|
On May 27 2011 17:01 NotSupporting wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote: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.... 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. It's interesting to compare this to Sweden though. I had this discussion with my American English teacher and here in Sweden we are actually doing something beyond this which in his American perspective would be unacceptable in an American school, the students go to church to celebrate the end of the school year. In June everywhere around in Sweden (not at all schools but it is a strong tradition) schools take all their students to church where we sing together, reflect on the year and listen to the priest hold a speech and give his blessing to all the pupils. So the question is, should we remove this tradition because it comes from a time heavily inspired by Christianity just like I guess that prayer at graduation was? Personally I would say no, BUT everyone must be given a choice not to participate.
I never had to go to church for graduation (probably because the church was too small to hold all the classes and their parents).
However, before christmas and easter we always had to go to church and listen to prayers and sing psalms.
And not to forget, the current government is trying to get more bible teachings into class, since christianity is a big part of history. People argue that this should be covered in history classes in that case, but no, since it's a big part of our history, we should be taught the (christian)bible more.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
On May 27 2011 17:11 Emperor_Earth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:59 travis wrote:On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote: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.... 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. It's really just the principle of the thing. The school itself should not be endorsing a specific religion. On May 27 2011 16:58 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 27 2011 16:53 redviper wrote: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. Yes, but its also pretty damn harmless... I dont care so much whether its legal or illegal when in this particular instance. I think enduring the 2 minute discomfort or whatever would have been significantly more noble than ruining the experience for the rest of his class. I don't think it's harmless. it sets precedent, which unless broken, is never-ending. separation of church and state is important... I don't want any religion to be endorsed by my government, do you? Exactly. For the greater good arguments, or in other words the utilitarian perspective has always been a bit of a slippery slope the way I see it. Where do you get to draw the arbitary line? Who gets to? (If everyone, how often do you poll the people as the decision makers have turnover due to growth and decay?) For example, should smokers have to pay more for gov't healthcare? What about obese people? Okay so yes for obese people with a medical condition. What about those that grew up in that lifestyle because of their family? Or grew into it in college via friends? How about another majority rules utilitarian argument showing the issue of the American electoral college system? In a hypothetical 100 person room where 51 people like country, 20 like rap, and 29 like classical or opera, the 51% of people get their music choice.... 100% of the time. Okay, let's try European pluralism. Ratio it out 51/29/20. Now who gets theirs first and when? What if 2 rap lovers leave and 20 country lovers leave and are replaced by 22 classical lovers? How do you account for the original classical lovers being strongly overrepresented? Now of course no system is perfect. My system would have no music and tell everyone to bring their own iPod. Now we start discriminating against the poor who can't afford one. So we, the gov't give them crappy ones. Now they get a subpar experience for free. So we give them the average experience instead. Now those who worked for their music experience are getting reverse discrimination. That's the beauty of it all. You got a bunch of people working together trying to figure out the best solution, whether your predominant factors are fairness or overall goodness, you have to at least be aware of the other side of the sword. But where do you draw lines and who gets to draw them has always been an issue for the utilitarian perspective. Re: Argument at hand Okay, 2 minutes every 4 years is okay. How about 2 every one year? 2 every month? Every day? Where's the acceptable line here? Is there one?
Very nicely put sir!
However Europe is completley different to US  , we have some extremely F'd up rulings thanks to the all might power which is the "EU" -_-
For example, 1 country (France) can ban all people in there country from wearing burkahs (think thats how u spell it) in public, yet in other EU countrys they are free to do so. What im trying to get at there is alot of ONE RULE FOR YOU, ANOTHER FOR YOU, system which seems to be ever present EVERYWHERE.
One religion can do this, the next cant, but then they can do this whether these people cant. Then if you dont beleive in anything you can do this but cant do this. So many rules, so many problems
|
On May 27 2011 17:24 Ocedic wrote:
When you try to confront religious people like this, you don't change matters. No one is trying to change their beliefs. But only trying to not let them use the government to force their beliefs to others.
Because the government should be religiously neutral.
|
On May 27 2011 17:12 NotSupporting wrote:
This is a rather ignorant view on Atheism and Agnosticism that is often expressed by religious people. Atheism is not a religion, nor is it a belief. If someone calls him self an Atheist all you can learn from that is that he does not believe in a god or supernatural powers/miracles, it does not state anything about how he views morals or humanity BUT, and read this carefully, this does not mean Atheists = no morals.
Poor choice of words on my end i apologize. Let me clarify:
What i meant to say by belief was that Atheism/Agnosticism is put in the same spot as religion.
Furthermore - and here i beg you pardon but you read sloppy - both of the former do not
-> necessarily <- provide morals. This means i don't doubt that some if not many Atheists have morals, but you can not guarantee it like you can with genuine religion. Genuine Religion is in that regard safer. It may just be may point of view but i noticed that the majority of people rarely holds onto morals if they are not externally motivated.
|
I can see how children may overreact and resort to bullying but an entire grown up community? Wow.
And for the school to leak his name in the first place, that is just not okay.
|
On May 27 2011 17:31 Danjoh wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:01 NotSupporting wrote:On May 27 2011 16:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote: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.... 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. It's interesting to compare this to Sweden though. I had this discussion with my American English teacher and here in Sweden we are actually doing something beyond this which in his American perspective would be unacceptable in an American school, the students go to church to celebrate the end of the school year. In June everywhere around in Sweden (not at all schools but it is a strong tradition) schools take all their students to church where we sing together, reflect on the year and listen to the priest hold a speech and give his blessing to all the pupils. So the question is, should we remove this tradition because it comes from a time heavily inspired by Christianity just like I guess that prayer at graduation was? Personally I would say no, BUT everyone must be given a choice not to participate. I never had to go to church for graduation (probably because the church was too small to hold all the classes and their parents). However, before christmas and easter we always had to go to church and listen to prayers and sing psalms. And not to forget, the current government is trying to get more bible teachings into class, since christianity is a big part of history. People argue that this should be covered in history classes in that case, but no, since it's a big part of our history, we should be taught the (christian)bible more.
That seems odd. Reading the bible will not teach you anything about christian history.
Poor choice of words on my end i apologize. Let me clarify:
What i meant to say by belief was that Atheism/Agnosticism is put in the same spot as religion.
Furthermore - and here i beg you pardon but you read sloppy - both of the former do not
-> necessarily <- provide morals. This means i don't doubt that some if not many Atheists have morals, but you can not guarantee it like you can with genuine religion. Genuine Religion is in that regard safer. It may just be may point of view but i noticed that the majority of people rarely holds onto morals if they are not externally motivated
Genuine religion?
I am assuming that is code for "all good things about my religion are genuine but all bad things aren't really a part of it".
|
Its funny, cause I live in Auburn, AL. and the denial of an SSA affliate thing wasn't even in the newspaper here but on some random website lol. The kid is kinda silly though, I live in the south, its called the bible belt. Christianity is a big part of alot of people lives. No point of starting a shitstorm when you are about to graduate and never have to see any of these people again just because someone is hoping their god will bless him in your life endeavors. It just sucks that some "christians" did everything about as wrong as they could and get to be focal point of christians and make christians look like giant air bags esp the parents. In a perfect world the kid is right, but I just don't think its worth the trouble for something so little.
|
Sickening. I've read the bible, I've spoken (been dragged to) and listened to a few priests about random stuff, about what it means to be christian and one or two were actually inspiring but they were old men, old enough to see and figure out many things, the rest ... I've abandoned any idea that church has any relation to god. I may or may not believe in god, never thought much, I'd probably say no but my upbringing still turns me to prayer when I'm in distress and I sure as hell don't believe in church/priests/ministers/rabbis/imams, such a joke.
In the end, by their own actions they step on what Jesus taught and have the audacity of still praying with a clean conscience ... By their own religion they've sinned, they should be ashamed.
|
Poor kid. He made a really bad decision (from strategic perspective).
If it's illegal, though, they shouldn't harass him for knowing constitution. I mean, change the laws or abide by them. Don't play people who are within their rights.
Seriously though, stories like that just make me feel sad. Whether it happens in Africa or USA or someplace else.
Well, he received the message of peace so he'd better convert!
|
On May 27 2011 17:37 Xretes wrote:
No point of starting a shitstorm when you are about to graduate and never have to see any of these people again just because someone is hoping their god will bless him in your life endeavors.
Actually, that might be the reason why.
"I don't have to see any you guys for the rest of my life, so let me just ruin your day here"
|
I don't think this has much to do with Atheism, but more on a whole how the Christian community does not follow their own values and morals which they so high commend themselves on.
It's just pathetic.
|
It would be much simpler if we ended public schools and gave kids vouchers to go to a private school. Then the parents could choose the indoctrination that they want their kid to have. Whether to worship Gaia or God.
|
This means i don't doubt that some if not many Atheists have morals, but you can not guarantee it like you can with genuine religion. Genuine Religion is in that regard safer.
I have to say I chuckled at this. I guess OBL had a lot of morals righ, you can guarantee that can't you?
|
On May 27 2011 17:01 Fiend13 wrote:
On the ' atheism is the perfect solution/ is evil' debate:
The one thing any genuine religion provides are values, morals, ethics or whatever you like to call them. Atheism and Agnosticism do not that necessarily. These values do benefit the chances of survival of a society as people rather tend to step down a notch and help each than running other anyone their way to pursue their own goals.
This of course is only a problem if you care about raising standards of living for everyone and the survival of mankind on the long run. The latter is - as you might know - not guaranteed as we actually have the power to erase ourselves and are stupid enough to do so.
That's completely wrong. When you think of how bad the standard of living, and how low the average life expectancy got when monotheistic religion appeared, it's had to argue there's anything good about it from an evolutionnary standpoint.
|
On May 27 2011 17:13 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:35 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:24 Barrin wrote:
(and btw atheism is indeed believing in something; agnosticism is what's not believing in anything) no, this is completely wrong yet continues to be perpetrated as correct. Atheism, in the most general sense, is a lack of belief. It is NOT a positive statement about the non-existence of a supreme deity. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is concerned with knowledge. Hence, you can very well be an agnostic atheist (someone who does not believe in any god and does not claim he has knowledge about god). javy Actually, you're in the wrong. Atheism: Belief in the lack of God Agnostic: Lack of belief in God Er.. no. Like I said, theism deals with belief, gnosticism with knowledge. It is true, however, there are atheist who will state that god does not exist. The most general definition of atheism is a simple lack of belief, which is the default state. edit: the reason why I'm stressing that it is a lack of belief is because this position does not require any evidence to support it, as it is not a positive affirmation of anything, whereas a belief in god does require some sort of evidence. Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 16:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:24 Barrin wrote:
(and btw atheism is indeed believing in something; agnosticism is what's not believing in anything) no, this is completely wrong yet continues to be perpetrated as correct. Atheism, in the most general sense, is a lack of belief. It is NOT a positive statement about the non-existence of a supreme deity. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is concerned with knowledge. Hence, you can very well be an agnostic atheist (someone who does not believe in any god and does not claim he has knowledge about god). javy Actually, you're in the wrong. Atheism: Belief in the lack of God Agnostic: Lack of belief in God well I like to think of it like this because there are more than one forms of theism/atheism and you really do have to define things specifically to avoid semantics arguments weak atheism: I believe god doesn't exist, but I don't know for certain strong atheism: I know for certain god doesn't exist weak theism: I believe god exists, but I don't know for certain strong theism: I know for certain god exists agnosticism: I do not know whether god exists or not as you can see after reading these, agnosticism is completely compatible with either weak atheism or weak theism as it has nothing to do with belief DICTIONARY.COM a·the·ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. ag·nos·tic –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
I have to say I haven't really though about the definitions since I've never felt the need to put such a label on myself. So what should I be called if I don't relate to any of those definitions? I don't believe for certain there either is or isn't a God. I have not seen any convincing arguments that God actually exists so my default position is that I can't believe in him but I don't rule it out either. Neither do I relate fully to the definition of agnostics above. Saying something that you have no concept of is unknowable seems pretty stupid. Isn't that like saying everything we don't know is unknowable? I don't agree with that premise.
|
Incidents like this do not go unpunished. It is very likely that the close friends of this person who has been ostracized by the community will shy away from organized religion as many people have chosen to do for some time now.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
The same stories come from openly gay members (and their friends) of religiously affiliated private schools. It is sad that someone's own parents would refuse to support them because of a decision they made, but that's the way it is. Thankfully ideologies that promote peace and empathy for the community are starting to gain momentum compared to the standard ideology of allegiance (to whatever all powerful controlling figure you choose).
That being said, there is no reason this should have ever escalated to the scale that it did. The school officials should know there are ample loopholes around which the ALCU cannot prevent them from saying a prayer during graduation. The local community (along with the kid's parents) decided to exert their power of majority and drive him out of the community. Sadly there is no legal recourse for such foolish behavior as of yet, so this is where the atheist community has come in to provide assistance. That community should be ashamed to tout protection of their beliefs as an excuse to drive an individual from their community. Fortunately their actions will have future consequences.
|
On May 27 2011 17:41 Pwnographics wrote:
I don't think this has much to do with Atheism, but more on a whole how the Christian community does not follow their own values and morals which they so high commend themselves on.
It's just pathetic.
Truly disgusting, threatened simply for pointing out the fact the government sanctioned prayer is unconstitutional, and this is what he receives, the teacher should be fired, and lucky for him he's old enough to be done with his parents, I really hope this kid can do well in life despite his parent's evil.
|
On May 27 2011 17:41 Pwnographics wrote:
I don't think this has much to do with Atheism, but more on a whole how the Christian community does not follow their own values and morals which they so high commend themselves on.
It's just pathetic.
Why dont you stick to judging yourself by your morals instead of condemning a whole community for the actions of a few bullies.
|
Appealing to the "we cannot be 100% sure" argument is completely childish. Because guess what, there is NOTHING that we know 100%. Scientists know this very well and always take this into account in every theory. So the theory that gets most accepted as "true" by the scientific community is always the one that have the most evidence for it. Not the one that is 100% irrefutable. Most scientists agree atheism is true and god is false simply because there is *way* too much more evidence for one than for another.
Please. Science is great and improves our understanding of the universe but it simply cannot answer some questions. I suggest an experiment:
Take a bottle of water, and a CD with very negative music on it. Place the water next to your heart with one hand, outstretch your other arm and have someone push down on your arm and try to resist. Do the same with the CD. Every time you do this, your ability to resist is much stronger with the water than the CD. if you run the experiment using a CD with positive music, you can again resist better than with the negative CD.
Scientifically this is total nonsense, how can the music itself, with no physical attributes, have a negative effect simply through proximity to your heart. And its not mental either because you get the same results when doing the experiment and not telling the subject whether he has a positive or negative CD.
This is inexplicable through science yet holds true every time you do it. if you don't believe me, try it. And try it on others, it works. Clearly something is at work here that cannot be explained through Scientific method, Clearly there are things human beings do not understand and may never understand.
|
On May 27 2011 17:47 nihlon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 17:13 Barrin wrote:On May 27 2011 16:35 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:24 Barrin wrote:
(and btw atheism is indeed believing in something; agnosticism is what's not believing in anything) no, this is completely wrong yet continues to be perpetrated as correct. Atheism, in the most general sense, is a lack of belief. It is NOT a positive statement about the non-existence of a supreme deity. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is concerned with knowledge. Hence, you can very well be an agnostic atheist (someone who does not believe in any god and does not claim he has knowledge about god). javy Actually, you're in the wrong. Atheism: Belief in the lack of God Agnostic: Lack of belief in God Er.. no. Like I said, theism deals with belief, gnosticism with knowledge. It is true, however, there are atheist who will state that god does not exist. The most general definition of atheism is a simple lack of belief, which is the default state. edit: the reason why I'm stressing that it is a lack of belief is because this position does not require any evidence to support it, as it is not a positive affirmation of anything, whereas a belief in god does require some sort of evidence. On May 27 2011 16:36 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On May 27 2011 16:32 Emperor_Earth wrote:On May 27 2011 16:27 javy925 wrote:On May 27 2011 16:24 Barrin wrote:
(and btw atheism is indeed believing in something; agnosticism is what's not believing in anything) no, this is completely wrong yet continues to be perpetrated as correct. Atheism, in the most general sense, is a lack of belief. It is NOT a positive statement about the non-existence of a supreme deity. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is concerned with knowledge. Hence, you can very well be an agnostic atheist (someone who does not believe in any god and does not claim he has knowledge about god). javy Actually, you're in the wrong. Atheism: Belief in the lack of God Agnostic: Lack of belief in God well I like to think of it like this because there are more than one forms of theism/atheism and you really do have to define things specifically to avoid semantics arguments weak atheism: I believe god doesn't exist, but I don't know for certain strong atheism: I know for certain god doesn't exist weak theism: I believe god exists, but I don't know for certain strong theism: I know for certain god exists agnosticism: I do not know whether god exists or not as you can see after reading these, agnosticism is completely compatible with either weak atheism or weak theism as it has nothing to do with belief DICTIONARY.COM a·the·ism –noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings. ag·nos·tic –noun 1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. I have to say I haven't really though about the definitions since I've never felt the need to put such a label on myself. So what should I be called if I don't relate to any of those definitions? I don't believe for certain there either is or isn't a God. I have not seen any convincing arguments that God actually exists so my default position is that I can't believe in him but I don't rule it out either. Neither do I relate fully to the definition of agnostics above. Saying something that you have no concept of is unknowable seems pretty stupid. Isn't that like saying everything we don't know is unknowable? I don't agree with that premise.
Ignosticism maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
