Horrid pun alert:
You do know that this is how the expression “Saving fez” (as in, “By putting the hat away, Jodi let Eris save fez”) came from, don’t you?
End horrid pun alert:
Fenris, ashamed of himself
So, because I choose my beliefs, that makes it okay to laugh at them?
(BTW, I don’t think I choose my beliefs. I think they chose me. I cannot let go of them-because they are, deep down, how I feel. They are a part of me, and they are a major part of who I am. Just as being gay would be a major part of Mr Visible.)
But because I “CHOSE” them, it’s okay.
:rolleyes:
Wow, and what a loss to intellegent, courteous discourse that’ll be. :rolleyes:
Argumentum ad Baby-talkums. I haven’t heard THAT refutation since fourth grade. Is that ad-hominim, straw-man or evidence of lobotomy?
And 5 gets you 10 he’ll come back anyway even after his dramatic exit.
I can’t, either. Actually, I don’t think any human can “wrap his mind” around such a concept. Also, though it’s the “explanation” currently favored by scientists, he could very well be soon replaced by some other.
Anyway, I see no reason why we should be able to wrap our mind, or even to understand theorically the answers to deep questions like the origin of the universe. We evolved some talents which allowed us to be a successful specie, but why these talents should make us able to understand this sort of things? It’s very possible IMO that we’re utterly unable to do so. It’s even very possible that there are no answers or that the question itself makes no sense.
By the way, since we’re speaking about atheism, the fact i’m not able to comprhend such issues doesn’t make me believe that I should accept whatever legend someone will pop up with to explain the origin of the universe (especially since it’s no more possible to wrap one’s mind around these supposed explanations).
No, it means that you dont deserve more respect than people who chose to be Republicans or Democrats.
The answer is that if I allow the practitioners of one baseless belief this consideration, simply because they find a silly phrase offensive, then I am agreeing to debate their issues on their terms. I think their beliefs are silly, and I will continue to hold to that position, using language that I find appropriate to state my case, until I have some semblance of a rational basis for religious belief unfold before me.
The rule in Great Debates is: attack the argument, not the poster. If I call your god a Magical Sky Pixie, I’m doing just that. I’m extending to you the same exact consideration that I would extend to anyone with an orgone generator. Why does your belief system deserve any more than that? Where is the line between religion and crackpot? Am I allowed to make fun of cultists? What’s the difference between a cult and a church? Can I make fun of Allah, or Buddha, or David Koresh, or Bob Dobbs?
And Jodi, you’ll note that I did answer your question. Let me repost it for you:
Just because you don’t like the answer, doesn’t mean I didn’t answer.
Anyone who wants to laugh at homosexuals, or who calls us amusing… go ahead! The ones I love the most are hysterically funny. We’re actually a pretty amusing group, as people go. It’s hard not to learn to laugh at yourself in these circumstances.
I’m an agnostic, and I have to take issue with this. I don’t believe in ESP. In fact, I actively believe that ESP does not exist. Why? Because if it did, it would be easily demonstrable. I can easily come up with an experiment to test for the existence of ESP. In fact, people have done so all the time. None of these experiments have ever demonstrated that ESP exists. Now, that’s not absolute proof of its nonexistence, but its an awfully convincing argument for its nonexistence.
Arguing that fairies or unicorns do not exist isn’t quite so clear cut, but is still basically doable. I can make observations about the family tree of all living things. I can ask where unicorns would fit on that. I can ask why no physical remains of unicorns have ever been found. I can ask how what physical mechanism would enable a unicorn to know that a young human was a virgin, and so forth. Thus, I am confident claiming that unicorns do not exist.
God, however, is a different matter. I do not believe in God. I see no reason to believe in God. However, the only argument I can make against the existence of God is Occam’s Razor. (At least, that’s the only argument I can make against a somewhat vague “powerful force that created the universe and now observes us semi-interestedly” kind of God). I don’t think God exists because I don’t think it’s necessary to postulate God to explain the observable universe. Thus, I don’t believe in God. But I have no real evidence of the nonexistence of God, nor can I easily imagine what form such evidence might take.
That said, I strongly believe that The Bible is not the literal word of God. I would be happy to so argue. But so arguing is not the same as arguing that God does not exist.
Jodi My feelings on the original question were expressed quite well by RTFirefly, with the following addendum (I hope no one else has already said something of this sort… this darn thread is long!):
-As RTFirely said, regardless of how ridiculous I might find someone’s views to be, it’s just plain rude to bring up phrases like MSP out of context. ie:
Religious person: well, I didn’t see the Niners game because I was at church, but I think that their backfield lacks grit
Jerk: you go to church on Sundays? Why would you crowd into a building to sing the praises of the Magical Sky Pixie?
Whereas the following type of sarcastic retort seems quite reasonable:
RP: Your actions are evil, because God says so
Nonjerk: And your hairstyle will cause you to be damned to the Eternal Circle of Richard Simmons’s ball-sweat, as has been whispered in my ear by the Magical Sky Pixie
Or, more likely, something like this:
RP: My personal religious belief is that God is a sentient and omniscient being who lives in Heaven, constantly watches over the world, and actively responds to prayer
Nonjerk: I find belief to be no more likely than belief in the MSP
Which is more or less what RT said. But I would add that I would find the following to be pretty stupid:
RP: I don’t believe in the literal truth of the Bible, or the literal divinity of Jesus Christ, but I find the Christian tradition to be a powerful and moving one, and I believe that there must be some Greater Purpose behind life, the universe and everything. Without being able to precisely define that purpose, I refer to it as God.
Jerk: I find belief to be no more likely than belief in the MSP
(MrVisible I’m particularly curious how you would respond to this…)
(Now that I have finished typing this, I realize that what I’m saying sounds a lot like “well, people who are really religious are stupid hayseeds, but people who have vague and holistic religious beliefs are worthy of my respect”, which is not what I meant at all. I hope my point got across…)
To sum up:
(a) there are situations in which using phrases like MSP is just plain rude and inappropriate
(b) Different religious people think different things. Some have beliefs that, to me, seem as silly as MSPs. Some don’t.
© For that matter, MrVisible, whatever the harm that religion has done to you, and I don’ t mean to belittle that harm, it is no more fair for you to lump religious dopers into the group that has promalguated that harm than it is for them to apply any or all gay stereotypes to you. People who make it illegal for you to marry your boyfriend are, imho, jerks and idiots. Jodi is, to the best of my knowledge, not one of those people.
MRVISIBLE, if you think a person is an asshole, and you fail to tell him to his face, are you pretending he’s not an asshole? If you are offered a dish you loathe, and you pass it up without comment on how much you loathe it, are you pretending you like it? If your boyfriend says he loves a movie you’ve just seen, and you refrain from calling it the worst piece of cinematic dogshit ever committed to celluloid (though you really, truly think it is), are you saying you liked the movie?
I find this very curious. In what way does failing to say something actively negative become implicitly saying something positive? If someone says “I believe in God,” and you just stand there, with your big yap shut, does that mean you believe in God too?
Does this strictest of honesty apply in all areas of your life? Are you brutally truthful with those whom you love and respect, about what they wear, and like to do, and talk about, and serve to you?
If so, you must be a treat at parties.
Huh?
You’re right. There are several Mormons who work in my office. By not going up to them on a regular basis and telling them what I think about Joseph Smith, I’ve clearly endorsed ol’ Joe.
That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.
Maybe you didn’t read what I said. “Since the ETs…” is an assertion. (You, of course, should accept it completely.)
Straw man alert!
She never said she did; I never said she did. I have spoken to why I think she was right to ask (I hope you believe she had the right to do that) and why I think you should heed her request.
Funny, I always thought atheists were simply people who didn’t believe in a deity. Are you informing me that they are, instead, people who are actively hostile toward such belief in others? I can’t think of a way to turn that statement into anything else.
What I’m reading here is that you feel you should only respect those positions you happen to actually espouse.
Dangerous? I guess you have no response to my discussion of the dangers of atheism.
But aside from that, nobody said you’re under any obligation to respect anything. But in circles where people are polite to each other, certain norms hold. You’re free to ignore those norms and regard yourself as outside those circles. I’m just reminding you that such circles exist, in case it matters to you. If it doesn’t, then I think we can let this be.
What I don’t expect:
Poster A: Our denomination is riven over the issue of whether to allow gays to be ministers…
Poster B: Well, that wouldn’t be a problem for you if you didn’t believe in the MSP.
And I made it clear that this was what I meant. If you’re going to join in this debate, you assume arguendo that whatever principles that persons in this denomination have in common are true. Or if that’s too much trouble, you skip to the next thread.
Or you can be a jerk, I suppose.
Your reading problem is showing through.
True, but your comprehension problem can be discussed without your having specifically mentioned it.
So if I happened to drop a mention about my church picnic, you’d consider this an invitation to debate (or simply disparage the possibility of) the existence of God?
Get a clue.
You’re right, shame on me for thinking that some basic rules of civility might even have applicability to these forums. What could I have been thinking?!
It seems from this thread that use of terms like Magical Sky Pixie are, in fact, perjorative, in that they are meant to express contempt for religious belief.
Persistence in using the terms is meant, apparently, to express contempt for people who hold religious belief.
Ah well, much as I thought. After all, this is the Pit.
Regards,
Shodan
And if people didn’t mention their sexual habits they wouldn’t become magnets for insulting and wholly inappropriate safe sex lectures.
I’m truly stunned that some of my fellow atheists think that our disbelief in deities grants us some inherent right to be offensive towards those who whose beliefs are different than our own. Just because we don’t believe in deities doesn’t mean that we all share the same viewpoint on how the universe came into being. Some of us have scientific beliefs about that, some of us have alternative theories, some of us neither know to care. Are any of us being “stupid” or “fanciful” because we have a belief system which disallows the existence of deities but we can’t offer a provable, alternate explanation for the fact that we and this universe exist?
It’s offensive to continue using a term that you know offends people AFTER you have been advised that such use is offensive. “Cock-sucker”, “baby-killer”, and “cunt” are all used as perjoratives about chosen behaviours people do not personally like or agree with. People get called on these boards all the time for using those terms in relation to the beliefs and behaviours of other posters. Why on earth should we, as atheists, be exempt from being called on our continued use of terms that others find offensive? Why does the fact that we do not agree with or respect the beliefs of another poster grant us anymore right to be offensive in our disagreement than we wich to grant them?
I’ve never used the MSP tag but frankly the various permutations of what could potentially give offense to somebody, somewhere defeats me. The spectrum of human belief is…vast and infinitely shaded.
I have the greatest respect for Jodi (Poly!) etc. as well as various posters of differing beliefs. But simply keeping track of the vast array of what could offend whom would daunt the IRS. (I can’t think of a more finicking, anal body offhand. It’s a symbol, okay?)
Atheists and agnostics are hampered by the lack of clear indentifiers of complex thought. I’m not trying to be offensive,–putting oneself into other’s shoes, doncha know–but there’s a very real problem of signifying a state and and worldview of “no god” or unknowability. Approached from that perspective, it’s possibly a less deliberate offense than applying another label for the purpose of discourse. How else–or more accecptably signify a belief in “non-godness”? Or differing gods?
I’m not disputing Jodi’s premise. Persisting in deliberate offense is rude and tacky. But gol-durned if the lines and definitions aren’t blurring all over the landscape. And somewhere around there should be honorable room and equal room for expression for those who DON’T believe.
Veb
Why do you expect that unicorns, and even morer fairies would appear on some animal family tree? Both are magical beings. As for unicorns, actually, there are many physical remains of them, in particular of their horns. Very different in shape and appearance, which tend to prove that there’s several species of unicorns. Of course, you could do some DNA testing and pretend that these remains actually belong to other animals. But i will easily counter your false anti-unicornist statements by some weird concept (i’ll check the story of the Turin holy shroud for inspiration) related to the magical nature of unicorns. Also, there has been many testimonies of people who saw unicorns, the last one being around 1830 in Tibet (I happen to know it because a friend of mine wrote a Ph D thesis on unicorns…this part is true). How can you dismiss them all? As for the virgin thing, it’s a legenday embellishment. So, dismissing it won’t say anything about the reality of unicorns.
As for fairies, you’ll have an even harder time disproving them. Fairies predate humanity but are entirely unrelated to us, let alone to animals (they’ve mainly a spiritual, not animal nature). They are actually a living emanation of the natural forces of nature. When they die (which rarely happens) they’re immediatly transformed in a thin golden powder which itself dissapear very quickly. They make themselves invisible at will and only appear to people who believe in them (like me). They never will appear to sceptic and irreverent scientist. How do you intend to prove they don’t exist? You can’t. As soon as I put something (a spirit, a fairy, god) outside of the realm of science it becomes undisprovable.
Why? To which family tree God belongs to? Why there isn’t any remain of god? By what physical process did he impregnate Mary? Why would apply these questions to a magical being like a fairy and not to a magical being like god?
Now, more seriously. At which point exactly in the religious spectrum do you stop considering that something is disprovable? Fairies are part of myths and legends and people actually believed in the existence of similar creatures. Could the existence of a river spirit from the ancient russian folklore/religion be disproven? What about the extremely powerful master spirits a siberian shaman would contact during a trance, and who were (are?) an important part of their cosmogony? And essentially out of reach of modern science, of course. What about the finnish gods/spirits who fit somewhere between shamanism and polytheism? What about the polytheist Loki or Ganesh? The monotheistic sun god Aton? If the creator god is according to you undisprovable, what about the evil god of the persian dualism Ahriman? And Satan? Are the christian angels and devils , the muslim djinns, the indian nagas disprovable like the fairies or undisprovable like god?
Which of these various beings would you consider as “disprovable” because there are no remains left, because they don’t seem to fit anywhere in the family tree of the living things, or because you can’t figure out a physical process explaining their extraordinary powers?
RTFly :
I’m not going to argue with you about the proper rules of behavior on this board. but concerning this statement :
[quote]
Funny, I always thought atheists were simply people who didn’t believe in a deity. Are you informing me that they are, instead, people who are actively hostile toward such belief in others? I can’t think of a way to turn that statement into anything else.
[quote]
You don’t need to. Atheists are only people who don’t believe in any deity. I, on an individual basis, am actively hostile toward religious beliefs, indeed.
RTFly :
I’m not going to argue with you about the proper rules of behavior on this board. but concerning this statement :
[quote]
Funny, I always thought atheists were simply people who didn’t believe in a deity. Are you informing me that they are, instead, people who are actively hostile toward such belief in others? I can’t think of a way to turn that statement into anything else.
[quote]
You don’t need to. Atheists are only people who don’t believe in any deity. I, on an individual basis, am actively hostile toward religious beliefs, indeed.
RTFly :
I’m not going to argue with you about the proper rules of behavior on this board. but concerning this statement :
[quote]
Funny, I always thought atheists were simply people who didn’t believe in a deity. Are you informing me that they are, instead, people who are actively hostile toward such belief in others? I can’t think of a way to turn that statement into anything else.
[quote]
You don’t need to. Atheists are only people who don’t believe in any deity. I, on an individual basis, am actively hostile toward religious beliefs, indeed.
I’d like to address a couple of side points. Sorry for drifting from the main argument, but it seems that all the relevant points have been made, several times in some cases. What I want to mention is in regard to this:
First off, what difference does it make that one doesn’t choose to be gay? If you could choose, would it then be OK to generalize and insult gay people? After all, they opened themselves up to it, right?
What really strikes me, though, is the idea that one can choose one’s beliefs, any beliefs (and who says you’re supposed to?). To me, a belief is a conclusion drawn from past experiences. Could you choose to believe in God? Why not? You can choose your beliefs, right? But, throughout your life, you’ve made observations that make it clear there just can’t be a god. It just doesn’t make sense. You didn’t choose to believe there is no God, you’re forced to believe that based on what you know about the world. The same is true for anyone who believes in God, Goddess, the Force, Eric Estrada, or whoever. Even if some are tought their religion at a young age, it still has to jibe with what they know about the world and about the people who are teaching it to them. That’s why some people’s beliefs end up different than they were taught originally. You can’t choose your beliefs any more than you can choose to start seeing mauve and lime polka dots. Drugs notwithstanding, that is. Your beliefs are an extension of your person. They are a manifestation of all the things that have shaped you. They’re a result, not an action. Like Guinistasia said, she didn’t choose her beliefs, they chose her. Belittle someone’s beliefs, like it or not, you’re insulting them.
Sheesh. The more and more I read from some of the atheists here, the more ashamed I am of us. At our next secret atheist meeting, MrVisible, there’s gonna be a recall petition to remove you as our spokesperson. We’ll get someone in there who’s interested in earning our position general respect from the theist public, someone who wants to end the ridiculous petty bickering between theists and atheists.
Perhaps you’d be happier crank-calling the 700 Club? I know I was, when I first became an atheist.
That way, folks who are willing to disagree respectfully with one another can continue their conversations, and you and Pat can continue yours.
Daniel
I have a question, clairobscur. I want to be crystal clear on something that you seem to be implying. This is not intended as a barb or attack on you. I am just morbidly curious.
Earlier MrVisible said:
to which Guinistasia responded:
I myself feel this way as well. My beliefs are a large part of my person as well.
In your most recent post you stated:
Since, as previously stated, religious beliefs are a large part of who Guinistasia and I are, would it be accurate to say that you are actively hostile towards us on a personal level as well?
Nope, because you’re not harming anybody by being gay. But since you’re not harming anybody just by believing in god either, pointing out that would have been pointless in this occurence. There’s no difference between the two from this point of view.
What you’re saying makes some sense. May i point out, however, that you’re opening a whole can of worms? Because if you argue that actually you don’t really choose to believe or not believe in god, that it’s the result of your past experiences, etc…you can similarily argue that for instance feeling that rape is OK is also the the result of your past experiences, hence that when you raped this woman you really had no choice and cannot be held responsible (our actions are necessarily the result of our beliefs, opinions, needs, etc…) . That could be true. It’s conceivable that nobody has any responsability in his beliefs, opinions, and actions. That individual responsability doesn’t exist and is only a convenient illusion. Actually, i don’t believe there’s such a thing as free will, so i’m perhaps not very long away from this position. But would you want us to organize our societies, or even our lives on the basis of this philosophy?