 |
|
 |
|
Views: 236,553,683
Time: 2013-05-24 01:13:04 PM | 27 users online: AntoineG782, Arctic Avenger, bandicoot,  E-Man, ErikAlay, everest700, Falconpunch, FlamingRok, Golden Yoshi, HyperMario, Jeuda Cruxifis, Kazeshin, Ladida, MarioFan22, Masterlink, metalgearhunter, MrCheeze, phenolatukas, Pokeymeister80, Purple Rex, RavingRabbid, ShUriK KiD, Sokobansolver, superdragonyoshi1, Superkingyoshi, WeegeeBen, WhiteYoshiEgg - Guests: 166 - Bots: 10 | Users: 22,881 (1,274 active)
Latest: Shizufuzu |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
| Tip: You can use the File Bin to upload screenshots, videos, etc. of your hack. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
| Reason Rally |
|
Forum Index - Serious Business - Hot off the Press - Reason Rally |
|
Pages:  1  |
|
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-25 12:28:40 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
For those who don't know yesterday in Washington DC was the largest atheist gathering in human history. With speakers like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Dan Barker to name a few. I unfortunately have no passport and therefore unable to travel south of the border to attend so this morning I've been watching whatever clips have surfaced on youtube.
I wonder how many people were actually there. I really do hope we had a greater number of people than that creep Glenn Beck did at his Restoring Honor rally got a few years back and likewise Jon Stewart's later Rally to Restore Sanity which as far as I'm concerned was morally no better in that Jon and Stephen made the unforgivable mistake of having Yusuf Islam at their rally.
I guess what I really want to know is will this really be the "critical mass" moment for the atheism movement the way it was hyped up to be? I mean while I am confident that secularism will eventually be victorious over the christian right and even fundamentalist islam. It just doesn't look like the outcome of this rally is really going to live up to what many of us expected of it.
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-25 02:59:52 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
This morning, hundreds of millions of Christians across the world gathered together to celebrate their religion. They do this every week, it's called church.
About 30,000 people showed up for that rally, but it could have been 30,000,000 and it wouldn't have mattered. Since religion isn't inherently morally wrong (contrast with racism) a rally cannot make any difference in the beliefs of religious people, except to strengthen the ideas they already have that they are being persecuted, and serves mostly as a circle jerk for atheists. Mind you, I have no problem with a bunch of people getting together and patting themselves on the back for how enlightened they are, just don't expect it to make any kind of social change.
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-25 03:11:43 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
QuoteI have no problem with a bunch of people getting together and patting themselves on the back for how enlightened they are
I do!
But that's the only part I DO have a problem with, here. People can rally for whatever the hell they want; I don't care. If they piss off some religious folk, that might actually be a good thing in my eyes.
Fighting monsters does not excuse you from becoming one, is all. Or in this case, replace "monster" with "condescending douchebag who thinks they're right and everyone else is ignorant and stupid."
(no offense intended toward athiests without superiority complexes. You're cool  )
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-25 03:12:59 PM by Kaijyuu. |
|
| Posted on 2012-03-26 04:46:33 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by Sockbat ReplicaI really do hope we had a greater number of people than that creep Glenn Beck did
I wasn't aware this was a competition.
If so,
Originally posted by HuFlungDuThis morning, hundreds of millions of Christians across the world gathered together to celebrate their religion. They do this every week, it's called church.
What exactly does an atheist rally further aside from their ego? A lack of religion? Surely it's stopping us from advancing as a society, what with their different thoughts and all.
Well at least atheism is starting to get the whole "religion" thing down with its gatherings, now it just needs a building dedicated to it.
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-26 04:53:29 PM by Zephyr. |
|
| Posted on 2012-03-27 09:00:38 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by ZephyrWhat exactly does an atheist rally further aside from their ego?
Well for starters I'd at least like to see a future in which religion is not immune from criticism in public discourse like it seems to be at present. You take something as obvious as the tenant of the Islamic faith that clearly states that apostates should receive death. It is currently considered by many in our society taboo to even point out that this teaching exists in Islam much less to condemn it. Now you could argue that some of the squeamishness to criticize this comes from a fear of being labelled racist and that is to some extent true however I for one am convinced that a great deal of this political correctness comes from the amount of respect that is automatically handed over to anyone in our society who can mouth the words "faith". So the desired outcome of the reason rally would be that if atheists could at least become a voting block that politicians would have to worry about when running for office then perhaps the kind of political correctness that comes with talking about religion would go away.
Originally posted by ZephyrWell at least atheism is starting to get the whole "religion" thing down with its gatherings, now it just needs a building dedicated to it.
Not quite. Just because we are beginning to organize politically and yes many of us hold our beliefs just as strongly as the religious hold theirs doesn't make us morally equivalent. By your logic Mavis Leno must be just as religious as the Taliban because she believes in the equal rights of women in Afghanistan just as strongly as the Taliban oppose it.
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-27 10:46:50 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by Sockbat ReplicaYou take something as obvious as the tenant of the Islamic faith that clearly states that apostates should receive death. It is currently considered by many in our society taboo to even point out that this teaching exists in Islam much less to condemn it.
You know, for once I actually agree with a wikipedia article about Islam. Here's a link for the one's who'd like to rally for reason with knowledge.
main points:
- It's best to know the context of revelations/saying rather than applying them. Quote"Some Islamic scholars[who?] point out it is important to understand the hadith in its proper historical context: it was written when the nascent Muslim community in Medina was fighting for its existence, and the enemies of Islam encouraged rebellion and discord within the community.[44] At that time any defection would have had serious consequences for the Muslims, and the hadith may well be about treason, rather than just apostasy"
Without such rule to protect the religion/people who did believe, it would have made life even harder for those trying to practice their faith. Arguing against that is like saying the Puritans/Quakers shouldn't have left Europe in search of a land to worship without torture. I believe the rule is still applicable today back in the Middle Eastern countries due to the fact there STILL are people trying to pull away the numbers there in order to take over, assuming they just don't use armies first.
- Besides the saying itself, do you even know how it's conducted or should even be conducted? Quote"If a sane person who has reached puberty voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be punished. In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (or his representative) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed."[46] No one besides the caliph or his representative may kill the apostate. If someone else kills him, the killer is disciplined (for arrogating the caliph's prerogative and encroaching upon his rights, as this is one of his duties).
Yes, it is wrong to take the law into ones own hands at times even in religion. That may sound like a big shock to a few people, but religion is to keep things orderly among the people.
(one could just assume I'm being naive, but that wouldn't help you much either without necessary research into the history, but this is only a side note for the one-sided. [If someone could someone try to explain what I'm trying to say in comprehensible terms, that'd be peachy])
QuoteNow you could argue that some of the squeamishness to criticize this comes from a fear of being labelled racist...
I'd like to replace racist with ignorant, which could be from racism or just plain not knowing or disinterest in studying. The best thing about being labelled ignorant is that the label can be temporary and easily removable, not-so-much racist.
@HFD: Found your opening statement amusing for its simplicity of point getting across. Millions-thousands of Muslims do the same thing, just more frequently and at times non-stop like passing a baton where it continues to say going, not just with one person.
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-28 03:11:00 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by ZephyrOriginally posted by Sockbat ReplicaI really do hope we had a greater number of people than that creep Glenn Beck did
I wasn't aware this was a competition.
If so,
Originally posted by HuFlungDuThis morning, hundreds of millions of Christians across the world gathered together to celebrate their religion. They do this every week, it's called church.
What exactly does an atheist rally further aside from their ego? A lack of religion? Surely it's stopping us from advancing as a society, what with their different thoughts and all.
Well at least atheism is starting to get the whole "religion" thing down with its gatherings, now it just needs a building dedicated to it.
I hope you're not saying that all atheists are stopping society from advancing, because that's a rather large generalization and would offend me greatly.
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-28 06:08:23 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by Delta
I hope you're not saying that all atheists are stopping society from advancing, because that's a rather large generalization and would offend me greatly.
If anything it's the opposite. Religion typically stops us advancing.
There probably is a god, if so He's either the Chaos Theory personification of the Collective Unconscious, or a gamer and the universe is a game
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-29 04:23:09 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by Sockbat ReplicaSo the desired outcome of the reason rally would be that if atheists could at least become a voting block that politicians would have to worry about when running for office then perhaps the kind of political correctness that comes with talking about religion would go away.
If that's truly the intent, and not snuffing out religion, I'm fine with this, though personally I see politically correctness getting worse.
Originally posted by Sockbat ReplicaNot quite. Just because we are beginning to organize politically and yes many of us hold our beliefs just as strongly as the religious hold theirs doesn't make us morally equivalent.
I suppose what I said was meant to be in a somewhat joking manner. Theism and atheism are, however, both viewpoints or beliefs. Theism however most of the time involves some sort of gatherings, rituals, or praise-giving for their deity. There's the stuff about "unbaptism" and such but don't concern yourself I'm well aware atheism isn't some organized religion.
Originally posted by DeltaI hope you're not saying that all atheists are stopping society from advancing, because that's a rather large generalization and would offend me greatly.
I suppose I phrased that wrong. I was being sarcastic and saying that religion hinders advancement. Religious extremism maybe, but there's many more factors that can supposedly hinder advancement. People are going to believe different things, no matter how much you may think you're correct, and nothing short of mass genocide will change that. People will continue to disagree on things whether or not they go pray to their deity on a Sunday morning.
|
| Last edited on 2012-03-29 04:27:31 PM by Zephyr. |
|
| Posted on 2012-03-31 09:35:33 AM |
Link | Quote |
|
Originally posted by TLMBWithout such rule to protect the religion/people who did believe, it would have made life even harder for those trying to practice their faith. Arguing against that is like saying the Puritans/Quakers shouldn't have left Europe in search of a land to worship without torture.
So Muslims killing someone for leaving the faith is the same thing as Quakers/Puritans leaving Europe to escape from persecution?? WTF?
First one should notice that when the Puritans did arrived in the new world they very shortly after became the ones doing the persecuting. Which is why if you are truly interested in people being able to practice their faith without being tortured by their coreligionists is for them to be living in a country that separates the church and state by law.
Originally posted by TLMBYes, it is wrong to take the law into ones own hands at times even in religion.
Too bad this wasn't the case for Salman Rushdie or Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Originally posted by TLMBThat may sound like a big shock to a few people, but religion is to keep things orderly among the people.
I really do hope you don't think so low of your fellow humans as to argue that without religion people wouldn't be good to one another they'd just leave their families, they wouldn't help one another, they'd be out raping and pillaging and so on.
It's like what Dennis Miller once said to Christopher Hitchens "Well you with your intelligence and education when you find yourself in a time of crisis can just fallback into your learning and your literature but don't those who aren't as smart as you don't they need that salt lick?" I don't remember the exact quote but I do remember the analogy of the salt lick quite clearly because I found it most insulting. Dennis Miller was trying to defend religious people by comparing them to livestock? Really? That's more respectful of the beliefs of the religious?
Now as an atheist I wouldn't dream of preaching my non-belief to a religious person who had just buried a loved one. However I don't think so low of my born again christian mother for example to just say of her "Well she's not as smart as me so maybe she needs a pacifier like this to get through the day" what a terrible thing to say about people. Since Kaijyuu said you don't fight a monster by being a condescending asshole. Perhaps someone on this forum could name me one thing Richard Dawkins has ever said about the religious that even comes close to the condescension expressed by Dennis Miller's above comments?
|
|
| Posted on 2012-03-31 07:47:52 PM |
Link | Quote |
|
|
He never said that Religion was the only way to maintain order, he just said that one of it's purposes is to maintain order, which is a valid claim.
|
|
|
| Pages: 1 |
|
|
|
|
Forum Index - Serious Business - Hot off the Press - Reason Rally |
|
|
 |
|
 |
The purpose of this site is not to distribute copyrighted material, but to honor one of our favourite games.
Copyright © 2005 - 2013 - SMW Central
Legal Information - Link To UsTotal queries: 29
|
|
|
|
