- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Believing in god is so gay, religious people are silly and childlike.
HARMY RULES
The Atheism thread
Believing in god is so gay, religious people are silly and childlike.
- Time
- Post link
A Goon in a Gaggle of 'em
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
HARMY RULES
- Time
- Post link
Rob said:
...You just aren't capable of keeping your mouth shut...
...Nobody cares what you think...
...start your own thread and fill it with your worthless opions and reactions...
...You just aren't capable of keeping your mouth shut...
...Nobody cares what you think...
...start your own thread and fill it with your worthless opions and reactions...
Sure you're talking about us, there? 'Cause it looks to me like you're just describing yourself.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
zombie84 said:
I'm of the live-and-let-live philosophy, but organized religion often goes against this due to its inherant codification.
I'm of the live-and-let-live philosophy, but organized religion often goes against this due to its inherant codification.
So you find it "infuriating" when people fight over codification" in inherent ways. You don't see that act as making yet another code?
This world is run by logic. Logic puts things into code. It's inherent by the very nature of things. If you're truly "live and let live," then the inherent codes of others shouldn't bother your own inherent code.
The real problem you have, if you're really going to be honest, Zombie, is that you disagree with other people's judgments. You disagree with what other people value and the degree to which they may value those things. In other words, your real problem with religion is that you don't think religion is something to fight over in the ways you see it being fought over (according to whatever your personal definition of religion is). If you want my advice, I think you should stick to arguing why you logically think this is instead of arguing for some silly rule that magically invalidates ethical codes altogether. Assuming it's a universal principle to appose "inherent codification", I can then use that same rule to also undermine any judgments you choose to make.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
Tiptup said:
So you find it "infuriating" when people fight over codification" in inherent ways. You don't see that act as making yet another code?.
So you find it "infuriating" when people fight over codification" in inherent ways. You don't see that act as making yet another code?.
Not really. If you can't see the difference between a "live and let live" philosophy and the examples I provided then theres no point in discussing it.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
These days most don't even have the balls to call themselves atheists they call themselves secular humanists or agnostics.
These liberals are just as much at fault for trying to undermine the constitution as those who are way too far to the right conservatives.
I really dislike people who want under god taken out of the pledge of allegiance or in god we trust taken off the money.
Besides the fact that in god we trust can mean anything and the founding fathers were cultists.
They at the time followed the new wave cult of reason and rejected the fall as depicted in the book of genesis. Even Thomas Jefferson saw fit to edit out the miracles as depicted in the bible.
“Always loved Vader’s wordless self sacrifice. Another shitty, clueless, revision like Greedo and young Anakin’s ghost. What a fucking shame.” -Simon Pegg.
- Time
- Post link
skyjedi2005 said:
I really dislike people who want under god taken out of the pledge of allegiance or in god we trust taken off the money.
I really dislike people who want under god taken out of the pledge of allegiance or in god we trust taken off the money.
Because it makes a blanket statement about the entire population. Its not a big deal because atheists can, after all, ignore it because as far as they are concerned its all mumbo jumbo anyway, but it encourages further state-religion connection and ideally such national items as the pledge of allegiance and the currency should represent the beliefs of all its people, not just some of them.
I'm sure people would make a big stink if its says "in Vishnu we trust". Because what do you care--you don't believe in Vishnu so whats the difference, just ignore it. But its making assumptions about who you are, or who you ought to be, by putting it on currency and the like. I'm not going to even get into the goals and beliefs of the American founding fathers because thats another issue, but its really seperate from the principle here.
- Time
- Post link
skyjedi2005 said:
I really dislike people who want under god taken out of the pledge of allegiance or in god we trust taken off the money.
I really dislike people who want under god taken out of the pledge of allegiance or in god we trust taken off the money.
I'll go you one further than that: why even have a pledge of allegiance at all? How do you pledge allegiance to a government? Sounds more like a sheep's call, if you ask me.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
In Holland we now have this discussion if it's allowed to check eggs for a breast cancer gene and put eggs without it back. Now these so called pro life motherfuckers object ofcourse. I know this girl who saw her two sisters die before they were 30 years because of inherital breast cancer leaving 2 husbands and 4 kids behind. She had her breast and uterus removed before she could develop cancer because she also had the gene and didn't want to leave her kids and husband behind. Now there is a possibility to prevent all this shit and what happens, these you know who want to prevent legislation for allowing this procedure.
Hyde: Fezzy, man, it's Star Wars.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
Nanner Split said:
I'll go you one further than that: why even have a pledge of allegiance at all? How do you pledge allegiance to a government? Sounds more like a sheep's call, if you ask me.
I'll go you one further than that: why even have a pledge of allegiance at all? How do you pledge allegiance to a government? Sounds more like a sheep's call, if you ask me.
The words to the pledge before 1954:
"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all."
The pledge isn't about God. It's about our nation. It's a pledge to ourselves and our ideals. Throwing God into it is what makes it a sheep's call.
MTFBWY…A
- Time
- Post link
I mean, how short-lived is our allegience, if we have to do it every fucking morning? It's just becoming a litmus test.
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>
<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>
- Time
- Post link
MeBeJedi said:
Not only that, but doing it every morning in school, before every council meeting....etc, etc. It makes it little more than a procedure that everyone is supposed to follow, rather than something meaningful.
Not only that, but doing it every morning in school, before every council meeting....etc, etc. It makes it little more than a procedure that everyone is supposed to follow, rather than something meaningful.
Only because that's the way it's treated. Explain it to people at an early age. Deconstruct it for them. Go through it line by line. Once that's done, it becomes something more meaningful. Feel free to blame the educational system for not treating it properly.
A friend of mine that was in the Marines now comes to attention whenever he hears the national anthem. I'm pretty sure he didn't do that before being a Marine. It's not "procedure" to him, it's a sign of respect.
Arnie.d said:
In Holland we now have this discussion if it's allowed to check eggs for a breast cancer gene and put eggs without it back. Now these so called pro life motherfuckers object ofcourse. I know this girl who saw her two sisters die before they were 30 years because of inherital breast cancer leaving 2 husbands and 4 kids behind. She had her breast and uterus removed before she could develop cancer because she also had the gene and didn't want to leave her kids and husband behind. Now there is a possibility to prevent all this shit and what happens, these you know who want to prevent legislation for allowing this procedure.
In Holland we now have this discussion if it's allowed to check eggs for a breast cancer gene and put eggs without it back. Now these so called pro life motherfuckers object ofcourse. I know this girl who saw her two sisters die before they were 30 years because of inherital breast cancer leaving 2 husbands and 4 kids behind. She had her breast and uterus removed before she could develop cancer because she also had the gene and didn't want to leave her kids and husband behind. Now there is a possibility to prevent all this shit and what happens, these you know who want to prevent legislation for allowing this procedure.
They usually object because it can't always be done with destroying the life. Ron and Nancy Reagan have been huge proponents of embryonic stem cell research, even though Ronald Reagan would have been vehemently opposed to it. Killing one life in order to preserve another should never be considered "progress". New advancements are being made in adult stem cell research (which poses no threat to the unborn) that are starting to render embryonic research unnecessary.
California recently tried to require parents to give their kids immunization for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer usually comes about the younger you start having sex. The older you get, like over 20 or 22, the lower (much lower) your chances. The State has no business pushing its bullshit agenda on those of us that don't want it or need it.
And Sky, I wouldn't call the founding fathers cultists. They were deists. Even Ben Franklin, an Atheist, called for prayer during a heated discussion at one point. Washington, who did not attend church regularly, even stated that it is good for the people to follow some form of religion (Methodist, Evangelical, etc, etc). That wasn't "to keep them in line". I believe he felt it necessary for people to answer to a higher power so they wouldn't fall into an "it's all about me" mentality.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
lordjedi said:
California recently tried to require parents to give their kids immunization for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer usually comes about the younger you start having sex. The older you get, like over 20 or 22, the lower (much lower) your chances. The State has no business pushing its bullshit agenda on those of us that don't want it or need it.
California recently tried to require parents to give their kids immunization for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer usually comes about the younger you start having sex. The older you get, like over 20 or 22, the lower (much lower) your chances. The State has no business pushing its bullshit agenda on those of us that don't want it or need it.
Why the hell is it a bad thing to get an immunization for a deadly disease?
- Time
- Post link
HARMY RULES
- Time
- Post link
zombie84 said:
Not really. If you can't see the difference between a "live and let live" philosophy and the examples I provided then theres no point in discussing it.
Tiptup said:
You don't see that act as making yet another code?.
You don't see that act as making yet another code?.
Not really. If you can't see the difference between a "live and let live" philosophy and the examples I provided then theres no point in discussing it.
Clearly my argument went right over your head. Sorry about that.
A "live and let live" philosophy has absolutely no value unless you directly specify the degree to which you tolerate things (and in what ways) and then preferably offer rational arguments to support where you draw those lines. If you believe the evils of religious intolerance are so obviously evil in comparison to your form of intolerance that you actually see "no point in discussing it," then you are certainly free to do so. But, first, that's not what you were arguing before (you inanely said that "inherent codification" is bad) and, second, I believe that there is always a point in people using clear, rational thinking in ethics.
Yes, the examples you listed are in conflict with your overly simplistic, "live and let live" philosophy. (Did I ever say otherwise?) However, what I was trying to point out (and apparently failed) was how your personal judgments against other people in this world are also in conflict your philosophy. In fact, your philosophy is so illogical that it must even condemn itself. (To support "live and let live" you must condemn what supports the opposite.)
If you're going to lift "live and let live" to the level of an ethical principle, in and of itself, as a way to argue against intolerant actions in this world, then there would be absolutely nothing left that that would not break this principle. The logic behind that is so idiotic and stupid that I see no reason why I should even have to waste my time discussing it with you. If you can't see the mistake you're making, then, while it's still worth discussing, my high opinion of your intellect will certainly have to be lowered.
Also, I actually find it offensive that you have such a low opinion of religious people to the point where you'll arbitrarily accuse them of not having their own "live and let live" philosophy. (You're apparently more intolerant than I am. Hehe.) The true problem is that we all disagree about what to tolerate and what not to tolerate. These disagreements cannot be argued by saying the other person isn't a "live and let live" person since that's already more than painfully obvious. (Nobody is live and let live with everything! That's a meaningless statement!)
The quality of being tolerant of some things and intolerant of other things is a universal trait for everyone. There is absolutely no virtue found in following a "live and let live" philosophy per se. While there is certainly virtue to be found in having that philosophy with respect to specific things in life, that philosophy is not something that is adding any ethical weight in that instance. (The philosophy has no virtue by itself. It merely describes what you're doing and not why you should do it. I could follow a "eat and let eat" philosophy.)
Nowhere did I say that it was good to see "a family ostasizing a member" or to see "the world constantly tearing itself apart." Your examples were irrelevant to what I was communicating to you. Terrible things happen in this world all the time, and yet I believe that they are sometimes justified. Should the United States have not fought against the Nazis in WW2? These are tough questions that are always worth analyzing. Appealing to your personal feelings and the other, arbitrary judgments of you and your fellow "live and let live" people have no direct bearing on an ethical inquiry.
Lastly, do you actually believe that religion is more intolerant than other human ideologies? If so, then that would be pure folly in light of the "crimes against humanity" perpetrated by fascism, communism, and other political ideologies in the last century alone—since they easily dwarf the scale of religious atrocities from the beginning of recorded history. (I can even argue that atheism has been behind millions of deaths.) No human ideology is blameless when it comes to being intolerant, and I don't think they even should be (in every sense). I have far more respect for someone who respects truth and logic enough to fight for its growth, and have them be wrong, than someone who merely approaches the world through hypocritical emotions, and yet happens to be correct on a few things.
::sigh::
I really shouldn't let the stupidity of the general groupthink in my society bother me this much, but smart people should really know better. Reason is more important than casual expressions designed to simply make us feel good. Nothing represents groupthink to me more than blanket condemnations of things like "violence," "discrimination," and other neutral behaviors like "intolerance" as if those things aren't simultaneously good in other perspectives and other contexts.
Oh well, sorry to waste your time, Zombie. Go back to your little thoughts and pretend I never said anything worth "discussing." We wouldn't want to test your view of the world too much, now would we?
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
ChainsawAsh said:
Why the hell is it a bad thing to get an immunization for a deadly disease?
lordjedi said:
California recently tried to require parents to give their kids immunization for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer usually comes about the younger you start having sex. The older you get, like over 20 or 22, the lower (much lower) your chances. The State has no business pushing its bullshit agenda on those of us that don't want it or need it.
California recently tried to require parents to give their kids immunization for cervical cancer. Cervical cancer usually comes about the younger you start having sex. The older you get, like over 20 or 22, the lower (much lower) your chances. The State has no business pushing its bullshit agenda on those of us that don't want it or need it.
Why the hell is it a bad thing to get an immunization for a deadly disease?
Did I say it was a bad thing? I don't recall saying that. What I said is that the government has no business pushing it on people that don't want it. Cervical cancer is preventable (don't have sex at a young age and you likely won't get it). If you want to get your 13 year old the immunization, go for it. But don't make my kid get it when we feel it's unnecessary. It's not like you're going to catch cervical cancer from somebody's kid. Cervical cancer isn't chicken pocks or measles. The easiest way to get it is to have sex at a young age. The easiest way to prevent it is to not have sex at a young age.
zombie84 said:
Tiptup I am aware of all the issue you are bringing up, if you read my original post my point was "if something you do harms no one, nor harms society, then why punish someone for it?", which is really as far as I wished that simplistic "live and let live" sentiment to be taken. You don't need to turn that into anything more than it is.
Tiptup I am aware of all the issue you are bringing up, if you read my original post my point was "if something you do harms no one, nor harms society, then why punish someone for it?", which is really as far as I wished that simplistic "live and let live" sentiment to be taken. You don't need to turn that into anything more than it is.
But what can you possibly do that has no effect on anyone else? This is a serious question. I've thought of a few things, but the moment you have any interaction with anyone beside yourself, there is an effect. Everything has what I call a "blast radius". The blast radius can be good or bad (it's generally considered bad). Generally speaking, the more off track a person gets, the larger the blast radius.
So please, give us an example of something you can do that doesn't harm anyone or society.
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
- Time
- Post link
ChainsawAsh said:
I just don't understand why you WOULDN'T want your children to get immunized for it, really ... it's an extra step to preventing said preventable disease, and just because your daughter might not have sex until she's 20 doesn't mean she magically can't get it. It's just a lowered risk. Why wouldn't you want to take an extra step to prevent it if that step is available?
I just don't understand why you WOULDN'T want your children to get immunized for it, really ... it's an extra step to preventing said preventable disease, and just because your daughter might not have sex until she's 20 doesn't mean she magically can't get it. It's just a lowered risk. Why wouldn't you want to take an extra step to prevent it if that step is available?
Well for starters, as with all vaccines, there are risks involved. Why get vaccinated for something that's totally preventable without the vaccine? This website spells it out perfectly:
http://www.planetc1.com/cgi-bin/n/v.cgi?c=1&id=1174623074
And second, again, whether or not you understand why I don't want my kids to have it (I'm an example now, since I don't have any daughters and my wife sees no reason to get it) is irrelevant. The simple fact is that we neither need or want it. Therefore, the state has no business telling us we have to do it. Make it available all you want. The people that want it can get it. Those that don't, don't.
This is not a public safety issue. The reason children are given certain immunizations before they're allowed in public school is quite simply for public safety. If we didn't immunize children against measles or whatever disease, if one kid got it you'd have an outbreak. HPV cannot do such a thing (it's not contagious).
You are disciplined but tolerant; a true American.
Pissing off Rob since August 2007.
- Time
- (Edited)
- Post link
zombie84 said:
Tiptup I am aware of all the issue you are bringing up, if you read my original post my point was "if something you do harms no one, nor harms society, then why punish someone for it?", which is really as far as I wished that simplistic "live and let live" sentiment to be taken. You don't need to turn that into anything more than it is.
Tiptup I am aware of all the issue you are bringing up, if you read my original post my point was "if something you do harms no one, nor harms society, then why punish someone for it?", which is really as far as I wished that simplistic "live and let live" sentiment to be taken. You don't need to turn that into anything more than it is.
Well, for starters, I already knew you were starting with the idea of "harm" (even though you certainly didn't express that directly). However the part I had a problem with was near the end and separate from that:
zombie84 said:
Well, as an atheist I have to admit that it is quite infuriating to see the world constantly tearing itself apart in small and big ways over "religion." Even in domestic terms, you have things like a family ostasizing a member because they convert to "the wrong" religion or marry someone outside their faith, and its a real shame. I'm of the live-and-let-live philosophy, but organized religion often goes against this due to its inherant codification.
Well, as an atheist I have to admit that it is quite infuriating to see the world constantly tearing itself apart in small and big ways over "religion." Even in domestic terms, you have things like a family ostasizing a member because they convert to "the wrong" religion or marry someone outside their faith, and its a real shame. I'm of the live-and-let-live philosophy, but organized religion often goes against this due to its inherant codification.
You start by talking about bad things that infuriate you. You then talked about how you're of the live-and-let-live philosophy and thereby implied that you wouldn't do similar things over religion because of it. Lastly, you then finished that sentence by saying that religion supposedly doesn't live-and-let-live because of its "inherent codification." That last bit clearly communicated that inherent codification is basically bad to you because it "often" leads to the things you mentioned, and then simultaneously implied that a live-and-let-live philosophy was basically good because it would fundamentally avoid this.
You did not actually use harm as the reason your philosophy was good (which would not have been simplistic). Instead you appealed to the idea that your philosophy was good because it avoided "codification" (which is simplistic). By that point, even if you try to detail your philosophy with the fundamental idea of harm, you've already described "inherent codification" as fundamentally bad thing apart from that idea and therefore it doesn't apply. That's clearly illogical and too many people think that way in our society and I was just shocked to see you dropping a similar statement. I felt I needed to say something in reply and the second post was merely meant to fight the point further (I don't back down easily).
Apart from that though, I'm glad you've switched to using the idea of "harm" to explain why a "live-and-let-live" philosophy can be a good thing. I knew your mind was operating on that basis before, but now that you're specifically mentioning it, people can argue about what does harm and what does not.
In general, any religion that denies the value of personal freedom and our ability to believe what we want to believe, and argue for what we want to argue, is a false religion. People shouldn't even give it the time of day since, from my point of view (as a theist), disobedience on that level is only to be governed by God. While that can translate into gray areas (like "hurting" emotions in an argument) real harm is never justified.
"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself. It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005