Christian propaganda - it's everywhere.

fishin wrote:

aperson wrote:

fishin wrote:

If athiests get portrayed as you claim then maybe it's because those that people see as athiests tend to act that way. Take yourself for example...

This is immature and un-called for. One could say the same about certain theists...

Uncalled for? I don't see you denying it...

And yes, one could easily say the same for theists. You seem to be doing exactly that. Why do you think this only applies to theists? That's the interesting question.

Come on. What do you want me to say? "THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!"? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

The links between atheism and the characteristics portrayed are unfounded. The links between theism and some of the characteristics portrayed are founded.

(it's not exactly 1 on 1 here, is it?).

Come on. What do you want me to say? "THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!"? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

The links between atheism and the characteristics portrayed are unfounded. The links between theism and some of the characteristics portrayed are founded.

Personally, i object even to the use of "atheism," because atheist is for me simply a description of my condition--i am without god--whereas atheism implies holding a philosophical position with referent premises and claims, to which i am not prepared to subscribe.

I don't know, and I don't care.

Is that, finally, the wisdom, Phoenix?

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I don't know, and I don't care.

Which is probably why you and your fellow apathetics spend so much time posting on S&R.

I'm not buying it.

It is incorrect to ask if 83% of the Norwegians would be Methodists, because Lutheranism is the "historical" religion of Norway, a sort of reformed Roman Catholicism. State-sponsored religion is a term I have never seen. The correct term is the"established church" or "state church". That 83 percent still belong to the church in a country which is secular--it is very easy to leave the church, only a formality--show that Norwegians identify with this church as part of their cultural history and not because it is somehow forced on them. The liturgy, the hymns, the theological and religious thinking have evolved through the centuries and our an expression of the country of Norway. In fact, one could say that if the Norwegians leave the church they still remain Lutherans because their religion is part of their whole make-up. It is strange that both non-religious people outside of Norway attack this high membership, seeing it as a threat to their thinking because of the high level of education and standard of living in secular Norway and still people remain in the church---and religious people from America attack the Church of Norway because it is not "American" enough, i.e., small, struggling, pluralistic, etc.

aperson, responding to Fishin', wrote:

Come on. What do you want me to say? "THAT IS NOT TRUE!!!"? Do you want me to spell it out for you?

The links between atheism and the characteristics portrayed are unfounded. The links between theism and some of the characteristics portrayed are founded.

As an atheist, i disagree. There is a variety of atheist whom i consider the "religious" variety of atheist, who display all the characteristics of the religiously fervent. They make science their religion, believing all too often in what they plainly do not understand, and cannot defend in discussion. Having failed to inform themselves, they are left in no better position in an argument with theists than are the theists themselves whose initial premise is that a god exists, in whom they have faith absent proof.

Personally, i object even to the use of "atheism," because atheist is for me simply a description of my condition--i am without god--whereas atheism implies holding a philosophical position with referent premises and claims, to which i am not prepared to subscribe.

If asked I've taken to referring to my self as "irreligious" for pretty much the same resasons.

real life wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I don't know, and I don't care.

Which is probably why you and your fellow apathetics spend so much time posting on S&R.

I'm not buying it.

Phoenix is far less like to post in S & R threads than a good many other people here.

What you selectively ignore is that this is a site which provides fora for people to discuss these topics. I only ever discuss religion and the self-delusions dear to the hearts of religionists at this site. Otherwise, the subject never comes up in my life, and i avoid any crackpot who wants to broach the topic with me.

You really stepped in it this time--Phoenix is one of the last people you should have accused of spending "so much time posting on S & R."

Maybe you should learn something more about statistics. Had Phoenix posted 975 times each in two threads, that would hardly constitute a meaningful participation in the dozens and dozens of threads in that forum. The total number of times she posts in that forum is meaningless without knowing how many threads she has posted in, and the subject of the threads in which she posted.

There's a lot of issues with this post.

Firstly, from the examples you give (limited), you base your assumption around a movie, and hearsay? Perhaps you have a few further examples?


Secondly, you list as negatives, things that may not be negatives - what's the matter with being immoral? Or a cynic (which would include most Australians)? And of course, there are the other problems raised by other posters with your given example of an atheist.

Third - what on earth are you talking about, NZ doesn't discriminate? Every country and every people on earth discriminate. If it's not against one religion, it's against something else - it's human nature.

Fourth - saying you don't even know the religion of your PM doesn't mean anything - there are people who no doubt pay attention to it.

Lastly, Christianity, like any other large organisation, engages in propaganda - that just makes it the norm, not the exception.

1. My example is small, I'll say that. I can't think of any other examples at the moment, but I just get the general idea that atheists are not portrayed well. The thing is, I can't recall many atheists, not, I can't recall many bad atheists. Just goes to show that the few atheists that are present are portrayed badly.

2. Come on, that's being nit-picky. You conveniently ignore the drunkenness, bitterness and other aspects. Are they not bad?

3. I was referring specifically to discrimination against religion.

4. I have never read a thing about the PMs religion. No doubt people pay attention to it, but the vast majority don't.

5. I think Christianity's position as a religion gives it a tad more responsibility than just "an organisation".

Overall, I think you are picking on points for the sake of it, rather than because you actually see fault in them.

While there is no law against this, it is nicer to be debating against someone who discusses ideas unbiasedly, rather than someone who just doesn't like my ideas because they are anti-Christian.

Setanta wrote:

Maybe you should learn something more about statistics. Had Phoenix posted 975 times each in two threads, that would hardly constitute a meaningful participation in the dozens and dozens of threads in that forum. The total number of times she posts in that forum is meaningless without knowing how many threads she has posted in, and the subject of the threads in which she posted.

Then why don't you look it up if the individual subjects are of interest to you?

I made no reference to the individual subjects, how 'meaningful' her participation was, nor how many threads within S&R were involved.

I referred to posts in S&R. Period.

Before you call someone a liar, you need to be able to show that what they[/i][/u] said (not what you think they said or what you'd like to pretend they said) was untrue.