independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Prince fan community site
| Author | Message |
Apologists of religion have a new weapon: being offended Facing a new attack with an international audience playing close attention, religions have as little rational argument in their favour as ever. There was a time when they could deal with dissent through more draconian measures: the kind that can still be practiced in, say, Saudi Arabia. Having lost the power of the gun in the West, apologists of religion have a new weapon: being offended.
"It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
|
Is it wrong to find this so funny ...
|
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: Is it wrong to find this so funny ...
Seriously can a person really "be" offended by differing comments ? I say they CHOOSE to "feel / act " offended take some freaking accountability for ones self ...damn and so I  this morning
Maybe I need more coffee ... I'm on my 3rd cup , so I'm ok 
Yes, I would agree they are largely choosing to take offense as an means to an end.. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Mach said: Is it wrong to find this so funny ...
Seriously can a person really "be" offended by differing comments ? I say they CHOOSE to "feel / act " offended take some freaking accountability for ones self ...damn I completely agree with this. It amuses me how many people who claim religion miss out that they do it by choice, much like those same people lambast homosexuals for their choices. They then wish to limit what homosexuals can do, but whine when they themselves are limited. i.e., no gay clubs in public school! But I must have prayer in school! etc. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
All Glory To the Hypno-Toad! 
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Good morning all-
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
free0001 said: Good morning all-
Unfortunately Razor, the modern Body still wears an ancient Mind; although there is strong evidence that a new age of Critical Thought has begun. I'm a black male, in my early 40's. I had an incident at work, where my supervisor, an early 50's caucasian female, approached me about attending an online bible study. Upon my polite decline and explanation that I'm currently installed with a non-theist Operating System, she was stunned, and replied that, 'well, I thought that all black people were Christians'. The human mind has apparently been deeply and thoroughly 'theified' throghout the ages. How an individual breaks free and engages into the realm of independent thought is fascinating. I'd gladly donate the 1st $$ towards a film which depicts the de-programming of a Theist into a Thinker.... Well, Religious & Racist has always been a classic combo. Largely agree with your other comments. Not sure what you mean by an Operating System though? Are you just being analagous or more literal? "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: free0001 said: Good morning all-
Unfortunately Razor, the modern Body still wears an ancient Mind; although there is strong evidence that a new age of Critical Thought has begun. I'm a black male, in my early 40's. I had an incident at work, where my supervisor, an early 50's caucasian female, approached me about attending an online bible study. Upon my polite decline and explanation that I'm currently installed with a non-theist Operating System, she was stunned, and replied that, 'well, I thought that all black people were Christians'. The human mind has apparently been deeply and thoroughly 'theified' throghout the ages. How an individual breaks free and engages into the realm of independent thought is fascinating. I'd gladly donate the 1st $$ towards a film which depicts the de-programming of a Theist into a Thinker.... Well, Religious & Racist has always been a classic combo. Largely agree with your other comments. Not sure what you mean by an Operating System though? Are you just being analagous or more literal? More analagous than literal; after becoming 'undone' from Theism (Christianity in my case) and gaining a more true understanding of the power of Conversion and the resposibility of guarding the mind from the cage of Belief, Faith, and Fantasy, I compared my old, Theist self, to being installed with a Christian-based operating system. And although inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and other Thinkers, I do not abide by any formalized thought-based system. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
free0001 said: razor said: Well, Religious & Racist has always been a classic combo. Largely agree with your other comments. Not sure what you mean by an Operating System though? Are you just being analagous or more literal? More analagous than literal; after becoming 'undone' from Theism (Christianity in my case) and gaining a more true understanding of the power of Conversion and the resposibility of guarding the mind from the cage of Belief, Faith, and Fantasy, I compared my old, Theist self, to being installed with a Christian-based operating system. And although inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and other Thinkers, I do not abide by any formalized thought-based system. Understood. That makes two of us. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
If the religous folk, or the institution they feel a part of at least, were to stop trying to impose their views on others, twist facts to fit their own agendas, stop being so hypercritical and just chilled out and kept their faith to themselves, then they wouldnt be on the receiving end of so much critisism.
"Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye. " - HAL, 2001
"It’s equally plausible that an alien spaceship dumped their septic tank on the primordial earth and life evolved from the shit bugs inside." | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: Well, Religious & Racist has always been a classic combo.
Largely agree with your other comments. Not sure what you mean by an Operating System though? Are you just being analagous or more literal? Being racist can be discribed different ways. Skin color doesn't endow you with anything but a different look. Skin color can't save you from being a racist. I would believe faith would fall into that same category? Anything else is just projection on the part of the other person. So should we judge someone based on skin color? No! Well the same likely applies to faith. Not everyone of certain faiths are racist. Just like many southern KKK members are know to be Baptists. I think it would be insane to believe all Baptists are racists. Projecting onto all Baptists that they are somehow racist, that's just as rotten. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
realm said: razor said: Well, Religious & Racist has always been a classic combo.
Largely agree with your other comments. Not sure what you mean by an Operating System though? Are you just being analagous or more literal? Being racist can be discribed different ways. Skin color doesn't endow you with anything but a different look. Skin color can't save you from being a racist. I would believe faith would fall into that same category? Anything else is just projection on the part of the other person. So should we judge someone based on skin color? No! Well the same likely applies to faith. Not everyone of certain faiths are racist. Just like many southern KKK members are know to be Baptists. I think it would be insane to believe all Baptists are racists. Projecting onto all Baptists that they are somehow racist, that's just as rotten. Of course it doesn't apply to all. I would think that goes without saying. But its a generalisation that has a lot of truth behind it. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
True true. Sneaky tactics silence religious criticism. The mob mentality shuts down debate because debate equals a potential for reasoned logic reaching the "faithful". | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Dsoul said: True true. Sneaky tactics silence religious criticism. The mob mentality shuts down debate because debate equals a potential for reasoned logic reaching the "faithful".
Yep. And it is for this reason that moderates ca be held partly culbable for the existence of extremists i.e. by taking a stance against the criticism of unjustifiable beliefs and irrationality, they allow its extremes to foster and grow much more easily. "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Fuck 'em. The TRUTH.......only exist in 1 form.
The TRUTH. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Graycap23 said: Fuck 'em.
I love your "to the point" comments and your sig....  ONLY LOSERS FEAR A MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD~~Sananda Maitreya Beware of men that will not go down! (I wish my momma had taught me all this)-BklynBabe | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
But this is my favorite "weapon"..."I'm not going to respond any more, it's pointless." ONLY LOSERS FEAR A MORE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD~~Sananda Maitreya Beware of men that will not go down! (I wish my momma had taught me all this)-BklynBabe | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
razor said: Facing a new attack with an international audience playing close attention, religions have as little rational argument in their favour as ever. There was a time when they could deal with dissent through more draconian measures: the kind that can still be practiced in, say, Saudi Arabia. Having lost the power of the gun in the West, apologists of religion have a new weapon: being offended.
Rather than confronting (say) Dawkins' arguments with counter-arguments, people instead cry out: why are you picking on us? All we want is for you to respect our beliefs". And so, the theists hide behind the demand for respect. The more shameless complain that when someone criticises their religious faith, the people who belong to that religion are being subjected to abuse. The bottom line is that such special pleading is a way for theists to avoid answering their critics. The cry that religious beliefs are not being treated respectfully often demonstrates incredible arrogance and hypocrisy. In a liberal democracy, people should adjust to the prospect of other people finding their views stupid, immoral, pernicious, or any other terrible thing. A liberal democracy cannot function without the possibility of discussing which beliefs are good and which ones are not. Theists wish to be shielded from the normal rough and tumble of arguments about beliefs. If anything is outrageous, it is the arrogance of religious extremists, here and elsewhere, holding that such views should not be allowed open discussion. http://www.smh.com.au/opi...-hyyc.html So true, it hurts. The faithful have had their way for so long i.e. they can preach to, critcise, judge, denigrate and subjugate others, that many simply can not adjust to the modern reality, in the west at least, that their views are simply one amongst many, do not deserve or warrent any more respect than any other, and are found perverse and irrational by many. Their response has been to cry victim and insist they are repsected and given a free pass. It's not going to happen. When will the faithful adjust? What is the point of "Christians" counter-arguing Dawkins' arguments if everyone is going to end up calling these same "Christians" a bunch of douche bags?!? Before you answer THAT^, I must remind all of you that Kirk Cameron was the first and only "Christian" to counter-argue Dawkins' arguments. And Kirk still got negatively criticize for it by non-Christians. Tupac "Makaveli" Shakur (RIP 1971-1996) & Michael Jackson (RIP 1958-2009)
2 men that had their lives taken away the moment they were speaking out AND rebelling against the dark side of the music industry once too often. |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Anti-religious speech is NO DIFFERENT than any other speech that disparages any other group. Homophobic speech is evil, so is theophobic speech. Racist speech is evil as is speech putting down a person of faith because of what they believe.
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
"Let freedom ring. And when this happens, and when we allow freedom ring-when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children-black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics-will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual: "Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!" | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Oh yeah!! Well I'm offended that they're offended!! REGISTER FOR SECRET SANTA 2009!! Go here NOW ---> http://prince.org/msg/100/323760
 YOU ONLY HAVE 4 FREAKIN' DAYS TO SIGN UP!!!!!!
A working class hero is something to be... | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Is this really a 'new' weapon? | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SFT said: Is this really a 'new' weapon?
It is the same invented reason people have used for years. People have come to believe two things that are just not true: 1) that they have a right to not be offended (this is different than hate speech, which if it is going to be a crime in some cases against some victims then it needs to be a crime when done against persons of faith.) 2) that one person's rights end when they violate another person's rights. This in not true. My rights do not end just because it interferes with yours. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OnlyNDaUsa said: Anti-religious speech is NO DIFFERENT than any other speech that disparages any other group. Homophobic speech is evil, so is theophobic speech. Racist speech is evil as is speech putting down a person of faith because of what they believe.
I can hear the counter argument! (flux rage)"religion us used to put down people all the time" "no religion is often misused to put people down. It is no more the fault of faithful that some among them misuse the Bible to be hateful anymore than it is the average Muslim's fault that some misuse Islam to murder people."  Good point.People Call me Rude
I Wish We All Were Nude I Wish There Was No Black and White I Wish There Were No Rules! | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OnlyNDaUsa said: Anti-religious speech is NO DIFFERENT than any other speech that disparages any other group. Homophobic speech is evil, so is theophobic speech. Racist speech is evil as is speech putting down a person of faith because of what they believe.
I can hear the counter argument! (flux rage)"religion us used to put down people all the time" "no religion is often misused to put people down. It is no more the fault of faithful that some among them misuse the Bible to be hateful anymore than it is the average Muslim's fault that some misuse Islam to murder people." Reading your other comment, I'n not sure you actually think the above i.e. it seems as if perhaps you're simply railing against the pronciple of "hate crime" laws. But I'll take the above at face value and you can tell me if my suspicion is right or not: Criticism of religion and its dogma is in no way comparible to racist or homophobic speech: Ones exuality or skin colour are not choices, lifestyles or ideas. They are biological facts. And most people agree that criticsing, or discriminating, against someone for something they have neither chosen nor can change is entirely unfair. Religion on the other hand is entirely a choice and purely an idea. Its also an extremely important idea, the acceptence of which or otherwise having significant consequences for the population and the wider world as a whole. As such, it is absolutely ligitimate for a civil society to debate it and, if so moved, criticise it, in the same way as any other idea or choice is open to comment, be that comment positive or not. Similarly, racism and homophobia are entirely irrational. They have no basis in evidence or logic. Such thinking should always be criticised, and actions resulting (which are inevitable; such feelings often lead to violent action since they are motivated by irrational hatred of some kind) outlawed. As for "It is no more the fault of faithful that some among them misuse the Bible to be hateful anymore than it is the average Muslim's fault that some misuse Islam to murder people" I find that very contentious and arguably entirely wrong. Moderates do indeed have to take some responsilbity for the extremists of their flock. It is precisely because moderates insist that the principle of holding irrational and baseless beliefs should not criticised or socially mocked and rejected, but instead respected, that makes it so hard to tackle extremism in our midst. Consider the problem of racism for example. An utterly irrational and baseless dogma I'm sure you would agree. To make racist statements or remarks has become socially unacceptable in most civilised countires. To do so would normally bring humilisation to the perpetrtator and anger and scorn from those who witness it. Hence those extremists who would wish to take violent action based on their hatred have no social platform from which to do so. Their views are commenly held to be stupid, baseless, and offesnive to any right thinking person. As such, any extremists are ostracised by the mainstream and much easier to identify and stop with the full support of society. Imagine if the situaion were different however. Imagine if the vast majority of the population were racist. Further, imagine most of them don't wish to act violently based on this, but nonetheless they view racism as a sensible view and one that should be respected. The minority in the population who see it as basless, ignorant and dangerous, are told criticism of racism is "evil" (your words). The extremists are still there of course, murdering and disparaging, say, black people. Yet the population insist the problem is not their racism (which is sensible and to be respected) but the fact that they take their prejudice too literally. As such, any and every clreatly racially motivated murder is never met with an examination of to what extent racism itself is the problem, and whether that should be tackled, but instead is met by the majority as an individual problem that can be solved by lighly encouraging moderation, but must never be met with widespread condemnation of racism itself. In such a situation, could the "moderate" population really be said to hold no resonsibility for the actions of extremists? Does their stance of not simply failing to condemn and make socially unacceptable the principle of holding irrational, baseless and provenly dangerous ideas, but instead to actively encourage respect for that principle, leave them entirely blameless when crime is carried out as a result of those beliefs? My answer to that is no. Moderates must realise their own role is fostering the climate under which religious extremists can exist and flourish. [Edited 11/9/09 5:59am] "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I have never once said anything against having hate crime laws. I just do not agree with the manner in which they are implemented into the criminal code.
| |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OnlyNDaUsa said: I have never once said anything against having hate crime laws. I just do not agree with the manner in which they are implemented into the criminal code.
As far as the wall of text....MY EYES!!!!! [Edited 11/9/09 6:12am] Hate laws are not an issue I care about too much either way. I just wanted to establish whether you meant your original statement or not. Clearly you did. I look forward to a more considered response. [Edited 11/9/09 6:41am] "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OnlyNDaUsa said: As far as the wall of text....MY EYES!!!!!
too much words, huh? poor thing  | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: Hate laws are not an issue I care about too much either way. I just wanted to establish whether you meant your original statement or not. Clearly you did. I look forward to a more considered response. The problem with giving a reply is most of what you said is completely compatible with what I said. I said that the 2 sides were no more responsible for the action of the extremist with in their ranks than are any any other group. Now I do take some issue that a person that is peacefully and correctly exercising their faith is at all responsible for the actions of someone that is misusing it. Are you responsible for the criminal conduct of people that share some common belief system? Now I will grant you that Muslim should condemn terrorism and any and all ideas of jihad as should Christians should condemn Christan terrorists but neither group is any MORE responsible than the other for the criminal acts of those that choose to do so. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
razor said: Hate laws are not an issue I care about too much either way. I just wanted to establish whether you meant your original statement or not. Clearly you did. I look forward to a more considered response. The problem with giving a reply is most of what you said is completely compatible with what I said. I said that the 2 sides were no more responsible for the action of the extremist with in their ranks than are any any other group. Now I do take some issue that a person that is peacefully and correctly exercising their faith is at all responsible for the actions of someone that is misusing it. Are you responsible for the criminal conduct of people that share some common belief system? Now I will grant you that Muslim should condemn terrorism and any and all ideas of jihad as should Christians should condemn Christan terrorists but neither group is any MORE responsible than the other for the criminal acts of those that choose to do so. | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
OnlyNDaUsa said: razor said: Hate laws are not an issue I care about too much either way. I just wanted to establish whether you meant your original statement or not. Clearly you did. I look forward to a more considered response. The problem with giving a reply is most of what you said is completely compatible with what I said. I said that the 2 sides were no more responsible for the action of the extremist with in their ranks than are any any other group. Now I do take some issue that a person that is peacefully and correctly exercising their faith is at all responsible for the actions of someone that is misusing it. Are you responsible for the criminal conduct of people that share some common belief system? Now I will grant you that Muslim should condemn terrorism and any and all ideas of jihad as should Christians should condemn Christan terrorists but neither group is any MORE responsible than the other for the criminal acts of those that choose to do so. Most? You said: "Anti-religious speech is NO DIFFERENT than any other speech that disparages any other group". We clearly disagree on that. you said: "I can hear the counter argument! (flux rage)"religion us used to put down people all the time". That is not my counter argument, so again we disagree. I'll agree that no one faith is any more or less culpable than any other for the inevitable violence that results from faith. But I've already answered your other question "Are you responsible for the criminal conduct of people that share some common belief system?" You hold some responsilbity yes, if you defend a principle that is provenly dangerous if applied to any field of human thinking: that it is ok to hold entirely unjustifiable beleifs that have no basis in evidence or logic. If you defend such a principle, you must take some responsibility when some of the beneficiaries of that tolerance abuse it. You may still decide to defend that principle if you view that the benefits outweigh the costs, but you can not seperate yourself from the latter if you deliberately foster an environemnt where such thinking is accepted in the mainstream. Consider my racism analogy. In no other area would we tolerate people holding such baseless irrational and unjutifiable views. we would view such stances as dangerous. But apparantly religion gets a pass? "It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him"
Abraham Lincoln | |
| Reply w/quote - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Add a reply to this topic
Create new topic
Printable version
moderator
How they dare to be offended when they make all these offensive remarks towards gay couples and atheists and pagans and all other offendees!! I say we need to be ON the offensive about their offensive comments and behavior.
