Plisk posted:Yeah, and if you hate Jewish Orthodox rules, then you're an anti-semite. I like the logic going down here. Hi there, I also post in a forum for people to talk about in-depth subjects while secretly being a robot from an old Star Trek episode.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Plisk posted:Yeah, and if you hate Jewish Orthodox rules, then you're an anti-semite. I like the logic going down here. You probably are an anti-semite if your reaction to being pushed back against is to start grilling someone about why they like the shomrim so much oh and have they stopped beating their wife yet.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Plisk posted:Yeah, and if you hate Jewish Orthodox rules, then you're an anti-semite. I like the logic going down here. That's not the same as this guy believing I can't take outside criticism of Islam, support legal enforcement of my religious views and that I have some something to do with other people calling the charlie hedbo people nazis, because I'm muslim.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If you support legal or de-facto enforcement of your religion's laws, I absolutely do think less of you for it. And if you don't, then what specifically was so objectionable about the pro-Charlie demonstrations to lead both muslim and more-multicultural-than-thou atheists to rhetorically associate the murdered cartoonists with Nazis? It's a good thing they stood in defence of free speech against 2 French-Algerian nutbars. We were just in danger of losing it too. Meanwhile France arrested 54 people for "defending terrorism", not one of which was linked to the attack in anyway. But we must stand firm against the savage hordes that would deny our rights. Better step up our military interventions in the middle east too, or the Islamic state might inspire more of our marginalized population through the internet. Also poo poo like this:  quote:The group Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West during a rally in Dresden, Germany. We see rising waves of nationalism and full on Neo-Nazi Parties winning elections in several EU states, but it's really Muslims that the world needs to worry about, especially now that the west is bombing them again (it never stopped). E: I actually like Charlie Hebdo a lot, but the whole outpouring was a cynical, hypocritical ploy by world leaders to capitalize on the worst possible sort of grandstanding "us" versus "them" bullshit. gently caress every person who took part in those demonstrations, especially all the world leaders. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 04:12 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:You probably are an anti-semite if your reaction to being pushed back against is to start grilling someone about why they like the shomrim so much oh and have they stopped beating their wife yet. Whew, good, I was worried for a minute there. Every time I see a yarmulke, I feel the need to berate kippah'd stranger. drilldo squirt posted:That's not the same as-- I took your reply in an admittedly isolated context. I don't know what your personal beef is with your opponent here. Political Whores posted:It's a good thing they stood in defence of free speech against 2 French-Algerian nutbars. We were just in danger of losing it too. Meanwhile France arrested 54 people for "defending terrorism", not one of which was linked to the attack in anyway. People need the freedom to practice their poo poo, or they get claustrophobic. France's stance on hijabs is an attack on religious practice. I wouldn't say the same about Burqas, though. That seems to be a women's rights violation. Political Whores posted:We see rising waves of nationalism and full on Neo-Nazi Parties winning elections in several EU states... I have only a layman's knowledge of the rise of the (Fourth?) Reich, but I wonder if that, too, has something to do with the suppression of free speech. You throw these guys in jail over thought crime, and suddenly you have another political "martyr" on your hands. Effectronica posted:Hi there, I also post in a forum for people to talk about in-depth subjects while secretly being a robot from an old Star Trek episode. Plisk fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:BTW, I thought "Atheist" just meant someone who does not believe in any gods or supernatural beings and stuff, but lots of people use it like it means that you're an anti-religious bigot? I know that there are atheists like that but I don't really think of that as being part of atheism itself so much as part of being a huge, judgmental douche-bag. Traditionally you have weak atheism, which is saying you don't affirm a belief in god, and you have strong atheism, which is saying that you affirm a belief in the non-existence of god, and you also have some strong atheists who like to tell everyone else how stupid they are for not being strong atheists, but I don't know what you'd call them other than very annoying. The distinction is often lost on people though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
Plisk posted:Yeah, and if you hate Jewish Orthodox rules, then you're an anti-semite. I like the logic going down here. No, but if you found yourself talking about the peculiarities of Jewish law every time somebody mentioned Israel, rather than political realities, one might rightly begin to suspect.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Plisk posted:Whew, good, I was worried for a minute there. Every time I see a yarmulke, I feel the need to berate kippah'd stranger. I'm more inclined to think it's because Europe pretended its horrific racism went away with the Nazis when in fact it's been festering there all along, and bubbles up any time there is any sort of opportunity to blame non-whites for the world's ills. Ultimately that's my problem I guess. My own beliefs are strongly for the non-existence of god, and I'm not shy about talking about them. But I don't trust rhetoric or arguments that focus predominantly on the danger or irrationality/backwardness of Islam, because I don't think you can disentangle that from the colonialism and racism still infecting all of Western society.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Traditionally you have weak atheism, which is saying you don't affirm a belief in god, and you have strong atheism, which is saying that you affirm a belief in the non-existence of god, and you also have some strong atheists who like to tell everyone else how stupid they are for not being strong atheists, but I don't know what you'd call them other than very annoying. The distinction is often lost on people though. It's a two-pronged question. Agnostic vs gnostic and atheist vs theist; the former addresses whether you claim to know something and the latter whether you believe something. Weak atheists are agnostic atheists, strong atheists are gnostic atheists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No, but if you found yourself talking about the peculiarities of Jewish law every time somebody mentioned Israel, rather than political realities, one might rightly begin to suspect. One can't even finish a thought about Israel without thinking about the sectarian strife that exists in that country. I hate that Israel has theocratic elements and often suppresses Muslim life there. This does not make me an anti-semite. It also doesn't make me anti-Muslim people, I would think. You can be the judge of that, though. Political Whores posted:I'm more inclined to think it's because Europe pretended its horrific racism went away with the Nazis when in fact it's been festering there all along, and bubbles up any time there is any sort of opportunity to blame non-whites for the world's ills. Ultimately that's my problem I guess. My own beliefs are strongly for the non-existence of god, and I'm not shy about talking about them. Suppression of free speech will do that. Allowing absolute free speech might give a legal platform for bigotry, but I think that outlawing a disturbing thought gives racists and supremacists a persecution platform, and that can create legends about a faith or a movement that is more potent than being allowed a simple soapbox. Mormonism continued to thrive in large part because of Joseph Smith's death. (I often bring up Mormon examples to land points. Forgive me if I lose you with the analogies.) Political Whores posted:But I don't trust rhetoric or arguments that focus predominantly on the danger or irrationality/backwardness of Islam, because I don't think you can disentangle that from the colonialism and racism still infecting all of Western society. Ain't that the truth. Whenever I hear accusations on facebook or from friends regarding Islam, I do my best to make sure it has some solid grounding. I'd rather my dislike of the religion be based on reality. And I think I despise Mormonism more than any other religion (because I was raised on it), but if I started listening to every anti-Mormon argument and taking it at face value, I would lose credibility quickly. Just to further illustrate, evangelicals are notorious for making up Mormon rumors. It only strengthens the apologist cause when facts aren't straight. To bring the point home, I believe that free speech helps us to straighten out the facts. V V V V V Dawkins sees himself as an agnostic atheist. Plisk fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:47
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:It's a two-pronged question. Agnostic vs gnostic and atheist vs theist; the former addresses whether you claim to know something and the latter whether you believe something. Weak atheists are agnostic atheists, strong atheists are gnostic atheists. A better way of looking at it, though I would argue this might be more accurate too: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
I just read about the guy getting formally charged. I would definitely accept that he must have had some crazy, prejudicial malice to kill them this way, it just feels super exploitive to pin this on his atheism, because it seems like an unfounded attack on the blanket idea of "religion is bad, I don't believe in god." I find it somewhat good that of all the bonkers "yay, he killed three Muslims!" poo poo in the dark corners of the internet, it doesn't seem to come from atheists but more the Chris Kyle wanna-be neo-crusader idiots.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
I'm having trouble understanding the sociology of religion in America. Could we perhaps post more charts?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
I dunno why this stupid definition argument always comes up, I've never even seen a "strong atheist" outside of a strawman argument (although I guess technically the followers of some religious sects could qualify).
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 10:49
|
|
|
Irony Be My Shield posted:I dunno why this stupid definition argument always comes up, I've never even seen a "strong atheist" outside of a strawman argument (although I guess technically the followers of some religious sects could qualify). Most people haven't met a Jihadi in real life either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 13:33
|
|
|
Well yeah but there are well-known figures and groups that espouse Jihadi ideology. I can't even think of a single one of those for "strong atheists".
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:A better way of looking at it, though I would argue this might be more accurate too: I like that Dawkins is in the "shitlord" square, and that we explicitly have Fred Phelps on that graph, in a non-shitlord square.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 14:34
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I like that Dawkins is in the "shitlord" square, and that we explicitly have Fred Phelps on that graph, in a non-shitlord square. Extrapolated, Osama Bin Laden and KKK are also less shitlordy.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I like that Dawkins is in the "shitlord" square, and that we explicitly have Fred Phelps on that graph, in a non-shitlord square. Both shitlords, the graph is three dimensional, just hard to convey depth. Fred is theist gnostic shitlord, dawkins is atheist gnostic shitlord.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 14:45
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Both shitlords, the graph is three dimensional, just hard to convey depth. Fred is theist gnostic shitlord, dawkins is atheist gnostic shitlord. Is Dawkins even gnostic? I know he is in regards to the Christian God specifically, but I thought he admitted that he can't know there are no gods of some variety.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Is Dawkins even gnostic? I know he is in regards to the Christian God specifically, but I thought he admitted that he can't know there are no gods of some variety. I don't know what he professes to be but he spends an awful lot of time telling people they're wrong about believing in god, so in practice he certainly seems to be. Though I suppose he could just harbor barely concealed contempt for all human life, and simply spends most of his time around religious people, so it comes off as gnostic atheism. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
He doesn't claim to know, he claims that there's no reason to believe that there is a god of any stripe, and so he believes that there isn't. This should not be difficult to wrap one's head around.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't know what he professes to be but he spends an awful lot of time telling people they're wrong about believing in god, so in practice he certainly seems to be. He sees himself as an Agnostic Atheist. He has a weird theism/atheism model he uses in The God Delusion, but the model is kind of clunky. Perhaps South Park isn't a good way to learn about cosmology or multiculturalism. Go God Go! Trey Parker posted:Out of all the ridiculous religion stories — which are greatly, wonderfully ridiculous — the silliest one I’ve ever heard is, ‘Yeah, there’s this big, giant universe and it’s expanding and it’s all going to collapse on itself and we’re all just here, just because… That to me, is the most ridiculous explanation ever. Well, at least Team America was funny.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:35
|
|
|
Funny how bugs or mice or whatever are here "just because" but we aren't...
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
I think Dawkins' position is pretty easy to understand even if you don't like the way he expresses it.Dawkins posted:I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
I would generally hold that "for fun" is a perfectly legitimate reason, but I suspect he would complain about that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Funny how bugs or mice or whatever are here "just because" but we aren't... New thread title please. Also, I hope no more Muslims are executed, for whatever reason, so that we never have to hear from people like this again. I much prefer the dog whistles and overt bigotry in response to Muslim terrorists over the detached, self-absorbed whining elicited by the deaths of three young people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
So Fred Phelps, Osama Bin Laden, and Adolf Hitler are all better than Richard Dawkins because he was rude when talking about ideas that 95% of goons agree with? Do I have this right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Last Buffalo posted:So Fred Phelps, Osama Bin Laden, and Adolf Hitler are all better than Richard Dawkins because he was rude when talking about ideas that 95% of goons agree with? Apparently he's also worse than Hitler because he's a bit of a misogynist (which, let's face it, is a bad thing, but shouldn't invalidate anything he has to say on other topics) and once had the audacity to claim, as a victim of sexual abuse himself, that not all sexual abuse is equally bad even if it's all bad.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-namequote:On Twitter these last few days, Dawkins has reverted to his old, sexist ways and then some. He’s been very busy snarling about how feminists are shrill harridans who just want an excuse to take offense, and how Harris’s critics (and his own) are not unlike thought police witch-hunter lynch mobs. Dawkins claimed that his critics are engaged in “clickbait for profit”, that they “fake outrage”, and that he wished there were some way to penalize them. But it wouldn't do to be seen criticising the almighty prophet of New Atheism, now would it?  Edit: when you're criticising religion for having sexist attitudes toward women, it would be a lot less hypocritical if you yourself didn't hate feminists. Vaginapocalypse fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:50
|
|
B-but it's so hard being white! Waaaaaagh!
|
Vaginapocalypse posted:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Every publication that doesn't refer to this shitheel as "Dick Dorkins" is a travesty of journalism.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Vaginapocalypse posted:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/richard-dawkins-sexist-atheists-bad-name Dawkins mocked a female researcher at a conference too. The guy is a prick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Dawkins mocked a female researcher at a conference too. The guy is a prick. Being famous doesn't render you the ideal of your ethical system. The current pope, now that he's been around a while has gotten to the point where he's been pretty dickish sometimes, like morally condoning violence against blaphemers. And he's a pretty good dude otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Apparently he's also worse than Hitler because he's a bit of a misogynist (which, let's face it, is a bad thing, but shouldn't invalidate anything he has to say on other topics) and once had the audacity to claim, as a victim of sexual abuse himself, that not all sexual abuse is equally bad even if it's all bad. It somewhat undermines this point when he does it in favour of trying to shield other important british figures from being scrutinized for their pedophilia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:39
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:It somewhat undermines this point when he does it in favour of trying to shield other important british figures from being scrutinized for their pedophilia. What is it with the British and defending pedophiles? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:The current pope, now that he's been around a while has gotten to the point where he's been pretty dickish sometimes, like morally condoning violence against blaphemers. And he's a pretty good dude otherwise. The current pope is real hit or miss it seems, he'll say something really progressive and then goes right back to the same old same old dogma. I mean, I get that he has to uphold the church and his office, but it feels so....fake when he does that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:48
|
|
Vaginapocalypse posted:What is it with the British and defending pedophiles? There is so much constant media hysteria in the UK about paedophiles lurking behind every blade of grass that there is actually an inevitable reaction against it. Like IDK if you can imagine how much the British press writes about paedophilia as if it was happening on every street corner 24/7.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Vaginapocalypse posted:What is it with the British and defending pedophiles? They seem demoralized, like there is no one to rule over them but kid fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:54
|
|
SedanChair posted:They seem demoralized, like there is no one to rule over them but kid fuckers. Also this.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 21:24 |
|
|
Disinterested posted:There is so much constant media hysteria in the UK about paedophiles lurking behind every blade of grass that there is actually an inevitable reaction against it. Like IDK if you can imagine how much the British press writes about paedophilia as if it was happening on every street corner 24/7. Turns out that they're all in Westminster and Whitehall. Oh, and the BBC. quote:In a recent interview with the Times magazine, Richard Dawkins attempted to defend what he called “mild pedophilia,” which, he says, he personally experienced as a young child and does not believe causes “lasting harm.” It's more this that people have a problem with. In combination with his minimization of misogyny and rape culture in Western Society. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Feb 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2015 17:58
|
|