|
Sweden33719 Posts
On May 27 2011 15:13 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't believe his actions are altruistic at all
would the prayer have hurt anyone? no
he should have just let it be as a matter of respecting a community tradition illegal community tradiction* sure it's a crime, but it's a victimless crimeif there was a law against scratching your head with both hands at the same time and I saw someone do it, I wouldn't report it or care at all it's illegal, therefore it is wrong, right? oh wait But it's not. It's alienating the non-Christians by making them feel like they don't belong at their own graduation.
Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont....
It just feels like trying to deny them their prayer shouldnt matter unless you take atheism to an almost dogmatic level, and feels very insecure, which I guess is more likely being such an extreme minority...
Im curious tho, if they had been doing something more popular - but still illegal, like smoked pot or participated in some communal filesharing, and he ratted them out would that still be noble?
As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing.
EDIT: One thing I want to make very clear tho is that I in absolutely NO way think what happened to him as a result of what he did was a deserved or measured response... So obviously if we had to a 'whose more at fault here?' poll, it would be 'them' by a landslide.
|
On May 27 2011 16:46 eluv wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:39 redviper wrote:On May 27 2011 16:36 eluv wrote:
It's obviously (I hope) clear that what he did was strictly legal. And it's kind of cool that he confronted an illegal practice, regardless of his motivations or what those around him thought.
The moral question though is a whole bucket of worms that I don't foresee bringing a whole lot of productive discussion. In the US it's certainly illegal to lead a prayer as a state sponsored employee at a state sponsored event, but whether or not it's moral to do so when the crowd is overwhelmingly of the same faith is and interesting question. I think this would be a very different situation if say, half the school was Jewish.
Regardless, it's pretty gross to say the kid had it coming. When we live in a world where demanding your legal rights causes your parents to disown you and your community to physically threaten and bully you, we've thrown those rights out the window, no matter how "insignificant" any particular exercise of those rights seems. It is morally wrong if a single student wasn't a christian. Clearly this is the case, hence it was clearly morally wrong. You're right. Discussion over. If only morality was always this simple!
Frotunately for us morality is almost always this simple. If you are breaking the law and offending someone together, it is morally wrong. If you are only offending someone while preserving the law, it is morally right.
|
On May 27 2011 16:42 Heavenly wrote:
Whether he is legally correct or not, the response of this supposedly Christian community is pathetic. The threat of violence and casting your own child out into the streets without any money? These are the kind of people who were born into religion and follow it because of the happy little feeling they get in their chest when they say they believe in Jesus, but when it comes down to living the way a good Christian should they instead choose to act like little shits. To me this isn't even an atheism versus religion, church versus state, or anything argument, the real shock of this entire thing centers around the ridiculous ostracization that the student has received for his beliefs from hypocritical fundamentalists---in essence, how pathetic that entire community is.
Why is it surprising that Christians behave this way? A quick read through the red letters of the Bible would tell you that Jesus taught that the family was nothing compared to god's will. Matt8:21, 10 : 21, 23 , 19:10
19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
|
On May 27 2011 16:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:34 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:10 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:06 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:59 Slaughter wrote:
GGTemplar it is a matter of the government is seen as promoting one religion IE Christianity. This cannot be as the law was written so one religion cannot dominate government and oppress other religions. Therefore all religion is removed from government sponsored things. It might seem innocent but it can lead to more and more domination by that one religion and create a slope that is very slippery. Most of the politicians are already christian anyway. Its more about saying "hey lets keep ALL religion out so no one dominates since they should all be equal" more then any offense being possibly taken. see that's where I'm losing you guys in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand. This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education. I'm not debating that it isn't against the law I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite Yes, your analogy is better. But again, it's wrong however you look at it. Notice, we did not talk about punishment here. We only talked about morality. Now we let the punishment fit the crime. well personally I didn't concede it was wrong I wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt for spending a buck on the candy bar, and I don't think my parents would necessarily want to punish me either so I would dispute that it is wrong at all (or at least argue that if it is wrong, the degree to which it is wrong is so negligible it may be ignored in calculations the way you would ignore the gravitational force alpha centari imposed on the net gravitational force on the earth) Alright, here's my thought process. Butt in where you diverge. Wrong is a state. It either is or is not. Degree of wrong is intensity. You add a few "very"'s or a few "barely"'s in there. You can't make something go from right to very wrong by altering intensity. If by altering intensity, you approach very wrong, then the original state was more "barely wrong" than "right". wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology "4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity That's where we disagree then. It's a very fundamental disagreement that leads to unproductive rhethoric. Assuming your arbitary rules and your logical framework, the rest of your statements make more sense. how else would you ever weigh something so complicated as a presidential decision to bomb a city killing 100,000,000 people in order to stop a terrorist organization who is "for certain" going to launch bombs that will kill upwards of seven times as many people I guess if you're a utilitarian or strict kantian ethicist things can be a simple right or wrong, but I think you've really gotta way all the variables in a given situation against each other, especially when you consider you have to weigh against that choice several other alternative choices against each other which is the "best" choice given that there is no "right" choice that will do nothing but bring good
Wrong but less wrong than the alternative.
Just like how stealing food in Africa to keep your family alive is wrong, but would be less wrong than doing nothing and letting your family starve or worse, stealing a million bucks cause you don't feel like working.
The world isn't some simple place where there's always at least one right answer. We all know that.
But it's often an unfair place too, where there's isn't even one right answer.
The way I see it, just because there is a better option that is still wrong doesn't mean that you get to label it as "right". Just a preferable alternative.
|
On May 27 2011 16:38 Pastor Rob wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious You are correct. Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. The most dangerous thing our society faces today, besides extreme Islam, is atheism. Atheism will result in the downfall of society - and atheists are no different from fundamentalist Christians. Atheism is a religion. Atheists are just as religious as those who claim they are suicide bombing for God. Atheists who follow Richard Dawkins are no different from Christians who follow God. I can't stress enough that atheism is as much of a religion as is Christianity. If I say it enough times it becomes a statement of fact!
ah yes, because atheists are threatening to kill abortion doctors and bomb their clinics. They are also strapping bombs to themselves and setting the bombs off in crowded bazaars. Oh, wait....
seriously, you're not even a good troll >_>
|
Jinro pretty much said what I wanted to say but did it much more concisely and in one post
|
I know that it may seem weird, but this kind of thing really lowers my opinion on athiests. Sure, religious people are often zealous and their reaction was overblown, but this make the atheists seem like massive hipocrites (sp?)
For a community that prides itself on its rationality, it sure seems filled full of idiots, if they are defending this real life troll
Athiesm = right to be an asshole. And if you react badly to said asshole, then you are a backwards thinking opressive religious freak. Thats what i got from reading the article
Its like if you would go up to a bunch of 8-year old on christmas day and start preaching about how there is no Santa Clause, then got punched in the face by one of the parents. That doesnt make you a martyr.
In real life, i you are being a dick, people are gonna react badly. That is a fact
The parent of this kids are stupid to disown him over this, though. You gotta stand up for your child, no matter how much he fucks up
|
On May 27 2011 16:46 atheistaphobe wrote:Idiots like you will start world war 3.
No.
|
As long as he wasnt forced to pray himself I just dont see the problem... If he was forced to pray, certainly I would say that frees him of all the above considerations as thats retarded and they can go fuck themselves if they think thats some bullshit they can swing.
Thats not it at all. He was forced to listen to prayer funded by the government. The american law clearly makes this illegal.
Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont....
Ant it feels like that you have never lived in a society where religion has gone ape shit and the law has dropped any protection against the encroachment of religion into public policy.
|
On May 27 2011 16:50 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:34 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:10 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:06 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:03 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
see that's where I'm losing you guys
in no way do I see this as government endorsement of christianity, just a community publicly practicing the beliefs that most of the community shares for a few minutes at no extra cost to anyone
I guess I haven't considered how this was oppressing other religions through government dominance though, perhaps I should have become a freedom fighter and screamed liberty at my graduation in protest when the united states government unlawfully endorsed christianity and oppressed all other religions The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand. This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education. I'm not debating that it isn't against the law I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite Yes, your analogy is better. But again, it's wrong however you look at it. Notice, we did not talk about punishment here. We only talked about morality. Now we let the punishment fit the crime. well personally I didn't concede it was wrong I wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt for spending a buck on the candy bar, and I don't think my parents would necessarily want to punish me either so I would dispute that it is wrong at all (or at least argue that if it is wrong, the degree to which it is wrong is so negligible it may be ignored in calculations the way you would ignore the gravitational force alpha centari imposed on the net gravitational force on the earth) Alright, here's my thought process. Butt in where you diverge. Wrong is a state. It either is or is not. Degree of wrong is intensity. You add a few "very"'s or a few "barely"'s in there. You can't make something go from right to very wrong by altering intensity. If by altering intensity, you approach very wrong, then the original state was more "barely wrong" than "right". wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology "4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity That's where we disagree then. It's a very fundamental disagreement that leads to unproductive rhethoric. Assuming your arbitary rules and your logical framework, the rest of your statements make more sense. how else would you ever weigh something so complicated as a presidential decision to bomb a city killing 100,000,000 people in order to stop a terrorist organization who is "for certain" going to launch bombs that will kill upwards of seven times as many people I guess if you're a utilitarian or strict kantian ethicist things can be a simple right or wrong, but I think you've really gotta way all the variables in a given situation against each other, especially when you consider you have to weigh against that choice several other alternative choices against each other which is the "best" choice given that there is no "right" choice that will do nothing but bring good Wrong but less wrong than the alternative. Just like how stealing food in Africa to keep your family alive is wrong, but would be less wrong than doing nothing and letting your family starve or worse, stealing a million bucks cause you don't feel like working.
yea but who's to say doing that isn't right, just less right than earning it through a legal job
personally, I think it's silly to say that stealing to feed your starving family is wrong because "stealing is wrong", just less wrong than stealing for greed
especially if you're stealing from someone rich
it's like robin hood I guess, some people consider him a criminal, others a hero, others just a guy trying to get by and help others
|
On May 27 2011 16:50 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:38 Pastor Rob wrote:On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious You are correct. Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. The most dangerous thing our society faces today, besides extreme Islam, is atheism. Atheism will result in the downfall of society - and atheists are no different from fundamentalist Christians. Atheism is a religion. Atheists are just as religious as those who claim they are suicide bombing for God. Atheists who follow Richard Dawkins are no different from Christians who follow God. I can't stress enough that atheism is as much of a religion as is Christianity. If I say it enough times it becomes a statement of fact! ah yes, because atheists are threatening to kill abortion doctors and bomb their clinics. They are also strapping bombs to themselves and setting the bomb off in a crowded bazaar. Oh, wait.... seriously, you're not even a good troll >_>
javy, you should reread his last sentence and realize it for a bid for The Onion.
|
On May 27 2011 16:41 Fiend13 wrote:
Contrary to popular belief science and true religion do not contradict but complement each other. Genuin christians accept that existence can be measured and analyzed just as any other other reasonable person does. We just add a cause, a reason and a goal with others might not.
If the "cause, reason, and goal" lack evidence that sets it apart from other causes, reasons, and goals, then it directly contradicts the scientific process.
The proper scientific thing to do in a case without distinguishing evidence would be to accept...nothing. Even for stuff we "know" for "fact" is still only considered "theory" by science, science is quite agnostic in this regard.
The nonscientific, religious thing to do would be to choose a rationale from a vast host of other rationale.
|
Vatican City State2594 Posts
On May 27 2011 16:32 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:25 Murderotica wrote:On May 27 2011 16:10 redviper wrote:On May 27 2011 13:47 Torte de Lini wrote:
I think knowing his situation, he should have just obliged and pretended to pray. It's fine that he's standing up for his rights, but as you can see, he didn't gain as much as he lost especially if he knew (and he most likely did) that the surrounding community around him as well as the governing body, were heavily christian.
It's just a bad move on his part, he should have considered more than his individual rights that don't necessarily hurt or affect him to the extent or degree he is in now. The same argument can be applied to any violation of human rights and civil liberties. Just shut up and let the police search your home without a warrant. Just shut up and let the feds tap your phone and put spy ware on your computer. Infact I could probably go through the entire BoR and find excuses for violation in order to have a more harmonious society. While your post is certainly true in that it would create a more harmonious society, you made a mountain out of a molehill. It's one prayer at a graduation. The US is not going to flip a shit and be like "WELL GUESS WHAT BITCHES, WE CONTROL YOU NOW," after this decision and start doing anything of what you listed, nor will it in the foreseeable hundred years at least. We will never be North Korea of the first world. This is one court room decision which does not affect much of anything in the slightest. The Christians might lose a bit of ground in the South, but it's so significant that they started a fucking hunt on this kid. Atheists might not have to sit at so many boring religion things in the South, which they (mostly) chose for themselves and their kids to live in, one generation after the next. No big deal. It doesn't say in the article if it was the majority of the community, though. Teacher is terrible but at some point you have to realize that teachers are employees that CAN flip a shit and do crazy stuff - nothing was mentioned of any consequences to his actions, but that doesn't mean that there aren't or aren't going to be any). Getting death threats and etc. happen for smaller and bigger things all over the country. This is not a revolution or an oppression in the making. I am sure the North Koreans didn't think that they would be the north koreans of the world either. Apathy to your own rights is a good way to end up like, lets say Iran. If something is against the law and is offensive to you then why shouldn't you stand up and speak against it. The reaction of the community is an oppression in itself, the actions of the school are defacto endorsements by the government of this oppression. No one here can say that the school wasn't violating the law of the land. And also I have no idea what you mean by " Atheists might not have to sit at so many boring religion things in the South, which they (mostly) chose for themselves and their kids to live in, one generation after the next. No big deal." You want them to leave the south?
My point is, now that this has happened, will the decision affect whether you live in this country or not? Because if you say no, that means you don't care enough. And what that means is that probably the majority of people don't care enough. These are extremists that have been cited to have caused this, even if it is a prevalent pattern in the South. But I doubt even these extremists will cause an uproar if they lose this. This shit is inconsequential on the grand scale of things. We do not need to be picking pennies about our rights in this way. Gay people wanting to get married and not being allowed to is more reprehensible than someone having to sit through people chanting shit and speaking up about it which they do every day with the Pledge of Allegiance anyway, and both have close to zero future consequences to us as a majority. I might not have had to say the "Pledge of Allegiance" every morning? That's okay, don't give a shit in retrospect because I said it with no actual meaning to myself behind it, and when I actually started constructively thinking about it I was old enough to make my own decision and just stop saying it in schools. He could have done the same. This is not a real consequence to us, and it's not going to have further legal repercussions of any magnitude between church and state. It'd just sticking to what we've already had, more or less. Only the extremists will be pissed on either side of this issue and actually do anything about it.
|
Religion is peace!!!
Keep repeating that and maybe one day it will be something other then a sickening phrase of hypocrisy.
but there are many things that can replace a belief in god and evoke the same sort of mindless loyalty and blind faith without faltering mob-mindset
I wish atheism was religion. Then my house would be my church and it would save me a bundle on taxes.
I could tell everyone who is anti-gay that their speech is offensive to my religious views and they need to be silenced. Maybe even create a giant religious body that will protect me when i commit a crime and exert an enormous ammount of political influence to make the law not apply to me.
But sadly atheism isn't a religion for it has no doctrine to adhere to and is the absence of belief in divine being.
But apparently the majority of the people thought he "had it comming". Afterall if you go against the will of the majority you deserve what you get right?
Sick people that do this stuff, sick people that support this stuff and sick people that pretend like he had it comming.
|
On May 27 2011 16:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:50 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:34 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:10 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:06 Emperor_Earth wrote:
[quote]
The link is that the school is promoting it. The school accepts [a lot] funding from the federal level. If the school wishes to continue to accept funding from federal gov't and stay public, they shall abide by federal laws and regulation. If this was a private school, go crazy with prayer if you want. But if you want taxpayer money to fund your gig, do what the taxpayers have directly and/or indirectly decided on before hand.
This would be akin to a kid going out and buying a Harley with his parent's money earmarked for college education. I'm not debating that it isn't against the law I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite Yes, your analogy is better. But again, it's wrong however you look at it. Notice, we did not talk about punishment here. We only talked about morality. Now we let the punishment fit the crime. well personally I didn't concede it was wrong I wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt for spending a buck on the candy bar, and I don't think my parents would necessarily want to punish me either so I would dispute that it is wrong at all (or at least argue that if it is wrong, the degree to which it is wrong is so negligible it may be ignored in calculations the way you would ignore the gravitational force alpha centari imposed on the net gravitational force on the earth) Alright, here's my thought process. Butt in where you diverge. Wrong is a state. It either is or is not. Degree of wrong is intensity. You add a few "very"'s or a few "barely"'s in there. You can't make something go from right to very wrong by altering intensity. If by altering intensity, you approach very wrong, then the original state was more "barely wrong" than "right". wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology "4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity That's where we disagree then. It's a very fundamental disagreement that leads to unproductive rhethoric. Assuming your arbitary rules and your logical framework, the rest of your statements make more sense. how else would you ever weigh something so complicated as a presidential decision to bomb a city killing 100,000,000 people in order to stop a terrorist organization who is "for certain" going to launch bombs that will kill upwards of seven times as many people I guess if you're a utilitarian or strict kantian ethicist things can be a simple right or wrong, but I think you've really gotta way all the variables in a given situation against each other, especially when you consider you have to weigh against that choice several other alternative choices against each other which is the "best" choice given that there is no "right" choice that will do nothing but bring good Wrong but less wrong than the alternative. Just like how stealing food in Africa to keep your family alive is wrong, but would be less wrong than doing nothing and letting your family starve or worse, stealing a million bucks cause you don't feel like working. yea but who's to say doing that isn't right, just less right than earning it through a legal job personally, I think it's silly to say that stealing to feed your starving family is wrong because "stealing is wrong", just less wrong than stealing for greed
You could say that it is a complete strawman. Because thats what it is.
|
On May 27 2011 16:54 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:50 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:38 Pastor Rob wrote:On May 27 2011 16:33 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Zzoram wrote:
Sometimes I wonder what direction America is headed. Is it going to get more or less religious? If it gets more religious, is there going to be a civil war or will the non-religious just congregate in certain states and vice versa? it's probably going to get less religious due to scientific and cultural progression/modernization unless you consider militant atheism a religion, in which case it will probably get more religious You are correct. Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. The most dangerous thing our society faces today, besides extreme Islam, is atheism. Atheism will result in the downfall of society - and atheists are no different from fundamentalist Christians. Atheism is a religion. Atheists are just as religious as those who claim they are suicide bombing for God. Atheists who follow Richard Dawkins are no different from Christians who follow God. I can't stress enough that atheism is as much of a religion as is Christianity. If I say it enough times it becomes a statement of fact! ah yes, because atheists are threatening to kill abortion doctors and bomb their clinics. They are also strapping bombs to themselves and setting the bomb off in a crowded bazaar. Oh, wait.... seriously, you're not even a good troll >_> javy, you should reread his last sentence and realize it for a bid for The Onion.
yea, I saw that afterwards >_>
|
On May 27 2011 16:38 Pastor Rob wrote:
You are correct. Atheism is just as much of a religion as Christianity is. The most dangerous thing our society faces today, besides extreme Islam, is atheism. Atheism will result in the downfall of society - and atheists are no different from fundamentalist Christians. Atheism is a religion. Atheists are just as religious as those who claim they are suicide bombing for God. Atheists who follow Richard Dawkins are no different from Christians who follow God. I can't stress enough that atheism is as much of a religion as is Christianity. If I say it enough times it becomes a statement of fact!
If you are not serious, then nicely done, If you are serious, get treatment for mental alienation.
Edit : Ha realized the last sentence now too, take into account the first part of my reply then :p
|
On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 15:13 Zzoram wrote:On May 27 2011 15:10 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 IntoTheWow wrote:On May 27 2011 15:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't believe his actions are altruistic at all
would the prayer have hurt anyone? no
he should have just let it be as a matter of respecting a community tradition illegal community tradiction* sure it's a crime, but it's a victimless crimeif there was a law against scratching your head with both hands at the same time and I saw someone do it, I wouldn't report it or care at all it's illegal, therefore it is wrong, right? oh wait But it's not. It's alienating the non-Christians by making them feel like they don't belong at their own graduation. Ugh, maybe this is because you guys live in a society where religious people are in the majority but I have such a hard time seeing this -___- When I was like 15 or something I would have probably found it hilarious to raise shit about this, but I just dont see why its worth caring about... They believe in God, so they pray to him - I DONT believe in God so I therefore shouldnt give a shit, which I dont.... No one gives a shit about praying. They give a shit about praying in a public school. If it were a private school called "Catholic School of whatever" no one would care. But the governement shouldn't be promoting religion. And praying promotes religion.
|
On May 27 2011 16:55 redviper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:53 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:50 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:43 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:34 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:31 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:21 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:15 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:10 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:09 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
I'm not debating that it isn't against the law
I think your analogy is a bit inaccurate though, I'd compare it to buying one candy bar with the parent's money earmarked for college education. Not sure what type of candy bar, probably either a snickers, twix, or kit-kat. those are my three favorite Yes, your analogy is better. But again, it's wrong however you look at it. Notice, we did not talk about punishment here. We only talked about morality. Now we let the punishment fit the crime. well personally I didn't concede it was wrong I wouldn't feel an ounce of guilt for spending a buck on the candy bar, and I don't think my parents would necessarily want to punish me either so I would dispute that it is wrong at all (or at least argue that if it is wrong, the degree to which it is wrong is so negligible it may be ignored in calculations the way you would ignore the gravitational force alpha centari imposed on the net gravitational force on the earth) Alright, here's my thought process. Butt in where you diverge. Wrong is a state. It either is or is not. Degree of wrong is intensity. You add a few "very"'s or a few "barely"'s in there. You can't make something go from right to very wrong by altering intensity. If by altering intensity, you approach very wrong, then the original state was more "barely wrong" than "right". wrong is a state in reference to knowledge/epistemology "4 + 4 = 9" that is a wrong statement in relation to ethics though, things aren't "right or wrong" as a simple one-dimensional state, you have to weigh things against each other and it IS based on intensity That's where we disagree then. It's a very fundamental disagreement that leads to unproductive rhethoric. Assuming your arbitary rules and your logical framework, the rest of your statements make more sense. how else would you ever weigh something so complicated as a presidential decision to bomb a city killing 100,000,000 people in order to stop a terrorist organization who is "for certain" going to launch bombs that will kill upwards of seven times as many people I guess if you're a utilitarian or strict kantian ethicist things can be a simple right or wrong, but I think you've really gotta way all the variables in a given situation against each other, especially when you consider you have to weigh against that choice several other alternative choices against each other which is the "best" choice given that there is no "right" choice that will do nothing but bring good Wrong but less wrong than the alternative. Just like how stealing food in Africa to keep your family alive is wrong, but would be less wrong than doing nothing and letting your family starve or worse, stealing a million bucks cause you don't feel like working. yea but who's to say doing that isn't right, just less right than earning it through a legal job personally, I think it's silly to say that stealing to feed your starving family is wrong because "stealing is wrong", just less wrong than stealing for greed You could say that it is a complete strawman. Because thats what it is.
I'm confused what you're saying the strawman is, my example wasn't a metaphor for this thread at all, it was in relation to the hypothetical situation he presented
|
The right-winged Christians in the USA read whatever they want into their Constitution. It gives them rights, but when it limits them in any way they just ignore it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
