The video is obviously peddling a propagandistic claim that theists (specifically christians) have a judgmental double-standard which is routinely applied to atheists.
In my experience they generally do apply double standards to atheists. Hence the video, if it did say that, is educational and not propaganda. And whoever made the vid would claim that. I presume.
Another double standard appears. Ad infinitum --so let's have another round eh lads--it's thirsty work is this filofoshishing. Who's turn is it?
0 Replies
spendius
1
Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I wouldn't put too much weight on criticisms when we fail once in a great while.
It's a pretty short "great while" in your case ci. Have you been reading Einstein again?
spendi, Please show me where I've made mistakes on those "short while" you're talking about?
I've pointed out many of your grammatical errors, and when have you corrected mine? Twice? ha ha ha...
0 Replies
spendius
1
Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:21 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I don't think, i state that the inferential claim of the video is so much blather. Your burden of proof is not that some clown would say things like that, but that such silliness constitutes the orthodox canon of the theistic world view. The video doesn't say that some poor fools think like that--absent any qualification, it's clear intent is to say that these are the core beliefs of all theists (or at least christians, as once again, that is the symbolism used). Going out and finding some simple-minded hateful christian who thinks like that won't subtantiate the global charge made in the video against all theists (christians). Unless and until you (or the author of the video) can substantiate that such points of view are universal to orthodox theistic canons, it's a straw man. You don't get to set you standards so low as to prove that some theists are simple-minded fools--that can be said of any class of people, including anti-theists like the one who made the video, or atheists. Absent specifying qualification, the author of the video has damned all theists for points of view which he or she has not shown all theist to adhere to.
Which means that the sort of videos, cartoons and found art which have been put up on this thread, indeed many articles quoted, and on other threads, are a complete waste of time and Setanta has thus justified my choosing to not bother with them. One can tell what they will say from who posted them.
In fact they are utterly ridiculous.
0 Replies
JTT
0
Mon 4 Apr, 2011 03:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
I wouldn't put too much weight on criticisms when we fail once in a great while.
And the really odd thing, CI, is that many of these "failures" aren't.
0 Replies
Thomas
1
Mon 4 Apr, 2011 04:44 pm
I just arrived back home from a trip to Washington, where Failures Art and I had attended a fundraiser for the Beltway Atheists, consisting of a breakfast with Richard Dawkins. About 20 people attended, so the venue was fairly large for a breakfast; but it was still much smaller than a book reading would have been.
Predictably, there was a breakfast buffet (with lots of coffee) at the beginning and a book signing at the end. The middle part surprised me a little. I had been prepared to hear a short lecture, followed by a question-and-answer session. What I actually heard was an exchange of experiences among the people in the room, which Dawkins started, occasionally commented on, but mostly kept his hands off.
Most of the experiences revolved around teachers (in Virginia public schools) trying to sneak creationism into the classroom. One attendant, for example, a high school student and speaker of the student council, reported that her teachers taught that the Earth was created thousands, not billions, of years ago. When she insisted that the teachers stick to proper geology, and revealed in the process that she was an atheist, she was ostracised as a devil-worshipper by either teachers or her fellow students--not sure which.
Another guy, a student at Virginia Tech, had researched an epistemology paper about a man whose name I don't remember, but who apparently is behind the "Creation Museums" sprouting up around the country. When it became clear from the student's research that the guy was full of ****, with no redeeming characteristics whatsoever, his professor withdrew the assignment and told him to research a paper on something else.
I had read about stories like these in newspaper, but it's different when you actually hear it from the people it happened to.
From there, the discussion moved on to ways to counteract such religious intrusions effectively (various lobbying and legal jiu-jitsu I don't remember in detail, but enjoyed listening to).
That, in turn, gave rise to a discussion of why atheists are so notoriously hard to organize into an effective pressure group. Lots of commiserating, but I'm sorry to say we didn't find the solution in that meeting. But we're working on it.
Did I forget anything important, Failures Art?
Anyway, I had great fun down there. I hope we can do it again some time.
That, in turn, gave rise to a discussion of why atheists are so notoriously hard to organize into an effective pressure group. Lots of commiserating, but I'm sorry to say we didn't find the solution in that meeting. But we're working on it.
Maybe that's why Dawkins left you dolts to your own devices, Thomas, so that you could figure out how to get yourselves organized.
I do not believe atheists need to organize, because theists will begin to call us an organized "religion," and that'll only add to unnecessary debate. Let's let the courts battle the creationist crowd.
You forgot Setanta's definitive post on straw men Thomas. "One attendant" for example. And the guy who was "full of ****". The latter was being a true American and trying to convert a "rising sentiment" into cash.
Have you any objection?
Do you enjoy wasting what is, after all is said and done, your precious time, and I daresay, a few dollars. Your attraction to the "luminosity" is quite religious you know. A pilgrimage almost whilst scoffing grub and preening.
0 Replies
Setanta
1
Mon 4 Apr, 2011 05:02 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:
That, in turn, gave rise to a discussion of why atheists are so notoriously hard to organize into an effective pressure group. Lots of commiserating, but I'm sorry to say we didn't find the solution in that meeting. But we're working on it.
I think the answer to that is obvious. Atheists, i would think (and based upon my own experience) are people who reject revealed truth (or any wisdom with no better basis than authority) unless and until they can check it themselves. They are not joiners, and while not necessarily leaders, neither would i think that they would be followers.
Personally, i would never want to be a member of a "pressure group" based on being an atheist, because atheist only describes what i don't believe, not what i do believe. Politically, economically--on such bases i might work up the enthusiasm, but not on a basis of what i don't believe.
I think the answer to that is obvious. Atheists, i would think (and based upon my own experience) are people who reject revealed truth (or any wisdom with no better basis than authority) unless and until they can check it themselves.
Yep---a phrase that came up a lot was "herding cats". Perhaps I should have brought up the consulting company that made this video. (Courtesy of Monterrey Jack)
That was pretty damned hilarious. The expression "herding cats" did occur to me, but i couldn't think of a way to work it in.
0 Replies
spendius
1
Tue 5 Apr, 2011 04:48 am
@reasoning logic,
Quote:
Are you just trying to be nice by saying that it is better to believe, than to use critical thinking and logic for one's self?
Critical thinking and logic in relation to what? They are not abstract concepts to be popped into conversations as badges of honour without further explanation.
How would critical thinking and logic be applied to human reproductive development without ending up in full blown eugenics? I take for granted that you know what full blown eugenics consists of. Perhaps I shouldn't. Maybe I should take into account your sheltered upbringing.
0 Replies
hingehead
2
Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:05 pm
Atheists don't need to recruit. People can arrive at atheism from basic principles without any outside prodding or education. No religion can say that. Which is one reason why it isn't a religion.
People can arrive at atheism from basic principles without any outside prodding or education. No religion can say that.
Of course religion can say that.....people feel there is a God and are recruited into a religion . People feel there isnt a God and are recruited (informally) into atheism . Are you trying to tell us you have never spoken or communicated with another atheist ?
I note how you think atheists are clever people who arrive at their belief through first principles . Perhaps you can explain some of those ? Like the Big Bang, Multi-verses, the true nature of the sub-atomic universe, whether String Theory is correct, how matter accrues as you go faster, how time slows as you go faster, you know.....basic stuff....or perhaps people feel one of two ways, depending on the individual .
0 Replies
spendius
1
Wed 6 Apr, 2011 05:14 pm
@hingehead,
Spengler said that it is. I'll see if I can dig the reference out.
