A Sad Day For Free Speech In Italy
-
John Carson wrote:
I don't, to take your earlier example, support the right of bus companies to discriminate against blacks and I believe that it should be illegal.
So, no matter how inflamatory the message, anyone who wishes to have their sign on the side of a bus should be permitted to put it there? And if the bus company's owners don't like it, they should go out of business? What about taxicabs? What about during children's shows on TV? What about in store windows?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
So, no matter how inflamatory the message, anyone who wishes to have their sign on the side of a bus should be permitted to put it there?
Ironic that this should come after a post accusing me of using a strawman. The wording of the atheist message was very mild.
Oakman wrote:
And if the bus company's owners don't like it, they should go out of business?
How does not liking something translate into going out of business? But since you raise the issue, some businesses that declined to discriminate against blacks did go out of business. Should they have discriminated?
John Carson
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Utter nonsense.
I am afraid that a scientific analysis of the available evidence strongly indicates otherwise.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Does it?
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Oakman wrote:
So, no matter how inflamatory the message, anyone who wishes to have their sign on the side of a bus should be permitted to put it there?
Ironic that this should come after a post accusing me of using a strawman. The wording of the atheist message was very mild.
Oakman wrote:
And if the bus company's owners don't like it, they should go out of business?
How does not liking something translate into going out of business? But since you raise the issue, some businesses that declined to discriminate against blacks did go out of business. Should they have discriminated?
John Carson
-
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Citation plz + bonus correlation != causation which you should already know if you actually did a degree in science ha ha you're schooled
- F
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Yes. I did a carefully analysis of civilization and religion and discovered that every time you find the one, you find the other. In fact, there appears to also be a strong correlation between the complexity of a given civilzation and the complexity of the religion with which it is associated. As
Citation plz + bonus correlation != causation which you should already know if you actually did a degree in science ha ha you're schooled
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Citation plz
Sorry, it was a privately funded, unpublished, study.
Fisticuffs wrote:
bonus correlation != causation
No, but a sufficiently strong correlation supports a possible causal association. Obviously, we need a set of controlled experiments to confirm the hypothesis. Perhaps we coudl take a civilization which had been historically associated with a religion, than remove that religion and measure the results. One could specify a set of social parameters and observe how they change over time.
Fisticuffs wrote:
which you should already know if you actually did a degree in science
Does my degree in biology count?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Citation plz
Sorry, it was a privately funded, unpublished, study.
Fisticuffs wrote:
bonus correlation != causation
No, but a sufficiently strong correlation supports a possible causal association. Obviously, we need a set of controlled experiments to confirm the hypothesis. Perhaps we coudl take a civilization which had been historically associated with a religion, than remove that religion and measure the results. One could specify a set of social parameters and observe how they change over time.
Fisticuffs wrote:
which you should already know if you actually did a degree in science
Does my degree in biology count?
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Perhaps we coudl take a civilization which had been historically associated with a religion, than remove that religion and measure the results.
I would suggest that may already be happening. Consider that significantly more complex and effective medical interventions are possible simply because we have rejected the mindset that accompanies dogmatic religious belief when studying medicine. One can only imagine what we could accomplish if that were to translate to other fields of human endeavor. I would argue that the groupthink necessarily associated with religious thought is anathema to the free critical exchange of ideas necessary for human beings to challenge and enrich their knowledge and understanding of the universe. (edit example: compare the effectiveness of modern medicine to that of homeopathy, a rigidly dogmatic discipline established over 200 years ago and little changed by advances in anatomy and physiology, homeopathy is essentially equivalent to a religion by its adherents)
Stan Shannon wrote:
Does my degree in biology count?
Of course. I was simply making a joke at your expense. Such things tend to happen in this den of thieves and inequity.
- F
-
Well, that's fine. As I said below, your ability to make this error of judgement, shows that you have free will, and that people telling you about God, or the Bible, has not proven to be an effective means of 'brainwashing' you. Which makes the whole thing of putting signs on buses almost as idiotic as the fact that some organised churches were stupid enough to fall for it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
that people telling you about God, or the Bible, has not proven to be an effective means of 'brainwashing' you.
Guess he has a leg up on you in that respect.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The fact that you misrepresent the Christian viewpoint is all that needs to be said about this.
There are many, many "Christian" viewpoints. All contradictory in some form or another.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
There are many, many "Christian" viewpoints. All contradictory in some form or another.
But if your version of christianity contradicts that of Christian Graus, then clearly, you aren't christian. :laugh:
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
-
I plainly believe that Christianity is, and I just as plainly know that any discussion on this will involve my beliefs being caricatured and anything I say, ignored. I've done this before, you see....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
I plainly believe that Christianity is
Could you state the facts about Christianity that prove it to be true?
-
Christian Graus wrote:
that people telling you about God, or the Bible, has not proven to be an effective means of 'brainwashing' you.
Guess he has a leg up on you in that respect.
"Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it." -- P.J. O'Rourke
Tim Craig wrote:
Guess he has a leg up on you in that respect
You're an idiot. You miss the point entirely. And that is, that people such as yourself are sufficiently bigoted to reject the possibility that someone could have a belief in God through any means apart from 'brain washing'. The use of the term brainwashing is itself ignorant, that is the core point I was making. Some people conclude that there is a God and some do not, this by itself proves that 'brainwashing' does not work, we just come to our own conclusions. Thanks for making that point for me, as well as my point about atheists often being the more bigoted and pig headed side of the debate.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Fred Phelps is not even remotely Christian
Your statement made no reference to Christians. You said: "No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience". So Fred Phelps is an atheist?
Christian Graus wrote:
Well, it *is* useful to point out that many of the people paying for bus signs and generally looking to 'fight' for atheism, are highly irrational, even though they claim to be the voice of reason.
I don't think you have any real evidence that the people paying for bus signs are "highly irrational". You are merely indulging a prejudice and, like I said, poking your tongue out. To the unprejudiced mind, it must appear rather striking that we live in a world in which proselytising on behalf of Christianity is part of the furniture, but in the UK, Italy and Australia just putting an atheist message on a bus leads to attempts to censor that message (successfully in the case of Italy and Australia). The unprejudiced mind would note that, while it is quite common for people to live their lives with little regard and little sympathy for religion, active proselytising on behalf of atheism is a very minor activity relative to proselytising on behalf of religion. Atheist messages on buses create a stir precisely because the religious have enjoyed a near-monopoly in the proselytising business for thousands of years.
John Carson
John Carson wrote:
You said: "No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience". So Fred Phelps is an atheist?
You're being obtuse. I never said 'the most irrational person on earth is an atheist', my statement was meant to be more general than that.
John Carson wrote:
I don't think you have any real evidence that the people paying for bus signs are "highly irrational".
Again, my statement was more general than that. But, I do think that paying to put up a sign like that is irrational, unless it's goal is to bait Christians, which was also my point.
John Carson wrote:
You are merely indulging a prejudice
No, I am commenting on my lifes experience.
John Carson wrote:
active proselytising on behalf of atheism is a very minor activity relative to proselytising on behalf of religion
Sure - that's because it makes less sense. The Christian believes the atheist needs to be told about their belief because of what they perceive as an eternal consequence. The atheist just wants to free the Christian from a belief system that doesn't do them, or anyone else, any harm. For what purpose ? Probably the exact same reason that the Phelps yell at people, because they don't expect a result, but it makes them feel righteous to abuse people they disagree with. I've certainly seen a LOT of atheists that fall into this group, online, over the years ( and not a few Christians, I admit ).
John Carson wrote:
Atheist messages on buses create a stir precisely because the religious have enjoyed a near-monopoly in the proselytising business for thousands of years.
They stir controversy because some religious people fall for the bait, which is a shame. In my view, they should be allowed to spend their money, and continue on their vain quest. I watched a Dawkins doco on the plane, it was an anti religion series he did, and I find him a sad and pathetic figure. He sure looks dour, and he comes across that way, obsessed as he appears to be in attacking beliefs which have no negative effect on his life. Some people believe in Allah, some believe in animal gods, I couldn't give a damn. I'd be happy to discuss it with them, but I'd never attack them ( or atheists ) for their beliefs. And, my core point is
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I plainly believe that Christianity is
Could you state the facts about Christianity that prove it to be true?
How about you ask me in a week when I am not on holiday and have time to properly respond ? My days right now are being spent at disney land, and an hour in the morning is not sufficient time to follow a thread like this properly. At the core tho, the proof of Christianity was DESIGNED to be personal, and not something that would prove anything if broadcast on TV, for example. So, I doubt you'll be happy with my answers, although I also don't believe they will be the answers you are accustomed to, either.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I could care less what they write on the side of a bus
Should';t that be I Couldn't care less?
If I knew then what I know today, then I'd know the same now as I did then - then what would be the point? .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
Perhaps. I thought it worked either way.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
How about you ask me in a week when I am not on holiday and have time to properly respond ? My days right now are being spent at disney land, and an hour in the morning is not sufficient time to follow a thread like this properly. At the core tho, the proof of Christianity was DESIGNED to be personal, and not something that would prove anything if broadcast on TV, for example. So, I doubt you'll be happy with my answers, although I also don't believe they will be the answers you are accustomed to, either.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
How about you ask me in a week when I am not on holiday
Get off CP, stop checking your e-mails, and go enjoy yourself! :D
-
John Carson wrote:
You said: "No-one is more irrational than a fervent athiest, in my experience". So Fred Phelps is an atheist?
You're being obtuse. I never said 'the most irrational person on earth is an atheist', my statement was meant to be more general than that.
John Carson wrote:
I don't think you have any real evidence that the people paying for bus signs are "highly irrational".
Again, my statement was more general than that. But, I do think that paying to put up a sign like that is irrational, unless it's goal is to bait Christians, which was also my point.
John Carson wrote:
You are merely indulging a prejudice
No, I am commenting on my lifes experience.
John Carson wrote:
active proselytising on behalf of atheism is a very minor activity relative to proselytising on behalf of religion
Sure - that's because it makes less sense. The Christian believes the atheist needs to be told about their belief because of what they perceive as an eternal consequence. The atheist just wants to free the Christian from a belief system that doesn't do them, or anyone else, any harm. For what purpose ? Probably the exact same reason that the Phelps yell at people, because they don't expect a result, but it makes them feel righteous to abuse people they disagree with. I've certainly seen a LOT of atheists that fall into this group, online, over the years ( and not a few Christians, I admit ).
John Carson wrote:
Atheist messages on buses create a stir precisely because the religious have enjoyed a near-monopoly in the proselytising business for thousands of years.
They stir controversy because some religious people fall for the bait, which is a shame. In my view, they should be allowed to spend their money, and continue on their vain quest. I watched a Dawkins doco on the plane, it was an anti religion series he did, and I find him a sad and pathetic figure. He sure looks dour, and he comes across that way, obsessed as he appears to be in attacking beliefs which have no negative effect on his life. Some people believe in Allah, some believe in animal gods, I couldn't give a damn. I'd be happy to discuss it with them, but I'd never attack them ( or atheists ) for their beliefs. And, my core point is
Christian Graus wrote:
You're being obtuse. I never said 'the most irrational person on earth is an atheist', my statement was meant to be more general than that.
You're being obtuse yourself --- or disingenuously trying to misstate the argument. You rejected my example of Fred Phelps on the basis that he was not a Christian, not on the basis that he was too specific an example. Whether or not he is a Christian is irrelevant in terms of your original argument, which had to do with atheists, not with Christians.
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, my statement was more general than that. But, I do think that paying to put up a sign like that is irrational, unless it's goal is to bait Christians, which was also my point.
Your statement specifically referred to people who pay for signs on buses. I comment on the alleged irrationality below.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - that's because it makes less sense. The Christian believes the atheist needs to be told about their belief because of what they perceive as an eternal consequence. The atheist just wants to free the Christian from a belief system that doesn't do them, or anyone else, any harm. For what purpose?
If you insist on judging the reasonableness of atheists' actions from a Christian perspective, then of course it makes little sense. Likewise, the actions of Christians make little sense from an atheist perspective. From an atheist perspective, life on earth is all we have, and so nothing matters more than that we make the best use possible of the little time we have available. Deciding our actions on the basis of false beliefs means that there is a tendency for our choices to not have the consquences, now or in a non-existent afterlife, that are anticipated. Thus the choices tend to be suboptimal. Seeking to correct error has been fundamental to all human progress and, from an atheist perspective, correcting the error of religious belief is just part of that process. Religious beliefs have led to all manner of cruelties and bad decisions and continue to do so. It is ridiculous to say Christianity is "a belief system that doesn't do them, or anyone else, any harm." Now you can certainly argue that Christian belief has had positive consequences as well as negative. And you can argue that various other belief systems (Marxism, for example) have also led to great suffering. An
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You're being obtuse. I never said 'the most irrational person on earth is an atheist', my statement was meant to be more general than that.
You're being obtuse yourself --- or disingenuously trying to misstate the argument. You rejected my example of Fred Phelps on the basis that he was not a Christian, not on the basis that he was too specific an example. Whether or not he is a Christian is irrelevant in terms of your original argument, which had to do with atheists, not with Christians.
Christian Graus wrote:
Again, my statement was more general than that. But, I do think that paying to put up a sign like that is irrational, unless it's goal is to bait Christians, which was also my point.
Your statement specifically referred to people who pay for signs on buses. I comment on the alleged irrationality below.
Christian Graus wrote:
Sure - that's because it makes less sense. The Christian believes the atheist needs to be told about their belief because of what they perceive as an eternal consequence. The atheist just wants to free the Christian from a belief system that doesn't do them, or anyone else, any harm. For what purpose?
If you insist on judging the reasonableness of atheists' actions from a Christian perspective, then of course it makes little sense. Likewise, the actions of Christians make little sense from an atheist perspective. From an atheist perspective, life on earth is all we have, and so nothing matters more than that we make the best use possible of the little time we have available. Deciding our actions on the basis of false beliefs means that there is a tendency for our choices to not have the consquences, now or in a non-existent afterlife, that are anticipated. Thus the choices tend to be suboptimal. Seeking to correct error has been fundamental to all human progress and, from an atheist perspective, correcting the error of religious belief is just part of that process. Religious beliefs have led to all manner of cruelties and bad decisions and continue to do so. It is ridiculous to say Christianity is "a belief system that doesn't do them, or anyone else, any harm." Now you can certainly argue that Christian belief has had positive consequences as well as negative. And you can argue that various other belief systems (Marxism, for example) have also led to great suffering. An
John Carson wrote:
Dawkins' documentaries are very poor. He is way too hostile to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with him. They are a reflection of his personality.
Which illustrates my point exactly. He'd believe that only Christians are capable of providing arguements that are only good for 'preaching to the choir'. And that's all I was trying to say.
John Carson wrote:
As a scientist and science educator, his life is directly affected by the anti-science efforts of Christian fundamentalists, as are we all
Perhaps, as I said above, any scientific journal seems to me to make war on religion in any way possible, I notice it in almost every article I read. I'd hope that there are scientists who are not this combative, as there are Christians who do not oppose science. this merely illustrates my point, that there are irrational people on both sides, and there is no moral high ground to be automatically had in either position ( i.e. my core point again ).
John Carson wrote:
so of course atheists can display the full range of human failings
My core point, again.
John Carson wrote:
Atheists, particularly in the US, feel somewhat under seige and their irritation can show.
So, they have an excuse, and I, as a Christian, do not ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
How about you ask me in a week when I am not on holiday
Get off CP, stop checking your e-mails, and go enjoy yourself! :D
*grin* I actually have to work today, which is why I had time to go over this thread at all. My kids are at Disney and I need to be at a trade show in an hour. I'll be enjoying Disney for the rest of the week tho, we fly home on Monday.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
-
John Carson wrote:
Dawkins' documentaries are very poor. He is way too hostile to persuade anyone who doesn't already agree with him. They are a reflection of his personality.
Which illustrates my point exactly. He'd believe that only Christians are capable of providing arguements that are only good for 'preaching to the choir'. And that's all I was trying to say.
John Carson wrote:
As a scientist and science educator, his life is directly affected by the anti-science efforts of Christian fundamentalists, as are we all
Perhaps, as I said above, any scientific journal seems to me to make war on religion in any way possible, I notice it in almost every article I read. I'd hope that there are scientists who are not this combative, as there are Christians who do not oppose science. this merely illustrates my point, that there are irrational people on both sides, and there is no moral high ground to be automatically had in either position ( i.e. my core point again ).
John Carson wrote:
so of course atheists can display the full range of human failings
My core point, again.
John Carson wrote:
Atheists, particularly in the US, feel somewhat under seige and their irritation can show.
So, they have an excuse, and I, as a Christian, do not ?
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista.
Christian Graus wrote:
Perhaps, as I said above, any scientific journal seems to me to make war on religion in any way possible, I notice it in almost every article I read. I'd hope that there are scientists who are not this combative, as there are Christians who do not oppose science. this merely illustrates my point, that there are irrational people on both sides, and there is no moral high ground to be automatically had in either position ( i.e. my core point again ).
Articles in science journals very rarely mention religion. Scientific American is not a science journal. It is a popular science magazine with a very different mission to a science journal. Science in the US is under attack from the religious right and has endured 8 years of attacks from the Bush Administration under the influence of the religious right. That scientists defend themselves from such attacks is hardly surprising. The religious right wishes to colonise science for religious purposes, compromising the fundamental mission of science of evidence-based analysis. In this dispute, I disagree that "there is no moral high ground to be automatically had in either position". The high moral ground is occupied by the scientists.
Christian Graus wrote:
So, they have an excuse, and I, as a Christian, do not ?
I don't get too fussed about people on either side showing irritation.
John Carson
-
Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote:
Religion and mythology once had a role to play. That role became obsolete a long time ago.
I think the more cold and lonely and hopeless science reveals the universe to actually be, the more attractive and important all that religion and mythology will once again become. Of what possible use is knowledge of a universe that is without purpose or meaning? If that is the case, than shit, just make up something that sounds good and go with that.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I think the more cold and lonely and hopeless science reveals the universe to actually be, the more attractive and important all that religion and mythology will once again become.
You act as if the only way for humans to experience warmth, companionship, and hope is by believing in supernatural caretakers. Have you ever met a happy atheist?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Of what possible use is knowledge of a universe that is without purpose or meaning?
Because not all of us care about the purpose or meaning of the universe. We're far more interested in improving the quality of our journey. That should be our purpose. Imagine if all of us believed of ourselves what we already assume is the case for all other living creatures in this planet -- that this is it, that there's nothing beyond our lives. Wouldn't more of us seek ways to make our time here as fruitful and pleasant as possible?
"Republicans run for office saying that the government doesn't work, then they get elected, and they prove it." -- Al Franken