Superheroes vs. the Westboro Baptist Church 631
sv_libertarian writes "They've faced down humans time and time again, but Fred Phelps and his minions from the Westboro Baptist Church were not ready for the cosplay action that awaited them at Comic-Con. After all, who can win against a counter-protest that includes robots, magical anime girls, Trekkies, Jedi, and... kittens?"
Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw kdawson and just ignored the entire thing...up until I saw your comment. Then I just *had* to say something...but I forgot what.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Really? How so? OK, I actually saw this on Pharyngula earlier already, so I knew what it was about, but the summary did mention:
1) Fred Phelps (we all know who he is, right? The "GOD HATES FAGS" guy who will picket the funerals of fallen soldiers and all that.)
2) Counter-protests.
3) Specifically, counter-protests that included cosplay, at Comic-Con.
Yeah, you don't get all the details in TFA from TFS, but it's not actually a bad summary as far as the basics are concerned.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
I note that you became so excited, so worked into a froth as you wrote this that you even dropped an entire word. I can imagine someone saying this with flushed face and breathless voice.
If you truly think that this is the answer, then why don't you take up arms and go see to it instead of making pathetic comments about it on Slashdot? Yeah, that's what I thought. Why don't you leave us alone and go back to watching American Gladiators? You don't have the intestinal fortitude for real violence.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
The man who kills any member of Phelps' crew has done something far worse than any member of WBC. He is a murderer.
He is for killing people based on their unpalatable opinions.
In particular, he is for killing someone who is a fairly good test of an American's freedom to express unpalatable opinions.
Someone who also fairly accurately represents a fundamentalist religious message ("God hates fags" - not "humans should hate fags") and exposes the angry roots of Abrahamic religion.
Someone who reminds us of several millennia of thinking about homosexuality, tweaked only in the past 40 years and extant in many parts of the world. An argument cannot be fought if its defenders are simply oppressed.
Someone, finally, whose messages are more complex than simple gay-bashing. I can guarantee you that every man you respect has at least one opinion which would make your blood boil, but you're happy to listen to everything else they say. Is it good to speak out against pedophilia in the Catholic church? To question the military's idolatrous respect of the US flag? To point out that Iraq was quite secular for an Arab nation while Bush was on a warmongering anti-Muslim campaign? To protest hate speech laws? Phelps has done all these things. And does his politically incorrect, courage-of-convictions straight talking have a place in modern debate? Certainly. If a mad cunt from the middle of nowhere can achieve that sort of international public recognition over such a long period, we all have something to learn from him.
Even if all you learn is that "God hates fags". Which is true. Abrahamic God as described in the OT hates fags.
And if this makes you not respect Abrahamic God because Abrahamic God sounds like a bit of a douche, well, all's the better.
What is there to lose by allowing Phelps to speak? He's not even wrong.
If people like Phelps cannot protest at military funerals any more, then America has lost and the American military's missions are yet more futile and other than in the spirit of defending America's freedom. If that's even possible.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Informative)
Important note: The Westboro asshats want you to get violent at their protests. That way they can sue you to fund their activities.
-
Ironic pseudoviolence...? What of the Children? (Score:3, Insightful)
["Funny"]
I've thought of several funny semi-violent responses...
Get five or ten street-boys to jizz in a squirt gun, use said squirt gun to "anoint" WBC while holding "WBC shows gay spunk as Phred hoped" sign.
Get geek to factor wind biases and then use "Bear Spray" suitably up-wind.
[Serious]
But in truth, if WBC ever showed up in my region I would file a "reckless child endangerment" complaint against them with the department of child and family services. They are clearly trying to incite violence with "figh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd have to get all of them at once for that tactic to work. Lots of lawyers in that family, which is doubtless related to their fundraising tactics.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't even be a story. Not even on idle.
Fred Phelps and his followers should be dragged out behind the barn, and put out of everyone's misery.
People claim that violence has never solved anything - but a good, solid dose lead in his ear would solve all of Phelp's problems.
And what good would that do? Isn't free speech protected in America? Or is it only agreed speech?
These morons have no followers other than their own "congregation" which are all related. Just how much more pathetic can they get?
They have no ability to spread their views, because they are so extreme, they even force people to question their own prejudices.
In spite of themselves, they may actually do some good.
Raise a finger against them, and they have won. Kill them and they have won. Stop them, and you become them.
Laugh at them, and nothing they do can make any difference.
Put Lookalikes on a float in a gay pride march. Use them in advertising with a slogan to the effect of "Phelps picketed, so it must be good.." Make them into a tourist attraction, do like the comic convention people did and make them look even more bat shit crazy.
Make Phelps dildos. Do what ever daft and disrespectful thing you can think of to ridicule them. And hope they never stop, because they are what you become when you try to force your views on those who don't think like you do.
These people are a joke. Treat them as such. But remember, the best comedy has a social commentary undercurrent hidden in it.
The comic con people handled it perfectly. You on the other hand, allowed them to get under your skin. You lost.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views, regardless of how unpopular they are, for it may be your views next that become sanctioned
In fact it's exactly the opposite. Freedom of speech guarantees you the right to respect, disrespect, ignore, or anything else of someone elses views.
I think what you're getting at is that to maintain freedom of speech we must all believe in peoples rights to express their views. Respect is something else entirely.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
"Freedom of speech also means that you are to respect your fellow man's views"
NO IT FUCKING DOESN'T. Read the fucking constitution, from the goddamned Declaration of Independence all the way through the bill of rights. Freedom of speech is the GOVERNMENT being unable to silence our thoughts about the government or speaking our minds. Respect is earned, not inherently given.
And your views right now get absolutely NO respect from me with that sort of ignorance.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:4, Insightful)
hehehe
I'm not sure how it works in the US but here in Europe those idiots would probably have a pro-gay net effect, because most people would recognize how ridiculously stupid the Westboro nuts are.
It wouldn't work in the UK, as he (and potentially anyone from his church) are denied entrance :D
I kinda wish the US could do this to him.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Australia got a better deal.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
300 years ago, England sent all their convicts to Australia. America got all their religious nuts. Australia got a better deal.
You're kidding right? They have an Internet Filter for Christ's sake. What do we have: A first amendment. I'd say we got the better deal.
Re:Worthless summary (Score:5, Informative)
There, Fixed that for you.
The internet filter in Australia exists only in your mind, parliament smacked down the idea twice.
OTOH, how are those free speech zones and TSA searches going.
Heh (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or the serious / crazy protesters might conclude that the Bender / etc. guys are serious (Poe's Law) - do we really want that? ;p
Re: (Score:2)
i guess its not a question of want, but of inevitability...
Not bloody likely... (Score:2)
perhaps even the people who are serious protesters will realize how crazy out their they are.
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/07/14/1235220/Given-Truth-the-Misinformed-Believe-Lies-More [slashdot.org]
Trolls don't mind ridicule if it's loud enough (Score:3, Interesting)
They don't even care about that - because Phelps and his gang aren't True Believers who want other people to agree with them, they're sociopaths and professional trolls who want attention, and negative attention is the best kind because it might give them another lawsuit. The best case they can get is a town trying to ban them, but if they can't get that, then having somebody punch them when there's a cop around means they can sue the guy who did it and also sue the cops for not protecting them would work.
Re:Trolls don't mind ridicule if it's loud enough (Score:5, Interesting)
An interesting perspective. I suspect you're right that these people are motivated by fame. I don't know that they aren't "true believers" though. I do think we're in agreement that there's really nothing that'll stop these people other than running out of money. Flying all over the country can't be cheap, nor can suing people. I guess I don't understand how they continue to win these lawsuits.
Perhaps the right approach is to start a fund to pay lawyers to fight the lawsuits? Doesn't matter if you win or not, just keep the thing tied up in court and bleed Phelps dry.
If Trekkies and Jedi can work together (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there may be hope for the middle east.
Re:If Trekkies and Jedi can work together (Score:5, Funny)
I think there may be hope for the middle east.
Except if you had RTFA, you'd note that the Trekkie was holding a sign that said "God Hates Jedi". I think he was one of the serious protesters, but got lumped in with the comic-con spoofers.
slightly funny, but kind of predictable by now (Score:4, Informative)
Satirical counterprotests of Fred Phelps are getting a bit boring, aren't they? That's basically what everyone [chicagomaroon.com] does these [venganza.org] days when they show up [laughingsquid.com].
Re:slightly funny, but kind of predictable by now (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? Freedom needs to be continually fought for; if you ignore Phelps and give him no opposition, his viewpoint will gradually become more and more accepted; people will think him "normal" even if they don't agree with him. And good humoured satire seems to me the very best way to deal with him. Amusing, photogenic to spread the word, and non-confrontational. Freedom of speed (correctly) allows him to express his loathsome opinions - it should be used to provide the counterbalance.
I particularly liked "Odin is God - read The Mighty Thor #5". It beautifully encapsulates the curcularity of the bible bashers arguments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? Freedom needs to be continually fought for; if you ignore Phelps and give him no opposition
The source of the problem isn't really that there's people like Phelps, and nobody is opposing them. It's that guy and his utterly minuscule congregation get any media attention at all. There's a million people out their that are batshit insane and worry about the orbital mind control lasers that nobody pays attention to. But yet this guy and his handful of followers gets paid attention to. Why?
If we coul
Re: (Score:2)
- old jungle saying
_______
extra credit for guessing the source =)
Re: (Score:2)
Satirical counterprotests of Fred Phelps are getting a bit boring, aren't they?
They're orders of magnitude more entertaining than continually being confronted by idiots holding signs saying "god hates fags". Yeah? Well, God is dead, and the fags are still here. Long live advertising!
Re: (Score:2)
http://totallylookslike.com/upcoming/?pid=10073 [totallylookslike.com]
Coincidence? I think not!
But not all the counter protesters are satirical. God really does hate the new Facebook.
Puzzled in Portugal (Score:4, Funny)
I don't understand Americans. Why don't you just beat them up?
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling is encouraged by the US legal system:
A trolls B
B hits A
A sues B for one million dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
A trolls B
B sues A for libel/slander/defamation
OR
A trolls B
B sues A for trademark/copyright infringement
Re: (Score:2)
Well good but up the page [venganza.org]:
The father of a Marine whose funeral was picketed by the Westboro Baptist Church says an order to pay the protesters’ legal costs in a civil claim is nothing less than a “slap in the face.”
Re: (Score:2)
Trolling is encouraged by the US legal system:
A trolls B
B hits A
A sues B for one million dollars.
I could say that that is the problem with the US... however, I won't. Not in this case at least. The problem with the US in this case is that your police and court are too scared to deal with the idiots int he first place, since it's a "religion"... over here, the Westboro "Baptist Church" would have been labeled as a hate group, and been refused permission to demonstrate...
Re:Puzzled in Portugal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best solution in this case can be gleaned from MMORPGs. Just put them on your ignore list.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh hi there Hans how's it going?
Re: (Score:2)
in america, we have this awesome thing where people are allowed to express their opinions whether you think they're batshit insane or not.
i'd rather not have someone else decide which opinions are worthy of expression, as someday it may be my opinion that isn't popular.
Re: (Score:2)
This is allowed pretty much everywhere in the West, provided you're not purposefully overly offensive, or openly practising hate speech against someone.
And forgive me for assuming that "god hates gays" etc is hate speech. I'm sure it's just an innocent opinion and has no intention of abusing your system in an obvious way to attract attention to an even more obvious attention whore.
Really, where does free speech end and abuse of another person begin? The freedom is only good as long as you don't abuse it to
Re: (Score:2)
Because a system that allows people to freely express their opinions is less likely to spawn people who impose their own opinions [wikipedia.org] on others.
Phelps is a hero! (Score:2, Informative)
He is a retired lawyer, two of his kids are lawyers too. He has this wonderful way of tying the government in knots. For instance his clan/cult have a big house. This is a church. The swimming pool is a baptismal font. All income is tax free due to being a religion. IRS was not pleased, but he beat them.
His views are totally wacko but playing the govt off against itself is just awesome.
Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone's sig says "taxes buy civilisation". Phelps wants it both ways: he wants the Government to let him sue anyone who crosses him, and he doesn't want to pay for it. This, in my book, makes him a leech.
Re:Phelps is a hero! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine how much less national debt we would have if religions had to pay taxes. Why do we continue to give religion special status that they earned when belief was compulsory and religion controlled politics? Oh wait, in the US, religion still does control politics. Any politician who is willing to demonstrate that he is a reasonable thinking person by publicly professing non-belief in the supernatural will likely lose elections.
Re:Phelps is a hero! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just imagine how much less national debt we would have if religions had to pay taxes.
Just imagine how much less national debt we would have if corporations had to pay taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Why so much coverage? (Score:2)
I should do the same - dream up some ridiculous position to advocate and then see if I can get CNN to cover it. Maybe I'll start a group demanding that gorillas get the right to vote, or that we execute illegal immigrants, or insisting that everyone adopt a strict fruitarian diet like this guy [blogspot.com].
I bet I c
Re: (Score:2)
Easy traffic for your crappy blog / news channel, ain't it?
/me sighs. (Score:4, Informative)
I am a Christian and I love superheroes. I know a lot of people who do too.
In fact, my church's pastor talked about Superman and Spider-Man in his last Sunday's sermon! http://www.evfreefullerton.com/audio/cel/2010/cel_071810.mp3 [evfreefullerton.com] for the audio sermon recording.
Re:/me sighs. (Score:5, Insightful)
one shouldn't assume that WBC are Christian
Re:/me sighs. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nor should one assume they are not, or that the typical superstitionist dodge of disowning inconvenient followers is anything but that.
Phelps links for the morbidly curious (Score:5, Informative)
"Phelps does not believe what he is doing. This is a scam." If you believe this guy (and he makes some telling observations), Phelps is in the business of pushing people's buttons so he can sue them for violating his rights. That's his and his family's living.
Link #2: http://www.robertslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/phelps/bl_phelpscourt.htm
Addicted to Hate: The Fred Phelps Story is an exposé written by Jon Bell for the Topeka Capital-Journal that was suppressed by the paper because they were too chickenshit to take on Phelps. Bell sued the paper to either publish it or, if they refused, let him have the rights to his work, but he got neither. Instead, the full text was entered in the court record so it is now a public document that anyone can read whether Phelps likes it or not. So it's kinda long, but if you want a portrait of what a twisted gruesome mofo Phelps really is, here's your chance. I pity his children -- they never really had a chance.
Hilarious (Score:3, Funny)
I still love the idea someone on Kotaku had when they saw the Team Fortress 2 spy cosplayer with the 'GOD HATES SENTRIES' sign: He should have been standing in the midst of the WBC crazies, with one of THEIR signs, wearing 'a moron mask'.
The whole thing is just absolutely hilarious though. Good on them for mounting the counter-protest! Those WBC people are assholes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a Christian, and am not embarrassed to admit it. I'm embarrassed by these assholes, though. (Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
I actually saw them today at the con, holding up a Jesus Is Lord sign, as a bunch of cosplaying executioners paraded around. I didn't know it was the Westborough asshats, or I'd have had words with them, like my pastor did with some similar guys protesting outside the Percy Jackson and the Harry Potter Ripoffs movie.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure it's more logical to say that the universe created itself than it was created by someone, but to each his own, I guess.
Actually, it kind of is. See Occam's Razor. To elaborate, if the universe needed to be created by something, and that something was God, then God also needed to be created by something. If God didn't need to be created by something, then there's no reason why the universe would need to be.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
>>To elaborate, if the universe needed to be created by something, and that something was God, then God also needed to be created by something
Only if it is necessary that both the universe and God be created. The universe with its one-dimensional timeline is pretty clear to have had an origin (with the big bang), it's unclear if it is necessary for an entity existing outside of time to be created.
In other words, it's not an especially compelling analogy between the two.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:4, Interesting)
it's unclear if it is necessary for an entity existing outside of time to be created.
You don't understand the Big Bang. If any event precipitated it, it must have happened — by definition — outside of our time. So your same argument, that whatever spawned out universe might exist outside of our notion of time, works in both cases.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Interesting)
Funny how you can contradict yourself in two sentences.
It's always simpler to say the universe created itself than to say something else first created itself and later created the universe.
I consider myself a Christian in the sense that I've read the Bible and believe Jesus taught the right lessons in ethics. But I'm perfectly able to separate the Genesis from Jesus. I refuse to accept a Middle Age transcript of a Bronze Age legend as some kind of fundamental truth in the same way I accept "love thy neighbor" as fundamental truth.
I doubt that an anthropomorphic god such as postulated by the Christian churches exist. i even doubt that the man Jesus was someone who actually lived on earth. Call me an Atheist Christian if you wish.
I believe the New Testament was a compilation of teachings by some Jewish scholars somewhere in Israel two thousand years ago but, no matter where those ideas came from, there's good value in them, if you can interpret them right.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I consider myself a Christian in the sense that I've read the Bible and believe Jesus taught the right lessons in ethics.
By that logic I'm a christian. Personally I think this is the worst case of selective doctrine I've ever seen.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I think this is the worst case of selective doctrine I've ever seen.
More like the best case of selective doctrine. A great moral advantage of being atheist is the easy "selective doctrine" of accepting what is right and good from all religions and philosophies.
Once you skip past the invisible-sky-wizard and the magic stuff elsewhere in the Bible, most atheists readily agree that Jesus taught a lot of really good things. In fact Thomas Jefferson published an edition of the Bible doing exactly that. A version of the Bible dedicated solely to Jesus's teachings and deleting deleting all the magical stuff. And as Jefferson put it, a REAL Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. The fake Christians are the people preaching all that other Bible dogma, the stuff which Christ never said nor saw.
A Christian missionary once asked Ghandi "though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?" to which Ghandi replied "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ".
-
Re: (Score:2)
>>It's always simpler to say the universe created itself than to say something else first created itself and later created the universe.
No, it's really not simpler. Our universe has a one-dimensional timeline, which means there's a definite beginning to it.
It makes absolutely no sense to say that our universe created itself, and does makes sense to say it had an origin in something outside of the universe.
This doesn't imply an anthropomorphic God, but a sort of Deistic Creator... much more plausible t
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah sure, reality is simply a matter of personal preference.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Yeah sure, reality is simply a matter of personal preference.
Based on the current science, yeah. It seems more likely the universe had a starting point than it being eternally existing. If you have any counter-evidence, I'd love to see it.
Re: (Score:2)
(Atheists often think that Christian == fundamentalist, which simply isn't true.)
All the good ones are.
The rest is just watering down their religion for general acceptance!
I beg to differ (Score:2)
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with religion is this.
Let's say that we accept the theory that something needed to jumpstart the universe, and that thing does not necessarily have to follow the same rules the universe does (and thus doesn't need a creator of it's own).
What reason exactly do we have to believe that thing is the biblical god?
Couldn't it just aswell have been Zeus? Odin?
Are the Muslims right? Jews? Christians? Buddhists? Tao?
The only sane position to take is that they're all wrong, and while there might exist an omnipotent entity, it's insane to think he gives a fuck about you following a religion.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but that wasn't the point. Suppose we accept that this entity exists, what makes Christianity in particular correct?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Though it doesn't appear that religious people on average are any more moral then the secular. Most of us learn right and wrong from our parents and society in general and those that don't want to be moral seem to have no problem finding justifications for whatever they want by selective readings of their favorite books and religious and secular alike are just as good at saying "Oh, those people aren't like us, they don't deserve to be treated good"
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Common Christian misconception. Cosmologists do not claim " the universe created itself", they claim that 13.7 billion years ago it was all squeezed into a singularity and they have very strong evidence to back that claim. They will readily amit they haven't got a clue where the point particle came from, in fact they don't even know what the word "where" means in that cont
Re:Still doing that? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>However, we do think you are all delusional.
And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)
Honestly, I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite, but doing your dickwad atheist bit isn't a good counterargument.
Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evolutionary biology) and into a region he knows nothing about (theology). To be fair, though - he's still not as stupid as the Westborough fuckers.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Better to be considered an asshat by someone who is clearly delusional, than being delusional yourself - or enabling their delusions at the cost to society as a whole. Religion needs put down, hard.
Ideology is the only thing that is able to keep a human society from imploding upon itself. Be happy that you're able to choose your ideology yourself, and be honest about your ideology if you want to be.
And before you dream of putting down mainstream Christianity (for example), think for a while what is most likely to replace it. I'm pretty sure it won't be as pleasant for you.
Religion will disappear on it's own, if it's to disappear at all, when humanity is ready to collectively replace it with something else. Trying to speed the process directly will lead to rise of ideological fundamentalism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Insightful)
I love fundamentalist atheists. They reassure me that hatred and intolerance of others' beliefs are found in all humans, not just those who believe in one or more deities.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The one thing religion is good at is getting otherwise good people to do, enable those that do, and believe in, terrible acts. That's it. You don't need to be religious to be charitable, as the existence of secular aid organisations around the world will attest to. But this dick measuring contest between theist vs atheist "good works" is ridiculous and belittles that same work on both sides, so I'll avoid that as much as possible. What I will say to this though is on a different aspect of the same point. You will accept, I hope, that humanity seems naturally predisposed to the belief in a God. And I imagine you will also accept the obvious statement that for a large portion of our history, religion exerted a far greater force on our lives than it does now. So when you say that, historically speaking, religion has been the greatest force of good, you must also accept that historically speaking, religion mandated that it be the only allowable force. The difference between now and then is that now it no longer has the power to enforce that mandate. In the lifetime of human society, it is only last week that you would have to be almost suicidal to admit that you did not believe in a God, when the church of that God had power over the course of your life. It is only last week that Christians were burning the philosophies of ancient Greece in the belief that any morality before Jesus was devoid of value. Religion had a stranglehold as the only acceptable front for morality - so of course, if you look back over history and notice the good things it does, you will see some religious involvement.
Religion does however retard humanity's progress. It does not do it sufficiently that we stall or move backwards, but this is something that the modern world is changing. In history, when religiosity was a problem, it killed people. It burned books. It maybe wiped out a town or village. Started a jihad that ended in the death of a tribe or culture. Maybe even instigated the odd war, leading to the deaths of thousands. Terrible as these things no doubt were, they were not enough to halt human progress. It continued inexorably upwards - I posit, without the need for religion at all. Today, when religion makes a mistake, it can take a mere modern convenience, slam it into another and kill thousands. Imagine for a moment what would happen if religion today got its hands on a real weapon. In the last hour of human history, we gained the capability for mass destruction, the likes of which would only take one more religious mistake, to not just retard human progress - or set it back - but to wipe it out completely. You can of course say, it doesn't have to be a religious mistake that does this. You're right, it doesn't. But having another finger on the trigger is not ideal, and whereas a non religious person will not want to destroy the world - the 3 great monotheisms positively look forward to it.
>>Hitchens is a frothing moron who doesn't know the first thing about what he's talking about - his sole tactic is to sound British and snotty when talking about religion. I've watched several dozens of his debates online, especially with Dinesh D'Souza (who doesn't do an especially good job defending Christianity), and I've yet to see him put together a single cogent argument. Other than, I suppose, the fact that he'll sneer at you if you believe.
Ad homimum.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Right, because the Abrahamic God wasn't a petty, vengeful little dictator who frequently ordered the destruction of races and cultures he didn't like, or who worshipped a stone altar over him. Oh, right, he was! That's some Christian m
Re:Still doing that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Still doing that? (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
-George Washington
I love it when the fanatics quote that. Read it very closely, he's saying religion is good for stupid people who can't be bothered to reason through things on their own. It's one of the most damning comments on religious believers written by any of the founding fathers.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your points are just as valid with respect to non-religious causes. For example, Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions, yet killed more people in one year than the inquisition killed in all of history. And lets not forget communism, which killed about 50 million people in Russia alone. While you do have people with insane religious zeal, most religious people have a conscience which keeps them from taking part in mass misery; contrast this with "rational" ideologies which will make arbitrary divisions based on skin color, social class, etc... and disenfranchise a whole class of people.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nazi ideology was based on the master race theory, which had nothing to do with any of the major religions
God's chosen people, complete with tales of racial cleansing right in the bible. "God with us", the Nazis used to say.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ou know what? Religion is a good way for people to feel good about themselves as well as band together and help out those less fortunate
Of course it is just as true that religion is a good way for people to feel good about themselves as they band together and harm those less fortunate,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What if there were a single cause for many of the world's ills in both the social and personal spheres, from overpopulation, ecological destruction, ethnic violence and hatred, to addictions, conflicts between the sexes, the breakdown of the family, and even why it feels good to be bad? Sound too simplistic or far-fetched? A core underlying cause of all these problems is hidden authoritarianism.
Buying into, communism, spiritual cults, organized religion, UFO cults, therapy cults, Jim Jones, David Koresh, Hi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because you're ignorant (I'm using the word literally here, not as an insult -- there are things you are unaware of.) Muslims worship the same god; they consider Jesus one of their prophets. They just think Christians worship incorrectly (exactly the same complaint many Christians make of each other.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"And you also get upset when theists call you asshats, am I right? (Do you never wonder why?)"
Nope. Theists are deluded, what can one expect from them?
"Dawkins has made being-an-asshole-to-theists his raison d'etre, but it neither makes him right, nor even sound particularly smart. His arguments are laughably bad when he strays outside the area he knows (evolutionary biology) and into a region he knows nothing about (theology). To be fair, though - he's still not as stupid as the Westborough fuckers."
Hm? Ho
Re: (Score:2)
I think the arguments for the existence of God are more compelling than the opposite
Which is the exact description of your delusion. You see, there is not a single argument for the existence of God. Not one. Simply because the "existence of God" idea is not even close to being defined to the level where an argument for or against it can be made.
As someone smart once said - and I am paraphrasing - you are not even wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No he hasn't. He has many objections to religion, but these are well-founded and well-argued. He is also polite to people who don't share his opinion.
Don't complain about people being "dickwads" when your own arguments are nothing but hand waving and ad hominem.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Again, he's completely ignorant of history. You can conduct natural experiments, as it were, by comparing and contrasting the evolution of societies with and without the Abrahamic God, and also how culture change after missionaries enter their culture. It's a fascinating study, and one that is at complete odds with his theory."
Yup. Abrahamic societies generally become more hateful. Just look at Africa.
Or at Renaissance.
Re:Still doing that? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Islamic thinkers used pure reason to derive the fact that our universe had to have an origin, and thus that the universe tended to show evidence of God, rather than the opposite... back in the middle ages. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument)"
Kalam's argument is stupid on many levels.
First, it's applicable to God - it also has to be created by something (a meta-God?). Which in turn must be created by something else, ad infinitum.
If you try to apply an argument that God is infinite and thus has no beginning, then this argument can very well be applied to the Universe itself.
And this is only on a level of philosophical arguments (i.e. within the model postulated by the author).
If we look at the real world, we'll see events happening without cause everywhere (virtual particles, radioactive decay, etc.).
And General Relativity also posits that it's possible to have the 'beginning of time'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I doubt he does that.
He'd be much likelier to make arguments against theology. Essentially, to an atheist, the whole subject is about as relevant to the real world as literary criticism.
Indeed, the only difference is the books it's based on.
Dude, that was rude. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, we do think you are all delusional.
Fellow atheist here. Although, I prefer to say "I don't believe in God." instead. Yeah, I'm an atheist but atheism is developing its own dogmatism and I'm not interested, so I'm trying to distance myself from it.
Anyway, getting in people's faces about their religion is as bad as when religious folks get in ours about our lack of belief. If we show more respect for one another,maybe,just maybe most folks will chill.
Sure, there still will be the Phelps crowd and others who will have a problem, but if you'll notice, even folks of the same faith consider them (Phelps' crowd) to be kooks.
Re:Dude, that was rude. (Score:5, Insightful)
Myself I prefer to say "I don't believe in an anthropomorphic god".
It's a fact that the universe exists and *something* caused the universe to exist. This something could be the laws of physics or some hitherto unknown mathematical or logical principle. You are welcome to call that principle "god" if you wish.
But to extend that basic principle to some super-accountant being somewhere who's keeping tabs on everything we do and will intervene in our existence if we nag him enough and will punish those of us who don't praise him enough...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm an atheist but atheism is developing its own dogmatism
As an atheist and a skeptic, I have to ask, what's your evidence for that?
In fact, atheism, by definition, cannot be a dogma. You're an example of this -- atheists can't even all agree on what to call themselves, though the word itself is simple and unambiguous.
getting in people's faces about their religion is as bad as when religious folks get in ours about our lack of belief.
The problem is, there's really no way to avoid getting in their faces. [atheistcartoons.com] Many are offended that we even exist. [atheistcartoons.com]
But let's get real -- we're not doing this. [atheistcartoons.com] It's more like this. [atheistcartoons.com] I have honestly never seen an atheist be militant [atheistcartoons.com] in the sense that believers
Re:Dude, that was rude. (Score:4, Insightful)
getting in people's faces about their religion is as bad as when religious folks get in ours
When's the last time an atheist rang your bell to try to get you to join his non-church?
Re: (Score:2)
>>Believing in invisible men in the sky that will reward you if your good is on par with believing in leprechauns or wish granting genies. Oddly, it is socially acceptable to admit to only one of those things.
Says the Anonymous Coward, posting on a forum where I guarantee you the strong majority will be atheists replying to my post.
There's several levels of irony and hypocrisy there, but it's 4AM and I have yet more Comicon photos to upload...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many Americans are confused and think the Bible is the basis of American law or that we are a Christian nation. Which is amazing, since everyone should learn/have learned in history class in school that we are founded on a secular constitution that specifies that religion must not be used for law making or as a test for holding any office.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't believe people still are religious in public.
Not only do I worship in public, I did so today with 200 other like-minded souls. We've even got (hold on to your hat) an entire building dedicated to it. With a sign telling _everyone_ what's going on inside.
I am from Sweden.
Well I'm sorry for that but do you think you should admit that in public?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Atheism cannot be proven.
If you mean to say that "God does not exist," cannot possibly be the conclusion of a sound argument, you're simply wrong. Indeed there are many valid arguments which would serve as candidates (evil, hiddenness, etc.).