin did was due to a different ideology and atheist governments are amongst "the most peaceful in the world."
In a lot of ways, Kirth, you're preaching to the choir.
Saw this yesterday, but got interrupted before I could respond.
Usual story with these long threads, everyone else moves on before I can reply, main reason why I just lurk without posting. No doubt the topic will have moved on by the time I post this?I'm posting this as an non-activist atheist from the UK, for what that's worth. I've no beef with Spanky; I know he's just being devils advocate, it's simply his post that set me thinking.
Is it truly the belief of many in the US, that unless every opportunity is taken, to shoe-horn the book of Leviticus* into US law, in defiance of a Constitution which appears (by my reading) to have been deliberately set up to prevent exactly that occurrence**, that Soviet Tanks will be rolling up Pennsylvania Avenue before the next election day?
There seems to be a failure of logic here; just because the Soviet leaders persecuted religion, it does not follow, that everyone who rejects religion, or finds it lacking, is going to run to embrace Soviet-style Communism.
While it is a common saying that 'The enemy of my enemy is my friend', that does presume that you have a common 'enemy', that is worse than the potential ally, and that it constitutes such a threat that it overrides one's normal revulsion at working together.
I would hope that the failures, excesses and atrocities of Soviet/Chinese/Vietnamese/Korean/etc-style Communism are so widely-known and understood, that they do not require one to have got religion, in order to oppose it.
These movements were never based on logic, reason, rationality or science.
They were bloodthirsty coups, led by demagogues, focussing the incoherent jealousy of the have-nots vs the haves, with the sole purpose of replacing the man at the top with themselves. "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss (only worse)". That could have been their song. And once in place, and having got rid of their rivals, to rule the country, they didn't have the faintest idea what to do with it.
As such, using such regimes to denigrate the use of logic, reason, rationality and science is a straw-man argument, and as a person with a sister-in-law whose family suffered at the hands of the 'glorious' Mao, I could take offence at any preacher who equates my scepticism re his fantasy tales with a love of murderous dictators.
I like lolGod but readers should be warned that some posts aren't really that humorous.
"How can an african american person evolve from a white person...I mean...we're different skins."
Ayep.
|
|
And on that point, thank you to Derek, for giving Jared a verbal kicking in that thread where he did start euologising Mao as a wonderful leader.
Had you not replied, and had I given in to the temptation of replying, I could very well not be typing this now, since I'd probably have got myself suspended. Cheers.
|
And on that point, thank you to Derek, for giving Jared a verbal kicking in that thread where he did start euologising Mao as a wonderful leader.
Had you not replied, and had I given in to the temptation of replying, I could very well not be typing this now, since I'd probably have got myself suspended. Cheers.
No worries. I've decided to start taking some for the team, so to speak. Which team depends on which side is getting kicked the most unfairly at the moment, but, since the moderation here seems a bit one sided, I'll put myself out there and take a hit in the name of justice from time to time.
Given the stated intent of 'separation of Church and State', and the publicly-stated deist beliefs of the Founders (eg Thomas Paine. Anyone care to comment on how many of the others shared this view?).
This is a big source of contention, for some reason. Edit: for emphasis:
The phrase "wall of separation of church and state" appears in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists; although obviously not a part of the Constitution, this document lays out in some detail the rationale behind the concept. Further evidence from the wiritings of John Adams (a moderate Christian who believed in separation of Church and State) and Madison ("The Father of the Constitution") in particular make it clear that even most of the Christians in the Convention didn't want the state meddling in their religion, and didn't want competing churches meddling in the State, and so were all in favor of a strict separation.
---
Despite all this, "A survey measuring attitudes toward freedom of religion, speech and the press found that 55% believe erroneously that the Constitution establishes a Christian nation."
I'm done.
I won't be back to this thread.
It's best this way.
Carry on.
|
|
Given the stated intent of 'separation of Church and State', and the publicly-stated deist beliefs of the Founders (eg Thomas Paine. Anyone care to comment on how many of the others shared this view?).This is a big source of contention, for some reason.
Most of the Founders were Christians. It's pretty clear, historically, that a number of them were extremely devout -- notably John Jay and Patrick Henry, who lobbied to include reference to scripture and to "Our Saviour Jesus Christ" in the Constitution.
Objections raised by Jefferson (a blatant Deist, who cut all the miracles out of the Bible and thereby produced what he considered a superior book), Madison, and others overruled these motions, and the Constitution passed as the first example of a totally secular foundation of government.
John Adams, from his correspondence with Jefferson, seems to have been a moderate Christian who believed in separation of Church and State. (This seems to have been the majority view of the Conference; see below.)
Franklin was a self-avowed Deist: "Some volumes against Deism fell into my hands. They were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lecture. It happened that they produced on me an effect precisely the reverse of what was intended by the writers; for the arguments of the Deists, which were cited in order to be refuted, appealed to me much more forcibly than the refutation itself. In a word, I soon became a thorough Deist."
Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen were of course Deist pamphleteers.
Washington was extremely reticent about the subject; despite being a vestryman, he apparently never took communion, and his wife was quoted, after his death, as replying to the question of his beliefs with the statement "Mr. Washington was no Christian." The phrase "wall of separation of church and state" appears in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists; although obviously not a part of the Constitution, this document lays out in some detail the rationale...
Yep. Mix religion and politics and you get Iran.
Sorry, had to be said.
Mix religion and politics and you get Iran.
The Founders were thinking more in terms of centuries of religious strife in Europe, with each country's king claiming to be ruler by "divine right" of ordainment by God -- but, yeah, Iran is a perfect present-day example of why the two don't mix -- and why even the majority of the Christian Founders were anxious to support Jefferson's "Eternal Wall of Separation."
|
|
Mix religion and politics and you get Iran.The Founders were thinking more in terms of centuries of religious strife in Europe, with each country's king claiming to be ruler by "divine right" of ordainment by God -- but, yeah, Iran is a perfect present-day example of why the two don't mix -- and why even the majority of the Christian Founders were anxious to support Jefferson's "Eternal Wall of Separation."
Considering that half the Colonies were established by religious folk tired of being persecuted in England, well, yeah. The Founding Fathers from those areas knew too well why they were even in the Americas, and didn't want shenanigans like they experienced in England wrecking this nation.
That being said, they would consider it the height of asshattery to denigrate someone because they believed in a god. Yeah, that was directed at some asshats who somehow manage to be incredibly insulting without, apparently, breaking any rules.
Mix religion and politics and you get Iran.The Founders were thinking more in terms of centuries of religious strife in Europe, with each country's king claiming to be ruler by "divine right" of ordainment by God -- but, yeah, Iran is a perfect present-day example of why the two don't mix -- and why even the majority of the Christian Founders were anxious to support Jefferson's "Eternal Wall of Separation."Considering that half the Colonies were established by religious folk tired of being persecuted in England, well, yeah. The Founding Fathers from those areas knew too well why they were even in the Americas, and didn't want shenanigans like they experienced in England wrecking this nation.
That being said, they would consider it the height of asshattery to denigrate someone because they believed in a god. Yeah, that was directed at some asshats who somehow manage to be incredibly insulting without, apparently, breaking any rules.
Many who left Europe were actuated chiefly by the desire for freedom to persecute, not the desire for freedom from persecution.
Many who left Europe were actuated chiefly by the desire for freedom to persecute, not the desire for freedom from persecution.
I never can understand why many people insist on conflating the people at Plymouth Rock with the people who wrote the Constitution. The U.S. was founded over 150 years after the founding of the Plymouth colony -- all of the Pilgrims, and their immediate descendants, were long dead and buried. Indeed, assuming a 25-year generation span, you're looking at the place over six generations later, with subsequent waves of immigrants from multiple nations, changes in views, and a lot of water under the bridge. Attempting to make any connection between the religious views of the Pilgrims, and the religious views of the Founders, is like comparing the dietary habits of dinosaurs with those of parrots.
Many who left Europe were actuated chiefly by the desire for freedom to persecute, not the desire for freedom from persecution.I never can understand why many people insist on conflating the people at Plymouth Rock with the people who wrote the Constitution. The U.S. was founded over 150 years after the founding of the Plymouth colony -- all of the Pilgrims, and their immediate descendants, were long dead and buried. Indeed, assuming a 25-year generation span, you're looking at the place over six generations later, with subsequent waves of immigrants from multiple nations, changes in views, and a lot of water under the bridge. Attempting to make any connection between the religious views of the Pilgrims, and the religious views of the Founders, is like comparing the dietary habits of dinosaurs with those of parrots.
I figure it's kind of like fuzzy cartographic (I guess that is a word) perception. As a resident of north central NJ, I wouldn't say I live near Pittsburgh, but someone in Mongolia looking at a map might say New Brunswick and Pittsburgh are pretty close. If you don't have fine resolution, it's kind of like, oh yeah, way back when in colonial days, it was all pretty much the same.
|
|
(info re Christian/Deist proportion)
Well, that fits with what I'd picked up, over the years.
We never covered US history in school, so anything I know, I picked up piecemeal.The accounts I've seen vary wildly, from one extreme to the other, but usually, I can discount the ones that betray the author's obvious bias.
One side will state all the FF were the most devout men that ever lived, who wanted to create God's Kingdom On Earth, for Christians only. This is usually trotted out when someone wants to legislate against some kind of naughty behaviour, or exclude some demographic from the benefits of citizenship.
Then there's the crew that swear blind that all the FF were in fact atheists, who wanted to make religion illegal, burn down the churches, and throw all the preachers into the sea. This bilge is usually spouted when someone wants to push for legalizing some naughty behaviour, or silence religious objectors, who may actually have valid fears.
The phrase "wall of separation of church and state" appears in Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists; although obviously not a part of the Constitution, this document lays out in some detail the rationale behind the concept.
So that's where it comes from. I was aware it wasn't a literal excerpt from the Constitution, which is presumably why religious lobbyists continue to push their bills through the house, on the grounds that "It doesn't specifically say we can't...". The eternal cry of the rules-lawyer...
Seems like a clear case of Rules As Written vs the Rules As Intended, as set out in the 'designer's notes', no?
Seems like a clear case of Rules As Written vs the Rules As Intended, as set out in the 'designer's notes', no?
I perceive this opening a brand new can of worms ;P
Seems like a clear case of Rules As Written vs the Rules As Intended, as set out in the 'designer's notes', no?
Yes. I view the Constitution as the official rules document, and the founders' subsequent correspondence and explanations as a combination designers' notes and FAQ. Any other laws shy of an Amendment are splatbook material.
What makes the whole thing more interesting is the sheer number of designers, and the fact that a lot of them had mutually-contradictory requirements for the new nation -- leading to a minimalist rules document that often doesn't spell out what it actually means, and leading to such bizarre constructs as the 3/5 Compromise -- basically, anything they couldn't agree on, or weren't sure what to do with, they intentionally left out or left extremely vague, and trusted later generations to sort it out. There's no indication in any of the wiritings of the time that the Founders thought they had solved all political issues, and that the document was a complete, inviolable beacon of awesome -- indeed, that's why they made amendments possible (but difficult, to insure that people carefully thought through anything they tried to make into Federal law).
I think Moff will like this one.
Drop by "Sox Place" in downtown Denver most days and you'll find several dozen young homeless people eating lunch, working on computers or relaxing while watching a movie. What you won't find is any outward signs that the non-profit drop-in center is run by an ordained minister of deep personal faith.
Nice to find one that isn't just a cynical PR outlet. I also liked the bit where he goes up against megachurches.
I think Moff will like this one.
I like that one, too. That guy is cool as hell.
|
|
Got 8: The Mormon Proposition via Netflix today. Anyone else seen it?
I gotta say, it needed to be made, and it definitely should be watched, but I don't know if I should've watched it coming right off a bad day at work - it really made me want to punch an apostle in the testes...
Thank Cayden Cailean for ale to help me mellow out a bit...
The Anglican Crack-up Continues and poses some questions for liberal Anglicans:
If I were a liberal Anglican, I'd not only be welcoming the conservatives' exit, I'd be encouraging them. Yes, they'll diminish the church's numbers and prestige; yes, the money they contributed will be lost. But are those the most important things? This ridiculous effort to preserve unity at any cost, even if it means coddling the feelings of homophobes and misogynists, suggests that the Anglicans aren't ready to move into the 21st century after all.
This is an old problem. In the US, large liberal denominations were actively anti-abolitionist for fear of offending their Slave Power brethren. Apparently the unity of the church was infinitely more important than the freedom of some people with the wrong skin color. Swap skin color for genitals and consensual sex lives, flip the continents, and it's all the same crap.
This is too freaking funny.
So, does this mean I shouldn't use peanut butter to bait mouse traps?
|
|
This is too freaking funny.So, does this mean I shouldn't use peanut butter to bait mouse traps?
I don't know. That is a question I will have to ponder for a while, I suppose.
|
|
This is too freaking funny.
This guy presents one hell of an argument. Is that argument against evolution? Not at all. But he does present a hell of a case for eugenics...
I read an interesting article in a newspaper in Vancouver (where I am currently vacationing).
Is fa lun gung just scientology from the east?
Exerts:
"The Falun Gong movement is rooted in the bizarre belief system of a mystery man called Li Hongzhi, who preaches that Africa has a two billion-year- old nuclear reactor, that aliens who look human, but have “a nose made of bone,” invaded Earth to introduce modern technology and whose teachings are at “ a higher level than those of Buddha and Christ .”"
"...Li Hongzhi’s encouragement of hatred towards gays ... and his depiction of the children of mixed-race couples as “intellectually incomplete”."
The Anglican Crack-up Continues and poses some questions for liberal Anglicans:
This is an old problem. In the US, large liberal denominations were actively anti-abolitionist for fear of offending their Slave Power brethren. Apparently the unity of the church was infinitely more important than the freedom of some people with the wrong skin color. Swap skin color for genitals and consensual sex lives, flip the continents, and it's all the same crap.
If I were a liberal Anglican, I'd not only be welcoming the conservatives' exit, I'd be encouraging them. Yes, they'll diminish the church's numbers and prestige; yes, the money they contributed will be lost. But are those the most important things? This ridiculous effort to preserve unity at any cost, even if it means coddling the feelings of homophobes and misogynists, suggests that the Anglicans aren't ready to move into the 21st century after all.
This is my very first post in this thread, and I am only responding to the above because I am someone whose life has been affected by this. My mom, an episcopal for most of her life, jumped ship to the catholic church as a result of the above link. I'm not episcopal anymore btw, I've become presbyterian since marrying my baptist wife(long story), and I'm happy that my mom has found something that works for her, even if it is based off of a sentiment towards people that I can't condone.
I can not view the video from work. Anyone care to break down the Peanut Butter argument into an over simplistic and sarcastic phrase?
|
|
You don't open your jar of peanut butter to newly evolved life-forms, therefore nothing has ever evolved. The end.
I can't view it either, but from reading the comments, kind of. I think the argument is basically that peanut butter has all the necessary "ingredients" for life but doesn't actually create life. I think it's more talking about the origin of life rather than "evolution". I also think that that argument is a bit old. (and needs to be buried.)
|
You don't open your jar of peanut butter to newly evolved life-forms, therefore nothing has ever evolved. The end.I can't view it either, but from reading the comments, kind of. I think the argument is basically that peanut butter has all the necessary "ingredients" for life but doesn't actually create life. I think it's more talking about the origin of life rather than "evolution". I also think that that argument is a bit old. (and needs to be buried.)
The problem in their ignorance these people have crammed 2 scientific disciplines into one. And generally they tend to cram 3 disciplines into one. When a creationist says evolution he really means 3 things
1)Evolution- the study of species change and adapt over time.2)Abiogenesis- the study of the beginnings of life or life from inorganic matter
3) "The Big Bang"
Abiogenesis (specifically what the video is trying to debate) though related to evolution is not evolution. Frankly as many of these little videos I watch I just laugh. A first year university evolution course could put them all to shame.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Plus, it also assumes that if life was created in your jar of peanut butter, that you could perceive it with your naked eyes. For all I know, every single jar of peanut butter I've ever opened has been chock full of new life forms spontanteously generated out of the ingredients therein, but I couldn't see the bastards and just ate them.
|
|
Plus, it also assumes that if life was created in your jar of peanut butter, that you could perceive it with your naked eyes. For all I know, every single jar of peanut butter I've ever opened has been chock full of new life forms spontanteously generated out of the ingredients therein, but I couldn't see the bastards and just ate them.
Murderer!!!!!!!!!!11111!!!!!eleventy!!!
You don't open your jar of peanut butter to newly evolved life-forms, therefore nothing has ever evolved. The end.I can't view it either, but from reading the comments, kind of. I think the argument is basically that peanut butter has all the necessary "ingredients" for life but doesn't actually create life. I think it's more talking about the origin of life rather than "evolution". I also think that that argument is a bit old. (and needs to be buried.)The problem in their ignorance these people have crammed 2 scientific disciplines into one. And generally they tend to cram 3 disciplines into one. When a creationist says evolution he really means 3 things
1)Evolution- the study of species change and adapt over time.
2)Abiogenesis- the study of the beginnings of life or life from inorganic matter
3) "The Big Bang"Abiogenesis (specifically what the video is trying to debate) though related to evolution is not evolution. Frankly as many of these little videos I watch I just laugh. A first year university evolution course could put them all to shame.
Some of it is ignorance, some of it is genuine confusion because evolution is frankly, for many reasons, really difficult. Dawkins does good exposition of this in the beginning of...I think Blind Watchmaker. Then there are people who I think realize creationism is nonsense but see a niche and peddle it anyway.
Then there are people who I think realize creationism is nonsense but see a niche and peddle it anyway.
When it comes to professional creationists, I think it's safe to assume they're all blatant liars if they've had any education at all. Some of them may also be too dumb to know the difference. (Kent Hovind seems like this sometimes.) Much the same profile applies to Holocaust deniers.
I think my favorite anti-evolution argument is Ray Comfort's banana argument, though. He argued that bananas are perfectly shaped to be held in one's hand, therefore God Exists. After all, who but God would design something shaped just right for people to eat it?
Ignoring that the modern banana is about as natural as an ICBM, I present the Ray Comfort Argument for Sex Toys:
Notice the shape of the banana? It fits perfectly in the orifice of one's choosing. Therefore God wants us to use them to explore our inner recesses for fun.
If I add gratuitous and fact-free bashing of atheists to this, the Templeton Foundation should be along to throw money at me in short order.
Then there are people who I think realize creationism is nonsense but see a niche and peddle it anyway.When it comes to professional creationists, I think it's safe to assume they're all blatant liars if they've had any education at all. Some of them may also be too dumb to know the difference. (Kent Hovind seems like this sometimes.) Much the same profile applies to Holocaust deniers.
I think my favorite anti-evolution argument is Ray Comfort's banana argument, though. He argued that bananas are perfectly shaped to be held in one's hand, therefore God Exists. After all, who but God would design something shaped just right for people to eat it?
Ignoring that the modern banana is about as natural as an ICBM, I present the Ray Comfort Argument for Sex Toys:
Notice the shape of the banana? It fits perfectly in the orifice of one's choosing. Therefore God wants us to use them to explore our inner recesses for fun.
If I add gratuitous and fact-free bashing of atheists to this, the Templeton Foundation should be along to throw money at me in short order.
Fortunately we have a court system to protect us from ourselves. Without it, some form of creationism would be likely taught in public schools throughout this country. The most offensive aspect of creationist campaigns is the disingenuousness. I would respect creationists more if they were honest about their repulsive, illegal attempts to religionize public education. That they are Christians who are trying to inject Christianity into public schools is patently obvious to anyone with half a brain. Playing dumb about it is simply insulting.
Fortunately we have a court system to protect us from ourselves. Without it, some form of creationism would be likely taught in public schools throughout this country.
And that would be like a slap on the wrist compared to the other things they'd be doing.
The thing is, the dickishness practiced is not nose-punching, it's not even howling four-letter words at Granny…it's a flat statement of "That's crazy, I'm not going to do that, and here's why." That, apparently, is the New Dickishness.
Trying to justify your own dickishness, Sam? :)
Trying to justify your own dickishness, Sam? :)
It actually didn't cross my mind. I'd have to feel guilt for that, wouldn't I? :)
But if telling someone the idea they propose is no good, and why, is dickish now, then I propose that dickishness is the purest of all conversational goods.