What y’all may not remember is what it was that ITR claimed, exactly, that brought up his need to leap from penalty to punishment. Here is the claim he made, with the pertinent part bolded:
In order to try and back that claim up, here is what he posted in post #40:
It’s clear when you read Locrian’s full post, he wasn’t at all talking about eradicating people, nor is there any hint that he wants them castrated or imprisoned. Here’s a larger part of what ITR snipped 6 words from:
So, ITR, sees the word “penalties” in that sentence, and somehow immediately makes the far-fetched leaps from “penalties” to “punishment” to “imprisonment”. It’s an utterly ridiculous way to read Locrian’s post, and I called bullshit on it. He continues to defend his interpretation, so I keep pointing out that, just like his seeing insults where none are offered, his interpretation has no legs to stand on.
So, ITR, sees the word “penalties” in that sentence, and somehow immediately makes the far-fetched leaps from “penalties” to “punishment” to “imprisonment”.
It’s an utterly ridiculous way to read Locrian’s post, and I called bullshit on it. He continues to defend his interpretation, so I keep pointing out that, just like his seeing insults where none are offered, his interpretation has no legs to stand on.
Well, OK, but if asked to support this notion that moderate, quiet Christians are the unimportant minority, how would you propose laying hands on the data? I’m not trying to downplay the evil of some of the big, conspicuous actions that are observably the remit of the fanatics, but how do you weigh that against the good stuff, which may not be nearly so spectacular?
are we going by dictionary definitions or common accepted definitions?
wikipedia captures the essence of religious faith and dogma (or doctrine as you seem to prefer) when it says on faith…
and on dogma…
and
You think that the above is in dispute? Wiki might often be the refuge of the scoundrel but it is also a handy summary of commonly accepted definitions with more room for nuance and context than a dictionary. I really don’t think the above is controversial.
Now to clarify my earlier points. When I say that religions stand apart from evidence and rationality I make no insult. Many elements of human experience share that very same characteristic.
I raised the issue of allegiance to a football team previously, not to be flippant, but to make a very important point.
That allegiance is equally heartfelt and important to many people, equally real, equally immune to reason or evidence.
And as with football team supporters of course I have no problem with religious adherents who keep their faith to themselves. However, at the point they try to affect my life or make claims and explanations on behalf of their beliefs then they have to accept a degree of pushback and questioning.
Do you think religious beliefs can be criticised or questioned at all?
If “no”, you need to be prepared to justify that with a dexterity that I’ve not yet seen achieved by anyone.
If “yes”, then you really have no complaint to make here, other than towards the vehemence of the criticism. If that bothers you then have to make another case as to why criticism of religious beliefs should be more gentle than criticism of any set of beliefs or opinions, including political, sporting and aesthetic.
Your response completely fails to deal with the points that I’ve made multiple times. Locrian did indeed call for “penalties”. Who was he calling for penalties on? Obviously he was calling for penalties on people who practice religion. No other sane reading of what he said is possible.
Next you claim that there’s a “far-fetched leap from penalties to punishment to imprisonment”. You don’t say why you find this far-fetched. There is no leap from “penalty” to “punishment” just as there’s no leap from “six” to “half a dozen”. We’ve established that with a dictionary definition, which you have no way of disputing. (Despite your nitpick about the thesaurus, I quoted a dictionary definition; see post #134.) Nor is there anything far-fetched about linking punishment to imprisonment; as I said, prison is the standard punishment in this country. If we suppose for the sake of argument that Locrian doesn’t want to imprison me for the crime of failing to be an atheist, what penalty does he have in mind? Waterboarding? Confiscation of property? Are those supposed to be any better?
If as an atheist I am serving Satan, will I suffer eternal punishment at the hands of Satan after death? Why would he punish me for doing his bidding?
Given this new opening, perhaps the issue is eternal reward in heaven versus eternal reward in hell. Perhaps it is a matter of hanging out in a hazy sunlit field with a bunch of other grinning after-lifers on the one hand, or having eternal sinful sex and eating a never-ending stream of donuts on the other hand.
Prison is most definitely not the standard punishment in the US. Monetary fines are much more common than imprisonment, for one.
“Better” isn’t part of the dispute I have with you. You made a claim that people called for you to “be killed or castrated or imprisoned for the crime of not being an atheist”, and your intense desire for Locrian’s post to convey that message will not make it so.
You made the leap to “imprisonment” on your own, in a wild suppositional leap. Just like you saw insults where there were none, you see calls for imprisonment where there are none.
I never understood why we assumed a priori that Satan was evil and God was good. Satan was the one who gave Adam and Eve knowledge; how is that bad? If you add up all the people killed by Satan and God, God comes out way ahead. Even looking at people who kill in their name, there is simply no comparison. A few pimply kids killing what, a dozen people or so? vs the Crusades, the Inquisition, the conquest of America, etc.
Well, at least you’re no longer disputing the dictionary definition of the word “penalty”. I guess I’ll have to take what I can get.
I say that when someone demands a punishment for a certain behavior, it’s natural to assume they’re referring to prison unless they say otherwise. This would be especially true in the case of Locrian, given that he was falsely trying to tie religious believers to murder and other major crimes. But suppose it wasn’t; why would that matter? obbn’s OP was about the rabid, insulting behavior that some atheists constantly exhibit. I offered that Locrian’s post certainly fits the bill and serves as one of many examples establishing the point. Your only responses is that you first ignore all the examples but one post, then ignore the fact that Locrian’s post in its entirety is an excellent example of what the OP was talking about, and instead write 38,572 posts about the fact that the post didn’t specifically demand “imprisonment” but instead demand some generic human rights abuse. Do you understand why everyone including your fellow atheists have dismissed your argument as silly?
Well, it’s one thing to admit that “penalty” and “punishment” are effective synonyms, quite another to suggest that American theists are actually being punished or penalized or whatever. Frankly, it strikes me as either paranoid delusion (if you actually believe it) or cynical politicking (if you claim it to try to score some cheap points).
I mean, seriously - do anyone actually believe there’s a “war on Christmas” going on? That same-sex marriage is an attack on anyone? That the banning of school prayer constitutes a banning of religion? That someone exercising their first-amendment rights infringes on your own?
“Punishment” is one definition of “penalty”; there are at least 4 others, including “forfeiture” and “consequence” and “disadvantage”, but you ignore them, presumably because they don’t quite fit with your definition of “penalty=punishment=imprisonment”.
Well, I say that when someone demands good service in a restaurant, it’s natural to assume they’re referring to oral sex. (That’s sarcasm, btw, pointing out what a load of crap your assumption is.)
So you’re saying that the murders of abortion providers by religiously motivated people didn’t happen? You’re saying the Crusades are a fiction? You’re saying that the 9/11 actions weren’t motivated by religion? Srsly? SERIOUSLY?
No, you didn’t. You specifically offered it as proof that people on this board wanted you “killed or castrated or imprisoned”. And it doesn’t back that up. Not at all.
Maybe, maybe not. But it sure as hell doesn’t back up what you claimed, which is the reason you cited it.
Penalties are not human rights abuses. Now you’ve moved from “penalty” to “punishment” to “imprisonment” to “human rights abuses”. That’s just absurd. What’s next? Will you be claiming that Locrian wanted you tied to a stake, covered in honey and eaten by ants next? Your ability to impart is surely legendary.
I haven’t seen that everyone has said any such thing. I’ve seen people agree that one definition of “penalty” is “punishment”, but that’s all. I’ve certainly not seen anyone dismiss my argument as silly, since my argument isn’t about whether or not one meaning of penalty is punishment, but about how ridiculous it is to assume that the only possible meaning of Locrian’s post was that believers should be imprisoned, when he in fact says no such thing. It’s all a giant leap you made on your own.
Did I ever say, anywhere in this thread, that American theists are actually being punished or penalized? Did I ever, anywhere in this thread, use the words “war on Christmas”? Did I ever say, anywhere in this thread, say that same-sex marriage is an attack on someone? Did I ever say, anywhere in this thread, that the banning of school prayer constitutes a banning of religion? Did I ever say, anywhere in this thread, that someone exercising their first-amendment rights infringes on my own?
Forfeiture is a type on punishment. Consequence and disadvantage, if used to mean the same as “penalty”, mean the same thing as punishment. Therefore your trivial nitpick serves to confirm, rather than deny, that a penalty is the same thing as a punishment.
I don’t get your point. Why don’t you avoid sarcasm and try making some form of argument instead? If someone says that he wants banking executives punished for their crimes that caused the financial crisis, I’d assume he wants those executives imprisoned unless he says otherwise. When Locrian says that he wants me punished for the crime of not being an atheist, I assume he wants me imprisoned.
I never said any of those things.
(But for what it’s worth, I think saying that 9/11 actions were motivated by the religion of the terrorists is almost as absurd as saying that Stalin and Mao weren’t atheists who murdered huge numbers of religious believers. Almost.)
So Locrian demands that billions of people be punished for figments of his imagination*, and you say this may or may not be hateful?
In his words, I and billions of other people are to have our religion banned and be penalized because of “thousands of women being killed for being women, Jews killed as a “cleansing”, AIDS currently being taught as a divine disease (Africa)” and he also says that the war in El Salvador, which waged by a secular government against a largely religious populous, was the fault of religion.
They are if they’re imposed against people exercising human rights, such as the rights to freedom of religion, speech, and expression.
All right, I’ll take a shot at this. I never say anything to anyone I don’t know about religion, and very little to people I do know since some of the people I’m closest to have devout beliefs. I don’t understand those beliefs but I do understand that they give comfort.
However, in any instance where a person has made their religion publicly known–that is, known to me, a person who they are not otherwise close to–I do, in fact, think a bit less of them, and if it’s a question of patronizing them or not, I will not. Example: Someone has a sign up saying “Piano lessons given by Christian woman.” I will look elsewhere for my kid’s piano teacher. The one I end up with may well be a Christian or some other religion, but at least they won’t have capitalized on it. (For some reason it’s always Christians in my neighborhood. “Child care in Christian home,” etc.)
I mostly stay out of it though, IRL and on messages boards, too.
ETA: This addresses the OP, not the hundreds of posts since. Maybe I’ll read the thread later.