This is just silly and seems hypocritical
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
it's certainly hypocritical to do the same thing that they don't believe in themselves.
How can you say that when it's devoid of meaning and to prove a point. It's basically sarcasm acted out.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first. If the first act has no meaning and the atheist believes he and nobody else has such power to bless something, then it is hypocritical to perform said powerless act to undo the powerless act of the first. The atheist is "pretending" to beliefs he does not hold to be true. Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is. In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
All I can say, when the vampire hordes come screaming over the parapets, I want the pontiff beside me blessing that water like there's no tomorrow. I ain't going to put my faith in Dawkins, blessing a particularly fine Chateau Neuf de Pap with Dracula champing at my heels.
*pre-emptive celebratory nipple tassle jiggle* - Sean Ewington
"Mind bleach! Send me mind bleach!" - Nagy Vilmos
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
All I can say, when the vampire hordes come screaming over the parapets, I want the pontiff beside me blessing that water like there's no tomorrow.
Sure. But in the same way when the telepathic aliens arrive to enslave all of humanity you will wish for the local nut job that knows how to make protective hats from tin foil.
-
Naerling wrote:
atheists weren't
I'm not so sure. It certainly is funny, and I had a laugh. But it's an "in-your-face" kind of thing that makes them look petty and stupid.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
But it's an "in-your-face" kind of thing that makes them look petty and stupid.
...Except of course that it was probably planned specifically to show the ridiculous of the other action along with drawing media attention to that. So neither petty nor stupid.
-
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first. If the first act has no meaning and the atheist believes he and nobody else has such power to bless something, then it is hypocritical to perform said powerless act to undo the powerless act of the first. The atheist is "pretending" to beliefs he does not hold to be true. Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is. In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
If the first act has no meaning and the atheist believes he and nobody else has such power to bless something, then it is hypocritical to perform said powerless act to undo the powerless act of the first.
Nope, it is showing how absurd religion and all its rituals are via satire; by showing that anyone can make up beliefs and do what they want under the protection of religion.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is.
When people of any group do something that is absurd, it will likely be satired.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
If you are "undoing" something doesn't that mean you give credence to the "doing" of a thing?
Pretty sure atheists can try to attract media attention just like any other group. Also rather certain that they can be intelligent enough to understand what they are doing has no metaphysical meaning.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Just seems contradictory and hypocritical to me for an atheist to "undo" anything that a religionist "does".
Versus the vast number of hypocrisies that exist within religions?
jschell wrote:
Pretty sure atheists can try to attract media attention just like any other group.
I'm pretty sure that was the object as well as to mock and deride other people for their beliefs.
jschell wrote:
Also rather certain that they can be intelligent enough to understand what they are doing has no metaphysical meaning.
Certainly. Which makes them all the greater hypocrits
jschell wrote:
Versus the vast number of hypocrisies that exist within religions?
False logic. But thanks for the tacit agreement that what they did was hypocritical and intolerant.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
mark merrens wrote:
If you have a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother then you ain't Jewish.
That would have been a great consolation to my (half) great aunts had Germany invaded the UK. :)
Use carrots and sticks to force the little fish into the big tent - Anon
I doubt it would have made any difference.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
If the first act has no meaning and the atheist believes he and nobody else has such power to bless something, then it is hypocritical to perform said powerless act to undo the powerless act of the first.
Nope, it is showing how absurd religion and all its rituals are via satire; by showing that anyone can make up beliefs and do what they want under the protection of religion.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is.
When people of any group do something that is absurd, it will likely be satired.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
When people of any group do something that is absurd, it will likely be satired.
What a clever way to hide and justify your bigotry.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
I don't view it as mockery. It may not be good natured satire, but it is making a joke out of what the religious groups had done by essentially doing the exact same thing as them, only without any god based religious meaning. It shouldn't bother the religious groups, since there is no god given power given to the aethiests, but it does bother them because they might actually be seeing how silly they look to us.
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
wizardzz wrote:
It shouldn't bother the religious groups, since there is no god given power given to the aethiests, but it does bother them because they might actually be seeing how silly they look to us.
To my way of thinking why would another group care? Unless both of the following are true. 1. They thought such a thing was possible - thus their religion must allow it. 2. They thought that the people of the other religion could enact a power of a different religion.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
But it's an "in-your-face" kind of thing that makes them look petty and stupid.
...Except of course that it was probably planned specifically to show the ridiculous of the other action along with drawing media attention to that. So neither petty nor stupid.
jschell wrote:
planned specifically to show the ridiculous of the other action
Only to those who already agree with such bigotry. It was certainly mocking and derisive. Which makes them petty and stupid.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
wizardzz wrote:
making a joke out of what the religious groups had done
Is the definition of mocking.
wizardzz wrote:
It shouldn't bother the religious groups
I agree. My only point is the hypocrisy the atheists make in desiring to proscribe religious speech, yet want protection for theirs.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
My only point is the hypocrisy the atheists make in desiring to proscribe religious speech, yet want protection for theirs.
Muddled description. Free speech is a right. Freedom of religion is a right. Two rights not one. The rights are distinct even though they might overlap in some areas they can also conflict (and done so) in others. Additionally atheists want obvious religious idioms, and ones that are specifically related only to one type of religion, removed from the pervue of the government. As it should be given that church and state are supposed to be separate.
-
ryanb31 wrote:
If only we could enforce the same laws today. There would be no Hollywood.
I suggest you move to a country where those "laws" are enforced. They exist. Tell us how it goes.
-
wizardzz wrote:
It shouldn't bother the religious groups, since there is no god given power given to the aethiests, but it does bother them because they might actually be seeing how silly they look to us.
To my way of thinking why would another group care? Unless both of the following are true. 1. They thought such a thing was possible - thus their religion must allow it. 2. They thought that the people of the other religion could enact a power of a different religion.
Pretty much, but even the second point needs to be qualified with "power of a different religion or non religious belief system, like Capitalism, Marxism, Aithiesm, Gravity, etc"
"I have a theory that the truth is never told during the nine-to-five hours. " — Hunter S. Thompson
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
I see. Understandable. I don't want someone screaming in my face either.
Does this extend to political, scientific, mathematical, etc beliefs and ideas differing from yours?Where do you live exactly? I am curious how many times a day a mathematician/scientist walks up to you and starts "screaming" at you about some mathematical topic. And also is there a theme which connects all of the mathematical/scientific discourse or does each one have their own agenda?
The question had to do with his statement that he didn't want other people bothering him with their ideas. So I asked if that extended to non-religious subjects. From the flow of my statements it was easily misunderstood. No, I'm not aware of any "screaming scientists", although I suppose it's possible some exist.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first. If the first act has no meaning and the atheist believes he and nobody else has such power to bless something, then it is hypocritical to perform said powerless act to undo the powerless act of the first. The atheist is "pretending" to beliefs he does not hold to be true. Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is. In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first.
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and from that drawing a conclusion. There is no evidence an little reason to believe that they thought the act would undo anything. Thus the conclusion follows that they did NOT do it to "undo" anything. They had other reasons for doing it.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is.
Specious. And those examples completely ignores the fact that those acts are protected in the US as well. And would likely draw some media attention too.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
Based on that one can claim that child molestation should be tolerated as well, because there are certainly people claiming that that is ok. Most atheists have no problem with you practicing your religion in your church and your home. Obviously that is not what happens. And the act that was the original source obviously demonstrates that. And just as obviously demonstrates an intolerance for one religion for another.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
My only point is the hypocrisy the atheists make in desiring to proscribe religious speech, yet want protection for theirs.
Muddled description. Free speech is a right. Freedom of religion is a right. Two rights not one. The rights are distinct even though they might overlap in some areas they can also conflict (and done so) in others. Additionally atheists want obvious religious idioms, and ones that are specifically related only to one type of religion, removed from the pervue of the government. As it should be given that church and state are supposed to be separate.
Speech is still speech, and the atheists want protection of theirs and prevention of others.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
wizardzz wrote:
When people of any group do something that is absurd, it will likely be satired.
What a clever way to hide and justify your bigotry.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
jschell wrote:
Pretty sure atheists can try to attract media attention just like any other group.
I'm pretty sure that was the object as well as to mock and deride other people for their beliefs.
jschell wrote:
Also rather certain that they can be intelligent enough to understand what they are doing has no metaphysical meaning.
Certainly. Which makes them all the greater hypocrits
jschell wrote:
Versus the vast number of hypocrisies that exist within religions?
False logic. But thanks for the tacit agreement that what they did was hypocritical and intolerant.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was the object as well as to mock and deride other people for their beliefs.
And I can believe you are wrong.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Certainly. Which makes them all the greater hypocrits
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and then drawing a conclusion from that.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
False logic. But thanks for the tacit agreement that what they did was hypocritical and intolerant.
You are claiming that religions do not have hypocrises? As to the second - I made no such statement.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
If you believe an act has no meaning when performed by someone else, then it is hypocritical to perform the same act to "undo" the one performed by the first.
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and from that drawing a conclusion. There is no evidence an little reason to believe that they thought the act would undo anything. Thus the conclusion follows that they did NOT do it to "undo" anything. They had other reasons for doing it.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Of course, if this were an act making fun of black people or jews or women it would be seen for the prejudiced bigotry that it really is.
Specious. And those examples completely ignores the fact that those acts are protected in the US as well. And would likely draw some media attention too.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
In addition, it is hypocritical because the atheists are being intolerant of others beliefs and views when they demand tolerance and acceptance of their own.
Based on that one can claim that child molestation should be tolerated as well, because there are certainly people claiming that that is ok. Most atheists have no problem with you practicing your religion in your church and your home. Obviously that is not what happens. And the act that was the original source obviously demonstrates that. And just as obviously demonstrates an intolerance for one religion for another.
jschell wrote:
your church and your home
My home is also the public sphere in which I reside. But atheists want to prevent all public expressions of religion.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun -
Speech is still speech, and the atheists want protection of theirs and prevention of others.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braunahmed zahmed wrote:
Speech is still speech, and the atheists want protection of theirs and prevention of others.
I am rather certain that the supreme court, the framers of the US constitution and many current religious leaders would disagree with your attempt to bundle religion and speech into the same thing.
-
ahmed zahmed wrote:
I'm pretty sure that was the object as well as to mock and deride other people for their beliefs.
And I can believe you are wrong.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
Certainly. Which makes them all the greater hypocrits
Wrong. You are ascribing intent and then drawing a conclusion from that.
ahmed zahmed wrote:
False logic. But thanks for the tacit agreement that what they did was hypocritical and intolerant.
You are claiming that religions do not have hypocrises? As to the second - I made no such statement.
jschell wrote:
And I can believe you are wrong.
Go ahead.
jschell wrote:
You are ascribing intent
No, they stated their intentions.
jschell wrote:
claiming
I make no claims. I was referring to the fact that you used your claim of hypocrisy in one group to justify hypocrisy in another.
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader." - John Quincy Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering” - Wernher von Braun