If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Jehovah's Witnesses seek protection from outspoken views of "the new atheists." Relax guys, it's not like they're knocking on your door trying to hand out "learn to be godless" pamphlets   (blog.newhumanist.org.uk) divider line 537
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

13268 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Sep 2010 at 5:06 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



537 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-09-07 11:06:43 PM
I haven't been pestered once since I entered the Jehovah Witness Protection Programme.
 
2010-09-07 11:08:38 PM
Fuller: I don't know why you think Plait and Watson are good support for your argument.

For the same reason Paul Kurtz, Eugenie Scott, Massimo Piggliucci, Roger Penrose and other atheists are also supportive of my argument. Because they're able to be atheists without hate pandering rhetoric, they understand the foundation and limits of their beliefs, and they point out why "negative new atheism" creates the stereotype of the intolerant "fundamentalist atheist".

No one is saying you don't have a right to believe as you do, or that atheism is invalid, or bad. Except when its followers irrationally and dogmatically seeks to impose their beliefs on others like any other religious fundamentalists.
 
2010-09-07 11:12:34 PM
PDXBishop: /Really surprised no one else has posted this

because they're not listening anyway......
 
2010-09-07 11:13:12 PM
kerpal32: No one is saying you don't have a right to believe as you do, or that atheism is invalid, or bad. Except when its followers irrationally and dogmatically seeks to impose their beliefs on others ask you to support your arguments with evidence.
 
2010-09-07 11:17:51 PM
CSS time: I used to know a couple of JW kids, promising bright kids who turned into horrible farked-up drug addicts. Their dad beat them and he abused their mom as well

Back at Atheist HQ, our dad never beat us or Mom, and at least neither of us kids got addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Anecdotal I know. But damn, how many anecdotes do you need before people realize actual morality as it is practiced by adherents has little in common with their espoused religion?
 
2010-09-07 11:19:34 PM
Egalitarian: But damn, how many anecdotes do you need before people realize actual morality as it is practiced by adherents has little in common with their espoused religion?

Wife and kid beating hardly goes against Biblical morality.
 
2010-09-07 11:22:01 PM
Zamboro: muck4doo: "I can't believe some asshats brought up "War on Christmas" in a Jehovah Witness thread."

If you could provide a list of acceptable/unacceptable conversational tangents so we know which to avoid, it would be a great help.


You do know they don't celebrate Christmas or participate in politics, right? If you want to hae a war on Christmas fight with the Jehovah Witnesses go right ahead though. You may as well battle with the Jews about Easter.
 
2010-09-07 11:24:13 PM
0Icky0: ask you to support your arguments with evidence.

what you're saying is "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" which you can't prove empirically.

You may want to take some time to understand this before you start searching for a Pope (might want to study the origin of that word too) for your new religion.

Like it or not, there are many different philosophical vies of reality.

No one is saying you cannot have your belief in metaphysical naturalism.

Just don't be a fundamentalist about it.



already been done, but apparently you missed it.
imgs.xkcd.com
 
2010-09-07 11:26:38 PM
kerpal32: For the same reason Paul Kurtz, Eugenie Scott, Massimo Piggliucci, Roger Penrose and other atheists are also supportive of my argument.

But it's not your argument. You are a theist, they aren't. They're not on your team, and even if they were, what would be your point? That because you like them more, all atheists should be more like them? It makes no sense.

kerpal32: creates the stereotype of the intolerant "fundamentalist atheist".

I explained to you recently why there's no such thing, you either didn't read it or are being deliberately dishonest.

kerpal32: Except when its followers irrationally and dogmatically seeks to impose their beliefs on others like any other religious fundamentalists.

But I and Dawkins etc don't impose. We express our view through talking and writing. How is that an imposition?
 
2010-09-07 11:29:51 PM
Kerp, you realise that xkcd is making fun of the exact kind of thing that you assert, right?
 
2010-09-07 11:30:10 PM
Zamboro: muck4doo: "I can't believe some asshats brought up "War on Christmas" in a Jehovah Witness thread."

If you could provide a list of acceptable/unacceptable conversational tangents so we know which to avoid, it would be a great help.


By the way, maybe you should try educating yourself on tangents before making blanket assumptions. I'm no JW, but study their beliefs before you make dumb attacks on them for things they don't even believe in. You can do that with books and stuff.
 
2010-09-07 11:31:56 PM
Fuller: kerpal32: For the same reason Paul Kurtz, Eugenie Scott, Massimo Piggliucci, Roger Penrose and other atheists are also supportive of my argument.

But it's not your argument. You are a theist, they aren't. They're not on your team, and even if they were, what would be your point? That because you like them more, all atheists should be more like them? It makes no sense.

kerpal32: creates the stereotype of the intolerant "fundamentalist atheist".

I explained to you recently why there's no such thing, you either didn't read it or are being deliberately dishonest.

kerpal32: Except when its followers irrationally and dogmatically seeks to impose their beliefs on others like any other religious fundamentalists.

But I and Dawkins etc don't impose. We express our view through talking and writing. How is that an imposition?


When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.
 
2010-09-07 11:33:14 PM
www.normalbobsmith.com
Normal Bob Smith (new window)
 
2010-09-07 11:38:33 PM
Fuller: But it's not your argument. You are a theist, they aren't.

Right, but somehow we're able to respect each others' beliefs.

/wow - just too farking amazing for you isn't it.


Fuller: I explained to you recently why there's no such thing, you either didn't read it or are being deliberately dishonest.

Frankly, what you did was this..... (la la la la not listening.... la la la)

a.imageshack.us

All you did was run to a narrow definition of fundamentalism out of the dictionary while ignoring everyone else talking about it in the real context, including atheist fundamentalism.

If you want to do that for fundamentalism for yourself, fine, let's make sure you use only the OED definition of atheism then going forward too ok. You do that. I'll continue to use encyclopedias and other academic points of reference.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2010-09-07 11:42:29 PM
muck4doo: When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.

Ok, let me write that down on my 'do not do' list.

Property theft

Got it.
 
2010-09-07 11:44:10 PM
Fuller: Kerp, you realise that xkcd is making fun of the exact kind of thing that you assert, right?

t1.gstatic.com

I'm not a fundamentalist.

You do realize I've never once said you have to believe in "God" or there must be a "God" right?

/challenges you to actually find any place I've said that in 8 yrs on Fark.
 
2010-09-07 11:44:28 PM
kerpal32: what you're saying is "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" which you can't prove empirically.

No.
I'm saying that I won't accept a statement as true just because somebody says so. I wouldn't say that it could not be true.
I may find the statement to be fascinating or comforting or disturbing. But why would I accept as true it without evidence?
 
2010-09-07 11:45:03 PM
Fuller: muck4doo: When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.

Ok, let me write that down on my 'do not do' list.

Property theft

Got it.


Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!
 
2010-09-07 11:46:10 PM
0Icky0: kerpal32: what you're saying is "no statements are true unless they can be proven scientifically" or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" which you can't prove empirically.

No.
I'm saying that I won't accept a statement as true just because somebody says so. I wouldn't say that it could not be true.
I may find the statement to be fascinating or comforting or disturbing. But why would I accept as true it without evidence?


Unless it's like Hawkings right?
 
2010-09-07 11:46:54 PM
Egalitarian: CSS time: I used to know a couple of JW kids, promising bright kids who turned into horrible farked-up drug addicts. Their dad beat them and he abused their mom as well

Back at Atheist HQ, our dad never beat us or Mom, and at least neither of us kids got addicted to drugs or alcohol.

Anecdotal I know. But damn, how many anecdotes do you need before people realize actual morality as it is practiced by adherents has little in common with their espoused religion?


FWIW, my mom told me the following: The preacher's kids are the most farked up, and you can always buy drugs from them.
 
2010-09-07 11:47:17 PM
kerpal32: Right, but somehow we're able to respect each others' beliefs.

I respect individuals too much to respect their silly beliefs.

Individuals are to be respected, not ideas.

kerpal32: Frankly, what you did was this..... (la la la la not listening.... la la la)

I wrote what I considered to be a patient and considered argument for why 'atheist fundamentalist' is a misnomer. Kerp ignored it and dived into his usual repetitive rant. Not listening indeed.

kerpal32: All you did was run to a narrow definition of fundamentalism out of the dictionary while ignoring everyone else talking about it in the real context, including atheist fundamentalism.

I talked about all the dictionary definitions. How is 'all' too narrow? Do I need to include make believe definitions as well?

kerpal32: If you want to do that for fundamentalism for yourself, fine, let's make sure you use only the OED definition of atheism then going forward too ok. You do that. I'll continue to use encyclopedias and other academic points of reference.

There are two standard dictionary definitions for atheism, and I am definitely one of them. So yes, no problem.

Your pictures are stupid.
 
2010-09-07 11:49:57 PM
kerpal32: I'm not a fundamentalist.

Wow. Ok, you really don't get it. Nevermind then.

kerpal32: You do realize I've never once said you have to believe in "God" or there must be a "God" right?

Yes.

kerpal32: /challenges you to actually find any place I've said that in 8 yrs on Fark.

...but I agree...
 
2010-09-07 11:49:58 PM
muck4doo: Unless it's like Hawkings right?

Who is Hawkings?
 
2010-09-07 11:51:31 PM
muck4doo: Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!


Wtf are you talking about?
 
2010-09-07 11:52:37 PM
0Icky0: muck4doo: Unless it's like Hawkings right?

Who is Hawkings?


Did I get his name wrong again?
 
2010-09-07 11:54:50 PM
Fuller: muck4doo: Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!

Wtf are you talking about?


You atheists stealing war memorials. You are all about stealing others property to enforce your point of view. Some of you did that, so i now paint you all theives. You need to speak out against the rest of you community.
 
2010-09-07 11:56:30 PM
muck4doo: Fuller: muck4doo: When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.

Ok, let me write that down on my 'do not do' list.

Property theft

Got it.

Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!


This is so grammatically wrong I have no idea what the hell is going on anymore. Is this supposed to be a possessive statement? Who stole my Atheist? Are you asserting that Atheist Thieves have brothers?

I award you no points.
 
2010-09-07 11:56:38 PM
muck4doo: You atheists stealing war memorials. You are all about stealing others property to enforce your point of view. Some of you did that, so i now paint you all theives. You need to speak out against the rest of you community.

Oh, I get it, you're making fun of those who would paint whole groups as bad or something. Cool. Not sure of the relevancy, but cool.
 
2010-09-07 11:58:39 PM
muck4doo: 0Icky0: muck4doo: Unless it's like Hawkings right?

Who is Hawkings?

Did I get his name wrong again?


Oh, you mean Hawking.
What he said is no different from what Laplace and Darwin said.
God is not necessary to explain their observations.
If you believe your god to be necessary, why then, let's see your evidence.
 
2010-09-08 12:00:28 AM
jat26006: muck4doo: Fuller: muck4doo: When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.

Ok, let me write that down on my 'do not do' list.

Property theft

Got it.

Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!

This is so grammatically wrong I have no idea what the hell is going on anymore. Is this supposed to be a possessive statement? Who stole my Atheist? Are you asserting that Atheist Thieves have brothers?

I award you no points.


Nice dodge. Why don't you just say that you approve of their gestapo tactics instead of going full grammer nazi?
 
2010-09-08 12:01:54 AM
GilRuiz1: Yeah, yeah, I know.
//Four.


Nope. I'm simply counting the number of times you ignore what the person you responded to wrote in order to make an inaccurate point.
 
2010-09-08 12:06:28 AM
muck4doo: jat26006: muck4doo: Fuller: muck4doo: When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.

Ok, let me write that down on my 'do not do' list.

Property theft

Got it.

Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!

This is so grammatically wrong I have no idea what the hell is going on anymore. Is this supposed to be a possessive statement? Who stole my Atheist? Are you asserting that Atheist Thieves have brothers?

I award you no points.

Nice dodge. Why don't you just say that you approve of their gestapo tactics instead of going full grammer nazi?


Troll! I was just trying to clarify your statement, but you have revealed yourself! Chill out.
 
2010-09-08 12:06:46 AM
Hey, you know who else approves of getting rid of religious icons they didn't want seen in public?

img709.imageshack.us
 
2010-09-08 12:07:11 AM
0Icky0: No.
I'm saying that I won't accept a statement as true just because somebody says so. I wouldn't say that it could not be true.
I may find the statement to be fascinating or comforting or disturbing. But why would I accept as true it without evidence?



Good for you. Everything?

Let me know what portions of the sciences, including their foundations, you plan to reject because they're ontological and Platonist, and not empirical.

"God created infinity, and man, unable to understand infinity, had to invent finite sets."
~Gian Carlo Rota


Look, whether you like it or not, there are many different views of realism, and there are limits to logical positivism and empiricism.

It is quite obvious at this point you're not listening to anything I've said because you keep restating the obvious (about yourself and your beliefs btw) over and over, and you can't bring yourself to actually take time to understand any views that conflict with your own, but..... you simply have a philosophical belief yourself.

And you're free to set your personal expectations for justification theory based on strict empiricism, or say you lack belief because of lack of evidence. You're quite free to do that to your heart and minds desire. But you cannot irrationally impose that belief on others.

"The problem of course is that in the standard modern picture, science is empirical, based on induction, and tends to favor a materialistic ontology, while mathematics is non-empirical, based on deduction, and tends to favor a Platonist/Pythagorean ontology... yet somehow they need each other! So, mathematics is not only the queen and handmaiden of the sciences - it's the secret mistress as well, a source of romantic fascination but also some embarrassment."
~ John Baez (atheist btw)
 
2010-09-08 12:08:03 AM
jat26006: muck4doo: jat26006: muck4doo: Fuller: muck4doo: When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.

Ok, let me write that down on my 'do not do' list.

Property theft

Got it.

Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!

This is so grammatically wrong I have no idea what the hell is going on anymore. Is this supposed to be a possessive statement? Who stole my Atheist? Are you asserting that Atheist Thieves have brothers?

I award you no points.

Nice dodge. Why don't you just say that you approve of their gestapo tactics instead of going full grammer nazi?

Troll! I was just trying to clarify your statement, but you have revealed yourself! Chill out.


Chill? You know who else chilled?

/okay. we chill.
 
2010-09-08 12:09:14 AM
muck4doo: Hey, you know who else approves of getting rid of religious icons they didn't want seen in public?

Why are you still talking about one act of vandalism?
 
2010-09-08 12:09:24 AM
muck4doo: Hey, you know who else approves of getting rid of religious icons they didn't want seen in public?

Do you not approve? This wasn't a suggestion:

"You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth."
 
2010-09-08 12:09:33 AM
jat26006: muck4doo: jat26006: muck4doo: Fuller: muck4doo: When people start stealing crosses and stuff from memorials they are self imposing.

Ok, let me write that down on my 'do not do' list.

Property theft

Got it.

Good. Go tell your atheist thieves brothers that now.

/Broad brush is fun!

This is so grammatically wrong I have no idea what the hell is going on anymore. Is this supposed to be a possessive statement? Who stole my Atheist? Are you asserting that Atheist Thieves have brothers?

I award you no points.

Nice dodge. Why don't you just say that you approve of their gestapo tactics instead of going full grammer nazi?

Troll! I was just trying to clarify your statement, but you have revealed yourself! Chill out.


You the mother farker that tried to rape me! Don't you tell me chill!

/where my do-rag at?
 
2010-09-08 12:12:21 AM
kerpal32: Look, whether you like it or not, there are many different views of realism, and there are limits to logical positivism and empiricism.

The limit is reached when you kick the stone and find out, no matter what you want to believe, that it really does hurt.
 
2010-09-08 12:18:37 AM
Fuller: There are two standard dictionary definitions for atheism, and I am definitely one of them. So yes, no problem.

good for you.... Mind if I pick on and say it applies to you regardless of what you believe?


Meanwhile, I'll continue to use this definition of fundamentalism, and not how many atheists are just as fanatical in their beliefs as any other religious fundamentalist.

Fundamentalism refers to a belief in a strict adherence to an established set of basic principles (usually religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]

# ^ Beit-Hallahmi, Bennjamin. "Fundamentalism", Global Policy Forum (with "consultative status at the UN"), May 2000, Accessed 14-05-2008.
# ^ thefreedictionary.com: "Fundamentalism", Accessed 14-05-2008.
# ^ Google define:fundamentalism
# ^ Marsden, George M. "Fundamentalism and American Culture", Oxford University Press US (1980/rev.2006)

Atheist Fundamentalism: "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

a.imageshack.us
 
2010-09-08 12:19:19 AM
0Icky0: kerpal32: Look, whether you like it or not, there are many different views of realism, and there are limits to logical positivism and empiricism.

The limit is reached when you kick the stone and find out, no matter what you want to believe, that it really does hurt.


I refute it thus!
 
2010-09-08 12:19:27 AM
Kittiepie070: "There are people who *want* this to happen. What do you do about them?"

What right have we to do anything about them?

ninjakirby: "Whoa whoa whoa. Everything is rhetoric."

Technically, but he was using the term in such a way as to justify dismissing the content of my arguments entirely.

muck4doo: "By the way, maybe you should try educating yourself on tangents before making blanket assumptions. I'm no JW, but study their beliefs before you make dumb attacks on them for things they don't even believe in. You can do that with books and stuff."

Heh, and they say atheists are condescending. :P

I only meant that if people want to have tangential discussions, even if the premise was mistaken, it should be possible without the tangent police stepping in. If you want to correct them go ahead, but that entails participation in discussion rather than presuming the authority to shut it down.

muck4doo: "Did I get his name wrong again?"

Yeah. It's become somewhat of a shibboleth that gives away the religious. They can't properly spell the names of prominent scientists, nor the word "atheist" most of the time.

Anyway the credence afforded to Hawking is not based on charisma or popularity but on his track record as one of the leading physicists of our time. He's famously lost a few bets, but they involved secondary details of theories which are nonetheless valid, many of which he contributed most of his life to. Much of what we now know about black holes and the big bang we owe to Stephen Hawking and his peers in the field of astrophysics, many of whom have lectured on the phenomena he recently identified as the causal mechanism of the big bang long before he pronounced it proof of a naturally emergent universe.
 
2010-09-08 12:20:10 AM
Zamboro: Technically, but he was using the term in such a way as to justify dismissing the content of my arguments entirely.

So own the definition on your own terms. Rhetoric 101 baby!
 
2010-09-08 12:20:58 AM
kerpal32: Mind if I pick on and say it applies to you regardless of what you believe?

...-crosseyed-


kerpal32: Atheist Fundamentalism: "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

Oh, that's ok then. I don't have that. No atheist I know has that. Don't know how you got that impression! Glad we cleared it up.
 
2010-09-08 12:21:06 AM
0Icky0: kerpal32: Look, whether you like it or not, there are many different views of realism, and there are limits to logical positivism and empiricism.

The limit is reached when you kick the stone and find out, no matter what you want to believe, that it really does hurt.


yawn.

www.reoiv.com
 
2010-09-08 12:26:11 AM
Fuller:

kerpal32: Atheist Fundamentalism: "total dogmatic conviction of correctness" to "a religious fundamentalism which refuses to allow its ideas to be examined or challenged."

Oh, that's ok then. I don't have that. No atheist I know has that. Don't know how you got that impression! Glad we cleared it up.


yes, you've said that..... keep lying to yourself, be it about yourself, people you know, or atheists you don't know personally but probably have them as a "friend" on facebook or similar.

extremelifechanger.com
 
2010-09-08 12:27:51 AM
Zamboro: Kittiepie070: "There are people who *want* this to happen. What do you do about them?"

What right have we to do anything about them?

ninjakirby: "Whoa whoa whoa. Everything is rhetoric."

Technically, but he was using the term in such a way as to justify dismissing the content of my arguments entirely.

muck4doo: "By the way, maybe you should try educating yourself on tangents before making blanket assumptions. I'm no JW, but study their beliefs before you make dumb attacks on them for things they don't even believe in. You can do that with books and stuff."

Heh, and they say atheists are condescending. :P

I only meant that if people want to have tangential discussions, even if the premise was mistaken, it should be possible without the tangent police stepping in. If you want to correct them go ahead, but that entails participation in discussion rather than presuming the authority to shut it down.

muck4doo: "Did I get his name wrong again?"

Yeah. It's become somewhat of a shibboleth that gives away the religious. They can't properly spell the names of prominent scientists, nor the word "atheist" most of the time.

Anyway the credence afforded to Hawking is not based on charisma or popularity but on his track record as one of the leading physicists of our time. He's famously lost a few bets, but they involved secondary details of theories which are nonetheless valid, many of which he contributed most of his life to. Much of what we now know about black holes and the big bang we owe to Stephen Hawking and his peers in the field of astrophysics, many of whom have lectured on the phenomena he recently identified as the causal mechanism of the big bang long before he pronounced it proof of a naturally emergent universe.


You asked about Jehovah Witnesses. I told you to read up on them. If think "war on christmas" is a good ground to fight them on then go for it. Or, read up on them and what they actually believe.

/You spell Hawking or Hawkins right. He's another guy with some ideas. Nothing more.
 
2010-09-08 12:29:02 AM
ninjakirby: I refute it thus!

Yes! Awesome.
 
2010-09-08 12:32:40 AM
muck4doo: what they actually believe

JW 101: The end of the world is coming, very soon, and we're all going to die.
 
2010-09-08 12:34:45 AM
muck4doo: "You asked about Jehovah Witnesses. I told you to read up on them."

Where did I ask about Jehova's Witnesses? I don't recall that.

muck4doo: "If think "war on christmas" is a good ground to fight them on then go for it. Or, read up on them and what they actually believe."

What? No, I don't believe that. That's not what I was talking about at all.

muck4doo: "/You spell Hawking or Hawkins right. He's another guy with some ideas. Nothing more."

This right here is why the religious have a reputation for anti-intellectualism and a general hostility towards science wherever it undermines scripture.
 
Displayed 50 of 537 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report