|
On May 28 2011 02:22 KoKoRo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:21 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:18 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:14 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. So majority automatically equals = just authority? Someone should go back and time and tell those black slaves to stop inconveniencing those majority white folk. The school was in the wrong, the quantity of them is completely irrelevant. Weren't plantation owners out numbered by the amount of slaves they owned? Just sayin. Black people didn't outnumber white people as a whole in the U.S but that isn't even the point anyway. Your point is to try to back up your claims with bullshit. Got it.
The point is majority doesn't = Right.
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 02:23 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:18 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:14 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. So majority automatically equals = just authority? Someone should go back and time and tell those black slaves to stop inconveniencing those majority white folk. The school was in the wrong, the quantity of them is completely irrelevant. Weren't plantation owners out numbered by the amount of slaves they owned? Just sayin. They got around that particular loophole, by not giving them the right to vote i.e. laws against them were put in place by people other than themselves.
i.e. so the slave owners couldn't tell them who to vote for/what was best for them.
|
On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views.
You forgot how the prayer was illegal ?
|
In this day and age, people who talk to people who aren't there are called crazy. Why is an exception made for crazy people who talk to people who aren't there 2000 years ago?
PS: Holy shit I'm glad I don't live anywhere close to the bible belt.
Also people saying he should have shut his stupid mouth and went along with everyone else in their little cult style prayer group bullshit are complete cowards. If I wasn't so lazy I'd send the kid 10 dollars right now for his college fund with a note saying he's a heroic ballsy motherfucker and more people should be like him.
|
On May 28 2011 02:22 PBC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 13:43 travis wrote:
This is an example of a spot where a kid used poor decisionmaking due to a lack of wisdom. It's not always the best move to stand up and fight. Sometimes it's better to stand apart as an observer.
It's too bad he's in this situation, It would be nice if he could sue the school for having his information leaked and for this situation occuring.
P.S: It sucks that it had to become an atheist/religious issue. Durrr, atheism good, religion bad! Atheists helped him! Why can't it just be that good compassionate people helped him? so... what rosa parks did was incorrect? just sit back and let the situation happen? i believe what the kid did was admirable and correct, no matter what he thinks This PBC guy is smarter than 90% of this thread.
|
On May 28 2011 02:24 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. You forgot how the prayer was illegal ?
Hey guys, 1 person wants to cause problems for a lot of people. He's right because it's the law.
That's America.
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 02:22 PBC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2011 13:43 travis wrote:
This is an example of a spot where a kid used poor decisionmaking due to a lack of wisdom. It's not always the best move to stand up and fight. Sometimes it's better to stand apart as an observer.
It's too bad he's in this situation, It would be nice if he could sue the school for having his information leaked and for this situation occuring.
P.S: It sucks that it had to become an atheist/religious issue. Durrr, atheism good, religion bad! Atheists helped him! Why can't it just be that good compassionate people helped him? so... what rosa parks did was incorrect? just sit back and let the situation happen? i believe what the kid did was admirable and correct, no matter what he thinks
Admirable in principle, admirable in theory - but practically? Say Rosa Parks did what she did, then got beat up by all the white people on that bus. Would it have been worth it?
Say this kid didn't get lucky and have the atheist group sponsor his college fees. He gets ostracised by the community and his family and ends up on the streets.
As another poster mentioned - he didn't intend for it to become public that he was the one who made the complaint so it's not his fault.
But at the end of the day sometimes principle is just something you have to realise gets trampled on daily in everyday life. We pay taxes everyday regardless of whether or not we want to. You can try and be a rebel and not pay your taxes. But you can also end up in jail for it. Integrity, principle, values, honesty - these are things that will get you walked all over in life if you try to abide by them.
|
On May 28 2011 02:27 KoKoRo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:24 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. You forgot how the prayer was illegal ? Hey guys, 1 person wants to cause problems for a lot of people. He's right because it's the law. That's America.
Prayer in school causes problems, that's why there is a law against it.
|
for me as a european the most shocking thing is that some students actually wanted to make a prayer at their school.
school = public
prayer = private
you know?
here in france it's forbidden to wear signs that distinguish you from the others in what regards religion in schools. hell, considering a prayer organized by the PUBLIC and let me write it big is really impossible to imagine here. not one single person would defend the school or the "right" of the "other students" here.
there is a law, you shall disagree with it but when someone is in his right trying to make people respect it, how should this be morally reprehensible ?
|
On May 28 2011 02:27 KoKoRo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:24 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. You forgot how the prayer was illegal ? Hey guys, 1 person wants to cause problems for a lot of people. He's right because it's the law. That's America.
Hey guys this one guy that we want to kill wants to cause problems for us because killing is illegal, what a douche.
But seriously, if the law is reasonable and good, which separation of church and state is, it is a good thing to uphold the law.
|
Fuck you TeamLiquid... I got so carried away debating in this thread and the other thread it's almost morning and I've got no sleep and have work in a few hours... No more replies from me, goodbye.
|
I wonder in how many other schools prayers like those take place...
|
|
|
On May 28 2011 02:06 Jayjay54 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 01:58 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 01:54 Jayjay54 wrote:On May 28 2011 01:49 Tony Campolo wrote:On May 28 2011 01:45 Bibdy wrote:
No, Theism vs Atheism is still boiled down to a belief in a deity or not and the ultimate reasoning is to explain how the universe works. Life itself; if you don't think a deity did it, you BELIEVE something else did it. Why can't the burden of proof be on both sides of the line? This is where Agnosticism comes in. Why do you need to BELIEVE something did it? What if nothing did it, and it was always there? The point is, we don't know. But that doesn't mean something must have done it. African tribes believe in gods. Just because one African doesn't BELIEVE the river was cried out in tears by some giant goddess who had her heart broken, doesn't mean they they must BELIEVE that it was cried by someone or something else. They lack the intelligence to realise that rivers aren't cried but rather a result of rainfall etc. Likewise just because atheists don't BELIEVE that a god created the world, doesn't mean that they must BELIEVE that it was created by something else. The answer could be something completely different, we may just not know yet (or may never know). Yeah, you are perfectly right. The thing is still that you say it is unlikely / impossible that something did it. Agnosticism argues, that it is just as unlikely that nothing did. and to the guy who read the wikipedia stuff and said was 'agnotic atheist', no I consider myself a strong agnostic: The view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities, and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you." I don't care what you consider yourself, if you don't hold a belief in a deity you're an atheist. Those aren't mutually exclusive. For example. I can't KNOW if Jimi Hendrix was murdered, but it is my BELIEF that he wasn't. You can claim it is impossible to KNOW that god exists, but believe he doesn't. This is my final post. Why the hell do I have to choose. And you are just implying that it just requires faith to believe in god. I say requires as much faith to deny higher entities. Even if this is not your point of view it's mine. So there are know to questions I can't answer. "Do you believe in god?" and "do you believe everything was randomly created?". I could add a million more. And I would refuse to answer any of the. You choose to believe that everything was not created by a higher entity. To me this is a believe. Maybe for you it's not. I don't know wether there is a god. Even if you forced me to answer the "do you believe in god question" I could not. What is so hard to understand there? btw: don't you think the existence of articles of agnoticism, associations and the mere fact that I don't want to be considered an atheist is enough to believe that this is an acutal point of view.
If you answer the question "do you believe in god" with i dont know you are a negative atheist.
"Negative atheism refers to any other type of non-theism, wherein a person doesn't hold a belief in the existence of any deity, but does not claim that same statement is false."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism
|
On May 28 2011 02:08 Jayjay54 wrote:Bonus post: I can easily say that you claim that everything was created without any higher dentity, which to me, is proofworthy as well.
You could say that, but that would be stupid and wrong. If you seriously followed this, you could easily disprove every single deity ever conceived that you do not believe in. I eagerly await your submission of all those disproofs, I suggest you go alphabetically. Furthermore, you no doubt can prove that the invisible fire breathing dragon that lives in Donald Trump's hair did not create you last Tuesday, with memories and all. This is what happens when you foolishly demand that someone must disprove an assertion in order for you to not believe it.
|
On May 28 2011 02:26 VIB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:22 PBC wrote:On May 27 2011 13:43 travis wrote:
This is an example of a spot where a kid used poor decisionmaking due to a lack of wisdom. It's not always the best move to stand up and fight. Sometimes it's better to stand apart as an observer.
It's too bad he's in this situation, It would be nice if he could sue the school for having his information leaked and for this situation occuring.
P.S: It sucks that it had to become an atheist/religious issue. Durrr, atheism good, religion bad! Atheists helped him! Why can't it just be that good compassionate people helped him? so... what rosa parks did was incorrect? just sit back and let the situation happen? i believe what the kid did was admirable and correct, no matter what he thinks This PBC guy is smarter than 90% of this thread.
Well firstly I elaborated that whether or not he used poor decision-making is up to his character and what he intended to make happen.
Secondly, this isn't the same as the Rose Parks situation. It's merely similar. The levels of oppression clearly aren't even in the same league.
Thirdly, I didn't say what he did was incorrect - just foolish. If you want to argue that then fine but it will go nowhere, I was never saying he wasn't in the right.
You're in the right when you try to stop a bunch of gang members from beating up some guy on the street, but when they knife you and you die - guess what - it may not have been a good idea.
Whether or not what the kid did was admirable has to do with his personal, internal motivation - and none of us really know what that was, and it's easy to simplify it to "he was taking a stand against oppression" when in reality it could have been he just he just wanted to flex some power. We don't actually know. And we never will.
|
On May 28 2011 02:29 Olinim wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:27 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:24 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. You forgot how the prayer was illegal ? Hey guys, 1 person wants to cause problems for a lot of people. He's right because it's the law. That's America. Prayer in school causes problems, that's why there is a law against it.
For who exactly? People who don't want to pray? A single part of the religious groups called Atheism? Other religions who pray in separate ways? I want to know exactly why praying in school is/should be against the law.
On May 28 2011 02:32 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2011 02:27 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:24 mcc wrote:On May 28 2011 02:10 KoKoRo wrote:On May 28 2011 02:06 Olinim wrote:On May 28 2011 02:04 KoKoRo wrote:
I couldn't finish reading this because the article is so biased in the beginning. I'm agnostic but holy shit atheists are just as bad as the people attacking this person. I liked the part where the counselor brought up that no other atheist/agnostic/other religious person has had a problem with it then the person writing the article brought up, "he's getting attacked for what he believed in." No, he's getting attacked because there is a time and place for everything and that was neither the time nor place.
If the majority wants to prayer, they ARE in the right. Because one kid doesn't like it he was willing to report the situation to the state/government and have the entire thing locked down. What's more fucked up? The fact that an atheist, a solo person, is allowed to do this? Or the fact that a majority gets away with any of this? Personally I don't like atheists. They're a bunch of stuck up pricks who do shove their values down other peoples throats just as much as any other religious group. The ass hole could've just kept his mouth shut during prayer and not pray. Every time my school stopped class for '9/11 prayer to the lost' I just used that time to sleep for a minute. My uncle hates, literally will cause physical harm to me when nobody is looking, because I am not religious. This shit is common. We all have differences and deal with things differently. The only, ONLY, ONNNLLLYYYY thing this article brings up that's of any controversy is his parents kicking him out and disowning him.
The parents were over reacting to what their son did. But disowning him is going too far. Sweeping generalization of an entire group of people? Check Ad hominem? Check Objection to a kid reporting a clear violation of the law and constitution? Check Complete fail? Check Sweeping Generalization because it's true. Funny how that works. Objecting because he was willing to cause problems for a lot of people. Causing problems for the whole is definitely in the wrong in my views. You forgot how the prayer was illegal ? Hey guys, 1 person wants to cause problems for a lot of people. He's right because it's the law. That's America. So you are essentially implying that if a lot of people want a single innocent person killed, then it doesn't make sense that the innocent person could possibly be in the right and therefore should be killed, even though he is innocent? Where do you draw your line?
Are you seriously trying to bring Bin Laden into this? Bin Laden was a minority of another religion that attacked the US and was targeted for it. Yes America is in the right because the Majority, not just America wanted him dead.
I draw the line at common sense.
|
I want to defend the states and say to the Europeans 'Guys seriously we're not like this,' but this thread is making that difficult.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
