The X virtuous men of history or whatever

[ckafrica]

Absolutely true, but no one appeals to logic while preparing for an act of mass murder, otherwise some of the perpetrators might empathize with the victims and even voice concern that they might very well be next in line.

I'd actually disagree. People regularly appeal to logic as part of preparations for mass murder; it undoubtedly ends up being flawed logic; often downright deceptive; but it is still often logically base. Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki; heck even this latest Iraq war. They didn't send Powell in to the UN to rabble rouse, be gave a detailed logical sounding argument. It was bullshit but it was rationally made.

@PL: I miss wrote; to suggest that bigotry by itself, of any sort could actually be worse than committing actual horrible acts is of course ridiculous.

But my intention was to indicate it is the prejudice expressed by hardcore atheists towards anyone who expresses any sort of religious faith, that is particularly offensive. What makes it so offensive is that atheists tend to hold themselves as rational and thoughtful people; beyond petty stereotypes and judgmental behaviour; and then paint everything that even smacks of religion or faith with the same tainted brush.

It's a "There's only two things I hate in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures and the Dutch. " kind of douchebaggery that makes a lot of us in the non-faith inclined camp to take a step away when a hardcore atheist gets going. They're pretty much the jehovah's witness of the secular world, only they're assholes to your face when you disagree as well as being obnoxiously persistent.

I'd rant further but I really am trying to shake this crack habit of engaging in neverending arguments on the internet.

[Psychic Robot]

Seriously, how is what you just did any different than Roy going "hurk durk hurk, hurk durk hurk"? There is no excuse for acting like that, PR. And you're not intimidating anyone by throwing a little tantrum.

Because you didn't actually refute anything that I wrote. Instead, you started crying about how God is a meanie. That is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

Ah, I forgot the part where atheism was a race, not a system of beliefs (or lack thereof).

But of course, if I were to call that an unfair analogy that does not accurately represent Crissa's logic, that would just be bawwing about the unimportant things you say.

Anyways, for the sake of argument, let's say that the disproportionate black prison population is a direct result of discrimination against minorities with bad reputations in the overall culture they live in, and that's the whole of it.

So now how do you explain that atheists, despite being a minority with a bad reputation (godless, no source of morals, etc) are at the exact opposite end of the scale, representing such a significantly smaller part of the prison population? We're talking more than 10% of the population representing less than 1% of the prison population (whereas with, say, Christians, you've got a far more even ratio). Is there some extreme prejudice in American culture that atheists are stand-up guys that you shouldn't convict? Because I'm just not seeing it.

From my perspective, it seems that atheists are having a significantly lower per capita prison population despite discrimination.

What is your explanation for these statistics? What about others we've referenced?

As I already said...

1. How many of those folks are devoutly religious or "nametag" religious? (To reiterate: Most of Denmark are Lutherans.)
2. How many of those folks are just saying that they're Christian to look good to the parole board?
3. How many of those folks are "lapsed" Christians?

Either way, the argument is moot (correlation and causation). If I were to feel like arguing, I would say that people at the lowest socioeconomic levels are more likely to be criminals and more likely to be uneducated, and religion brings hope to such downtrodden folks, so they are more open to embracing it. (Rich men, camel through a needle's eye, and all that.) Quite frankly, I don't know why having a higher education would honestly cause one to become an atheist, and I'm sure that I'll receive a barrage of answers about how atheism is for folks smart enough to question beliefs and all that regurgitated tripe, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about.

Then again, irreligious folks are more likely to be superstitious, so beans to that. (In before petty squabbling about the meaning of "superstitious.")

[Sma]

Gosh Frank, and here I was thinking it was all that legal pot and prostitution that made the Danes so mellow today. (And that "Damm Good Bier") I mean those Norsemen would have never gone to Vineland if they only had a little smoke and sex every so often.

But it was obviously the notion of religion that made them seek out the Birts and Irish for pillage and rape.

Denmark is not the Netherlands.

[Heath Robinson]

The Danes.

Gosh Frank, and here I was thinking it was all that legal pot and prostitution that made the Danes so mellow today. (And that "Damm Good Bier") I mean those Norsemen would have never gone to Vineland if they only had a little smoke and sex every so often.

I believe you're mistaking the Danes and the Dutch. The whole thing is rather confusing to outsiders, I'll admit. They're a mere 4 letters different.

[PhoneLobster]

What makes it so offensive is that atheists tend to hold themselves as rational and thoughtful people; beyond petty stereotypes and judgmental behaviour; and then paint everything that even smacks of religion or faith with the same tainted brush.

When atheists talk about religion and it's actual crimes they talk about that. With evidence based information.

Then religious types defend themselves by calling atheists arrogant, insulting, and just as bad. Like you did.

At no point is there an atheist sitting there saying "we are better than religious people because we are super human or something!". And even if they did that is rather specifically nothing in comparison to the factual actions of religions.

Discussing it at best is a dishonest smoke screen.

[Username17]

Every single religion by definition claims privileged information. Every salvationist religion claims that they are going to be transported to a magical world where they will become immortal glowing badasses while all the rest of us are cast into a lake of fire, reincarnate as worms, or just get eaten by a giant crocodile.

Against that, what the fucking hell could atheists do that could possibly count as arrogant?

Yes. We're smarter, better people. We cheat on our wives less, commit less serious crime, and advance human society and science more. We are better than the members of any personal empowerment cult. And we have evidence for this.

And we're still not as arrogant as anyone who claims that their sky fairy is going to come down and punish all of us and reward them with immortality and ice cream forever and ever. Simply believing that your prayers to Allah or Jesus mean something is more arrogance than any atheist is even capable of.

-Username17

[Psychic Robot]

Phonelobster, the problem is that folks like you are so enamored with your supposed intellect that you are arrogant, condescending, and insulting. If you were content to say, "There are many atrocities in history that were committed in the name of religion," that would be fine. But you are not content with that. No, you insist on criticizing and attacking religious people for their beliefs, and you end up saying shit like

Yes. We're smarter, better people.

and it only reinforces that most atheists are pseudointellectuals hiding under the guise of intellectual superiority.

No. You are not better. You are not smarter. IQ means diddly squat, and anyone with an inkling of education knows that. You might be more educated than the majority of religious people, but you are not more rational. You are just as absolutist, and you're twice as cowardly: when put to the test of your beliefs, when put face-to-face with nihilism and the realization that genocide can be excused, you shirk back from the edge.

[Caedrus]

Seriously, how is what you just did any different than Roy going "hurk durk hurk, hurk durk hurk"? There is no excuse for acting like that, PR. And you're not intimidating anyone by throwing a little tantrum.

Because you didn't actually refute anything that I wrote. Instead, you started crying about how God is a meanie. That is completely irrelevant to what we're discussing.

What a load of horseshit. What I actually did was point out that you're wrong about the Bible not supporting slavery, and you had a little tantrum over it. Sure, a nitpick doesn't refute everything you said, but I never claimed that it did.

Quite frankly, I don't know why having a higher education would honestly cause one to become an atheist, and I'm sure that I'll receive a barrage of answers about how atheism is for folks smart enough to question beliefs and all that regurgitated tripe, but that doesn't really have anything to do with what we're talking about.

I'm noticing a trend here. You really seem to like attacking people for "being irrelevant to anything that's being talked about" when they respond to things you're talking about in a way you don't like.

Every single religion by definition claims privileged information. Every salvationist religion claims that they are going to be transported to a magical world where they will become immortal glowing badasses while all the rest of us are cast into a lake of fire, reincarnate as worms, or just get eaten by a giant crocodile.

Against that, what the fucking hell could atheists do that could possibly count as arrogant?

Yes. We're smarter, better people. We cheat on our wives less, commit less serious crime, and advance human society and science more. We are better than the members of any personal empowerment cult. And we have evidence for this.

And we're still not as arrogant as anyone who claims that their sky fairy is going to come down and punish all of us and reward them with immortality and ice cream forever and ever. Simply believing that your prayers to Allah or Jesus mean something is more arrogance than any atheist is even capable of.

-Username17

Damn straight, Frank.

[PhoneLobster]

Caedrus, just put PR on ignore. He is a repeatedly self declared troll, he only entered this argument the second trolling was mentioned like the salivating shit head he is. He hasn't actually said anything remotely sane other than fling trolling insults.

His posts do not deserve a response, they do not deserve reading.

[IGTN]

when put face-to-face with nihilism and the realization that genocide can be excused, you shirk back from the edge.

Divine Command morality: Do what God says because he's bigger than you and will torture you for all eternity if you don't. God commands genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16, among others), and authorizes rape (Deuteronomy 21:11-14)

Any moral system that merely justifies genocide would in fact be an improvement.

Ignoring, of course, that if you set your utilities right, Utilitarianism doesn't authorize murder of any kind, much less genocide.

[Psychic Robot]

What a load of horseshit. What I actually did was point out that you're wrong about the Bible not supporting slavery, and you had a little tantrum over it. Sure, a nitpick doesn't refute everything you said, but I never claimed that it did.

You literally ignored my post and went on a tangent about how Exodus isn't an anti-slavery story.

I'm noticing a trend here. You really seem to like attacking people for "being irrelevant to anything that's being talked about" when they respond to things you're talking about in a way you don't like.

Education levels have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Caedrus, just put PR on ignore.

Oh, bite me, you whiny twit.

Divine Command morality: Do what God says because he's bigger than you and will torture you for all eternity if you don't. God commands genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16, among others), and authorizes rape (Deuteronomy 21:11-14)

Hahah. Hah. No, the punishment for rapists is death. Then again, I'm sure you can look up the Skeptic's Annotated Bible online and look at the responses that Christians have to it.

Ignoring, of course, that if you set your utilities right, Utilitarianism doesn't authorize murder of any kind, much less genocide.

You cause me to chuckle.

[Maj]

So now how do you explain that atheists, despite being a minority with a bad reputation (godless, no source of morals, etc) are at the exact opposite end of the scale, representing such a significantly smaller part of the prison population?

Do atheists actually have a bad reputation? Yeah, there are people who've decided that being atheist means that you're evil because that's the way the world is when God's not in control. But is that even a majority of people in this country? How do you descriminate against someone who claims no religous affiliation? Do atheists have outward displays of belief that announce them to the world?

[IGTN]

So now how do you explain that atheists, despite being a minority with a bad reputation (godless, no source of morals, etc) are at the exact opposite end of the scale, representing such a significantly smaller part of the prison population?

Do atheists actually have a bad reputation? Yeah, there are people who've decided that being atheist means that you're evil because that's the way the world is when God's not in control. But is that even a majority of people in this country? How do you descriminate against someone who claims no religous affiliation? Do atheists have outward displays of belief that announce them to the world?

In the US, how many people have been elected President while being openly Atheist (not Deist, but actually Atheist)? How many open atheists are there in our current Congress? Bonus question, how many were open atheists when first elected, and how many claim membership in a church?

Then there's the enemy being, from the end of World War 2 until the fall of the Berlin wall "Godless Communists."

In some parts of the country Atheists aren't even allowed to serve on juries (de facto, not de jure).

Discrimination against Atheists is a reality in the United States. Atheists who choose to can go stealth, but that's not much better than saying that gays who want to avoid discrimination can stay closeted.

[Maxus]

No, but things can go ugly when people find you're an atheist.

I remember hearing about an soldier in Iraq who asked to be transferred because his unit found he was an atheist.

As I recall the story, he was on a vehicle and riding gunner. Someone shot at him from a concealed position, hitting the plexiglass shield with several shots. If the bullets had got six or eight inches higher, it would have gone over the plexiglass shield and he would have been dead.

So, after they dealt with the ambush, his officer swaggered up and said, "So, do you believe in God?"

The soldier said, "Nosir, but I believe in plexiglas."

And everyone flipped out at first. Then cooled off. Then slowly made life less tolerable for him until he decided he wasn't going to take the crap now.

[Caedrus]

How do you descriminate against someone who claims no religous affiliation?

Really? Are you serious? I mean, holy shit, Maj.

Yes, you can pretend you're not atheist, just like a gay person can pretend they're not gay. But goddamn, if people know, people will and have done incredibly nasty things.

Here's a few examples...
Link 1
Link 2

Do atheists actually have a bad reputation?

Polls show that atheists are the least trusted minority in America. So, yes, yes they do get a bad rap.

[Psychic Robot]

The soldier said, "Nosir, but I believe in plexiglas."

No offense, but that sounds as fabricated as the story about the teacher and the piece of chalk.

[Maxus]

I'll dig it up. It was a new story somewhere.

...

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=I ... f&oq=&aqi=

There you go. Read up.

Also, turns out I missed a detail or two. He filed a discrimination suit.

[Heath Robinson]

Do atheists actually have a bad reputation? Yeah, there are people who've decided that being atheist means that you're evil because that's the way the world is when God's not in control. But is that even a majority of people in this country? How do you descriminate against someone who claims no religous affiliation? Do atheists have outward displays of belief that announce them to the world?

Maybe somebody did a poll. We're making progress each year, but we're still less acceptable than [EDITED], Jews, [EDITED], Whores and Mormons.
Yes, that comment is a joke and is not meant to offend anybody. I merely mean to point out that Atheists are more reviled than groups that have, historically, been discriminated against. But, seriously, who am I leaving this note for. If you're offended by the above then you clearly didn't get my intent and aren't going to believe any CMA disclaimer.

[Roy]

So I was reading through the thread when I found this bit of Fail.

Also, PR, are you roying or what? Your comments are shrouded innuendo at best and canned spam at worst.

Rejakor, get over yourself you fucking fucker. Yeah, we get it. You lost an argument with me, so you're randomly whining and flailing about the big meanieface Roy all over the place. No one fucking cares, so go eat some chocolate ice cream or slit your wrists or whatever the fuck it is you do when you think the whole world is unfair because one little thing goes wrong.

How ya like them apples?

[Starmaker]

I'd actually disagree. People regularly appeal to logic as part of preparations for mass murder; it undoubtedly ends up being flawed logic; often downright deceptive; but it is still often logically base.

Side A: Let's attack Side C because they're a threat to peace/justice/god/humanity/giant frog.
Side B: You mean, they have vespene gas.
Side A: That too.
Side B: Okay, we're in... but won't you attack us afterwards?
Side A: Of course not! We're friends!

[Username17]

Yeah, we get it.

It's actually not an unreasonable comment. You have a known tendency to freak out and start throwing up image macros and wall-of-text memes in lieu of or in addition to actual arguments. It's paralyzed more than one thread. So when someone starts going off the rails and meme spamming in lieu of an argument it's not unreasonable to call that activity "Roying." It's also not unreasonable for you to get offended by that analogy, that's just how those things go.

I mean, for a while you were doing it so much that I had you on ignore and then periodically opened up one of your messages to see if you had stopped or at least slowed down. The fact that I'm responding to you at all is indicative that you have and I took you off ignore. But people have long memories even if we are generally forgiving or at least disinterested people. So people are going to refer to Caturday arguments here as "Roying" for a long time. If you make lots of rational arguments, people will be saying that tongue in cheek, but they'll still say it.

I mean, people still call casting long duration buffs, resting, and then running out on adventure with essentially two sets of "daily" spells going "The Frank Cheat" - that's just how D&D language evolves. Keep making good points and the insults of the past will become terms of endearment.

-Username17

[Roy]

Yeah, we get it.

It's actually not an unreasonable comment. You have a known tendency to freak out and start throwing up image macros and wall-of-text memes in lieu of or in addition to actual arguments. It's paralyzed more than one thread. So when someone starts going off the rails and meme spamming in lieu of an argument it's not unreasonable to call that activity "Roying." It's also not unreasonable for you to get offended by that analogy, that's just how those things go.

Stop. Right there.

I checked the thread several times. PR's total contribution to the thread, prior to that remark was two different one liners. So even if 'Roying' could be defined as posting funny pictures of cats and long lines of memes, he was not doing either of those things. Further, Rejakor is too new here to start attacking me over such trends. So that's nice and all, but completely irrelevant.

Instead what he is doing is adopting a massive fucking hate on for me for no reason and trying to tie my name to everything that goes wrong. I neither know nor care what provoked this bit of butthurt, but he doesn't have a legitimate point. And that's why I rip his face off when he does it.

I don't care about being attacked, as long as there is a legitimate point to it. Which is why I do not truly get annoyed when some of those here do it, because the most likely reason is that they do have a point. Used to be most, but this place has downgraded a lot.

[Ganbare Gincun]

You are so naive. Haven't you ever heard of lying?

I live in America. Of COURSE I'm familiar with lying. But whenever you tell a lie, you have to sell the lie. You have to season the lie for the public to consider 1) accepting it as truth and 2) that it provides enough justification for people that would otherwise be quite happy to mind their own business that it is absolutely vital to go and hack some people to pieces with a machete or whatever.

Take the latest Iraq War, for example. Even though most Americans were quite receptive to the idea of making someone - anyone, really - pay for 9/11, GWB couldn't just roll into a random country and start killing people left and right without some kind of justification. And although most reasonable people knew that his "evidence" and "reasoning" for invading Iraq was flimsy and fabricated (hence why the international community didn't get involved), he had to at least pretend that there was some kind of link to Al-Qaeda before he let slip the dogs of war.

Even with America at its most vengeful, conservative, and extremist, GWB still had to somewhat convince the American public that invading Iraq and destabilizing the Middle East was our best option at finding Osama Bin Laden (spoiler: it wasn't). And as the war went on, he had to answer to his critics for the poor decisions that he made, even if the majority of the American public was too busy slathering their cars with yellow ribbons, watching NASCAR, and running around with foam fingers declaring that "America Is #1" to really pay attention to what was going on.

But had GWB been heading up a full-blooded bona fide theocracy (and I have no doubt that he wishes he had), he could have done whatever the hell he wanted without having to provide any kind of justification for his decisions. Any dissenters or critics of the war wouldn't have just been monitored - they would be executed outright as heathens or heretics. We fucked things up over there bad enough as it is - can you imagine what it would be like if Americans really thought that God Himself was giving them their marching orders and that there would be no negative repercussions for their actions, regardless of how horrific they might be?

Oh. Wait. Japan, World War II. But this time, maybe with a glassed desert to boot?

People have been practicing the art of dehumanization for at least as long as written history. The minute there's a situation of "Us v Them," it's all over. Didn't the Stanford Prison Experiment teach us anything? Or Blue Eyes, Brown Eyes?

Those experiments taught us that when an authority figure makes it clear that dehumanizing behaviors towards another group is acceptable - or even desirable - humans have a tendency to emulate that behavior. And what better way to exploit this unfortunate human trait then by claiming to have authority over other humans because of a "divine connection"? It's not very difficult to do. Just ask L. Ron Hubbard!

No. There's no room for argument, dissent, or oversight in an assholeocracy. It doesn't matter if you're Mao or the Pope. Assholery is part of human nature, and powerful douchebags will always crush dissent, regardless of religious affiliation.

The two people that you use in your example are religious figures. The Pope claims to speak on the behalf of God (apparently God isn't all that broken up about the child rape), and Mao built himself up a mighty fine cult of personality, setting himself up as a god fit for worship in the same vein as monarchs throughout the world have done throughout history. Even today, Chinese people praise Mao as the "never setting Red Sun", and compare him to the Saint Kings of the classical China.

Two would-be gods, two assholes. Go figure. What are the odds?

[Ganbare Gincun]

Other non-religious governments included Maoist China and the Soviet Union.

Those aren't "non-religious governments". Those are regimes that have supplanted traditional gods with cults of personality. It's the exact same principle that old-school monarchs used to justify their authoritarian rule back in the day. The Soviet Union and North Korea have as much in common with a atheist government as Iran does (which is to say, nothing at all).

Those are only the actively atheist countries, though - the real measure is when a theocracy or religiously-supported government is replaced by a secular government.

If your nation is ruled by a single authoritarian figure that is revered as a god, then your are most definitely not living in a secular state.

[Maj]

But had GWB been heading up a full-blooded bona fide theocracy (and I have no doubt that he wishes he had), he could have done whatever the hell he wanted without having to provide any kind of justification for his decisions.

Have you ever looked at the people in Iran? They don't always approve of what their theocratic government is doing. Making up "because God says so" takes the same effort as "because Al-qaeda will kill us."

Those are regimes that have supplanted traditional gods with cults of personality.

At the point where religion is defined as an evil, oppressive, authoritarian leadership under one person, you've won any debate by redefinition.