Yes, you backed me into the corner oh he who brags about not having read the bible, but spends his days commenting on it anyway.
I don’t argue with you because I think you’re an idiot, not because I am over-awed by your brilliance, but you can think whatever helps you keep from hanging yourself.
Hmmmm, couple of edits
and this paragraph describes the Roaring Twenties to a tee!
Maybe you should brush up on the history of the “drug war” then?
Here’s a couple of big events to remember; the release of a film in 1936 Reefer Madness (aka Tell Your Children), The 1936 Geneva Trafficking Convention,
and the first federal level law concerning the evil weed the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Surely all this concern about opium, coca and cannabis must have been for some reason, maybe a problem on a societal scale?
Of course it’s always possible that this was all done by time travelers from the mid-to-late sixties trying to nip the bud in the bud in the thirties … but I doubt it.
CMC fnord!
I would imagine that many, many more people have died as a result of drug use than have died from gang shootings. And that many of those who have died from drug use haven’t necessarily died from overdoses, but rather wasted away and became homeless and destitute and died from disease or malnutrition or exposure to the elements, etc. Still, it’s all part of the drug culture and I’ve mentioned its concomitant crime as being one of the more negative aspects of drug use in this country.
Of course the liberal solution to all this is simply to legalize drugs and assume that all the problems will go “poof” and disappear. Not so. Look at all the lives that have been ruined by alcohol. I know it’s the commonly accepted view that prohibition “didn’t work”, but (and as much as I love alcoholic drinks) when you look at the poor job performance and eventual job loss, the illness and deaths attributable to alcoholism, and the misery inflicted upon the families of alcoholics, I have a very hard time accepting that things were worse under prohibition.
And even if drugs are legalized, people will still want drugs they can’t afford, they will still commit crimes to get them, they will still screw up their lives in order to stay high as much as they can, etc., etc. Another problem is which drugs get legalized. All of them? What about heroin? And what about meth? And cocaine? These are highly addictive drugs that have very serious effects upon a person’s health and ability to function as employees or parents (and I’ve seen some kids mistreated terribly by drug-addicted parents over the course of my life) or anything else. And if you don’t legalize them, aren’t you going to have the same problems as a result that you now have with drugs in general?
So, all in all, I don’t really see legalization as a workable solution either.
Nice try, crow. I didn’t say drugs didn’t exist prior to the sixties and that no legislature and no propaganda existed to deal with it prior to that time. My contention is that it didn’t gain widespread societal acceptance until the late sixties…and once again, due to its having been embraced wholeheartedly by the overwhelmingly liberal youth culture of the time. An embracing which is largely supported by the left even today with support for decriminalization, legalization, etc., and the continuing belief on the part of many that doing drugs is cool. You don’t find that attitude much among conservatives, and that is why drugs were much less a problem in more conservative times.
And now I must bow out for a while, so uh…regards. 
I’d argue the only people who die from drug use are those who have no concept of moderation and those who have died from adulterants due to the fact it is illegal. Unless you can convince me differently. Oh, and those unlucky first time ectasy users who more likely had a reaction to the drug due to their personal metabolism, than the lethality of the drug, if all the other users who don’t die from it are anything to go by.
Eh, there are times when people just have bad luck. Heart attacks from Coke and such. But mostly you’re right I think. Then again there is the fact that some people just really susceptible to particular addictions.
Okaaaay. Are we still talking about evidence of atheist culture or have you changed the subject? I can recap if it helps:
[QUOTE=mswas]
There is atheist culture and there is a gay agenda.
The fact of the matter is the culture of America has changed a great deal since the 1960s. There is a lowering of standards, crude jokes on television, child pornography on billboards. It’s not imaginary. Arguing about whether it’s a concern one should care about is one thing, but I’m not interested in an argument that states that it’s imaginary, because it’s not.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
[QUOTE=mswas]
child pornography on billboards.
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mswas]
Baby Phat billboards.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Could you provide an example? I couldn’t find anything like that.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mswas]
I haven’t seen one in a while and couldn’t find it online but I remember seeing one in downtown Manhattan a few years back that was a 12 year old girl in a provocative barely clothed pose. Regardless we have plenty of 12 and 13 year old girls who are barely dressed in Vogue, or various other adverts all the time.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Captain Carrot]
Good job having no idea what the fuck child pornography is.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mswas]
And there you go again thinking your view of pornography is the default view and should be accepted by such because it is within **your **common culture.
[/QUOTE]
Bolding mine. Presumably you’re still referring to “atheist culture” with the “your” reference here?
[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
[QUOTE= mswas]
Baby Phat billboards.
[/QUOTE]
What exactly does this have to do with atheism?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mswas]
Cultural assault on Christian values, the abandonment of them specifically.
[/QUOTE]
Clarify: *Atheist *cultural assault on Christian values? As in atheist values diminishing Christian values?
[QUOTE=Brown Eyed Girl]
Are you confusing secular with atheist? Still wondering how this relates to atheism. Where’s the atheist message in Baby Phat billboards?
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mswas]
They see it as a decline toward atheism. I’m sorry if the basic fundamentals of the debate are so foreign to you that I have to explain it over and over again.
[/QUOTE]
Who’s [t]hey? I’m not unclear on the basic fundamentals of the debate: that Christians have somehow cornered the market on morality (they haven’t).
What I’m unclear on is how you can connect an ad for clothing company run (very intently) by a theist to “atheist culture.” Are theists creating this culture of which you speak? Does it have anything at all to do with the existence of God (or lack thereof)? Or does it have to do with effective marketing? If it’s effective and the majority of the country is Christian then who’s it working on? Is there an explosion of atheism in the black, hip hop community that we’re as yet unaware of?
You really seem to have your finger on the pulse of America, son. What are you doing slumming it around here? :rolleyes:
Unlikely.
[/QUOTE]
And yet your child pornography billboard was *so *controversial with mainstream America there’s nary a mention of it on the internet. Could it be you are overstating things just a bit?
I’m throwing you bones here, man. You don’t *have *to doggedly hang on to that chewed up old shoe.
Brown Eyed Girl I am not talking about a conspiracy. There are two separate ideas here.
As people like to point out atheism is a negative state, negative in that it is the absence of belief as opposed to the positive state of theism which is a presence of a belief.
You’re actually going after a bunch of straw men.
The point is that people see a slide toward atheism, that atheism is a result of liberal culture, not that liberal culture is a result of atheism, or at least not by a conspiracy of atheists. There are two ideas present here. The idea of an atheist culture in that the wider culture is becoming more atheistic. Then there is the idea of the atheist culture in that it is the culture of atheists who are sharing ideas and crafting a philosophical tradition in which they take part. These are two separate ideas that have been spoken about. Baby Phat ads are evidence of the former (by its terms) and books by Richard Dawkins are evidence of the latter.
Do you understand these two separate concepts?
I am discussing a cultural phenomenon, you desperately want it to be about me. Generally people don’t go apeshit over ads featuring child porn because it is ubiquitous. They go after the culture as a whole rather than the individual manifestations.
You’re not throwing me any bones because it’s you who doesn’t understand, but you think it’s me that doesn’t. That’s partly because you are trying to psychoanalyze my beliefs and getting it wrong.
Atheism is disbelieving in, not believing in, rejecting God–however the fuck you want to put it (that’s not the argument we’re having here). Atheists may be total jerks, amoral nihilists, basically decent regular folks, or people who devote their entire lives to helping the poor or saving orphans from burning buildings. Atheism is not a system of morality or ethics; it is a point of view about God. Nothing more and nothing less.
I’m going to stop talking now, I am trying to explain something to you and all you can do is repeat slogans. If you are incapable of understanding what I’m getting at, then shrug.
Brown Eyed Girl If you can grasp the two separate issues, and aren’t just trying to go, ‘gotcha’, by locking me into narrow interpretations that can as easily be poor grammar as anything else, I’ll gladly continue with you, as you have actually been trying to discuss it.
It’s not that we don’t understand the point of view, we just think the point of view is stupid and bigoted.
Yes of course, that’s all that matters to you, listening until you can satisfy yourself the person is a bigot and you can stop listening. I’m not the one who is a bigot in this case, but I don’t expect you to grasp why.
The strawmen are yours, sir.
Actually what you’re seeing here is a transformation from a puritanical culture, in which religion dictated nearly every facet of life, into a **secular **culture in which religion is, mostly, compartmentalized.
It really has less to do with atheism than with individualism in that people are starting to get away from having the church meddle in their everyday affairs. Believe it or not, some people have found a way to honor their spirituality and enjoy secular pursuits. Believe it or not, they still consider themselves Christian. And not all who aren’t Christian are atheist. There are other religions, you know. Muslims have values. Pagans have values. Agnostics have values, too.
People aren’t becoming more atheistic. They’re becoming less evangelistic.
I don’t brag about “not having read the bible”; I’ve mentioned once or twice that I haven’t bothered to read it from cover to cover. And most of my comments are about religion, not the Bible.
Oh ?
Are you also showing MEBuckner mercy by not driving him to suicide by your awesome powers of persuasion and knowledge ? :rolleyes:
When I said that you tend to respond to being backed into a corner by refusing to argue, I wasn’t just referring to your reaction to me.
And I don’t regard myself as being “brilliant”; more intelligent than average, but I’m no genius. It’s just that your own beliefs are utter garbage.
What makes you think that “liberal culture” produces atheists ? Or that it’s at all anti-religious ?
OK, you’re not a bigot, you just like explaining the point of view of bigots at great length. Whatever.
The point is, I reject and will continue to reject the view that it is permissible to casually equate “atheism” and “moral degeneracy”. I might or might not agree with a person who is concerned about “moral degeneracy” as to whether or not the things they are concerned about are actually morally degenerate (Sex between two consenting adults of the same sex: NOT moral degeneracy. Violent crime: IS moral degeneracy), but I will always reject the view that it is OK to talk about “our culture becoming more atheistic” unless you are actually talking about people become more atheistic. And not “people still believe in God, and distrust atheists, but they also have sex and use drugs more than they used to.”
And why is this? Well, it all boils down to that deathless slogan, so oft-seen on bumper stickers and lapel pins:
Atheism is disbelieving in, not believing in, rejecting God–however the fuck you want to put it (that’s not the argument we’re having here). Atheists may be total jerks, amoral nihilists, basically decent regular folks, or people who devote their entire lives to helping the poor or saving orphans from burning buildings. Atheism is not a system of morality or ethics; it is a point of view about God. Nothing more and nothing less.
The idea of our American culture being puritanical is well over-reported. The Puritans were a particular sect that were far less influential over the US than is generally accepted by people who hate Christians.
Yes, Muslims have values, and their values are generally less tolerant than those of Christians. Paganism and Agnosticism have no unity of purpose. Paganism is a catch-all term for a miasma of Cafeterian beliefs based loosely around nature worship. Agnosticism is just a statement that one does not know. The idea that Paganism or Agnosticism have, values, is a bit specious, because either one can be anything anyone wants them to be. A pagan can be a cannibal if they want, or their behavior may differ inconsequentially from that of an Orthodox Jew.
They are becoming more atheistic. Atheism is far more mainstream today than it once was. But you’re again ignoring the point. You’re asking me to clarify myself and then ignoring me so you can go on speaking about what you want to say. You’re simply not listening. All of that was a point regarding the fact that Christian culture IS under threat, and that it’s not paranoid to believe that it is. You took a sidebar and have tried to force it into being the main thrust of what I am saying. That’s usually the case when arguing with atheists around here because really what they want is an excuse to bitch about Christianity. Understanding is not important. They just want to repeat slogans about how atheism isn’t… blah blah blah.
Listen, I’m trying. I want to get a clear picture of what you’re saying because I want to be sure you understand the difference between atheist and secular. This is the clarification I’m looking for.
And I’ve said it before, but just so you know, I’m an agnostic. Essentially, I don’t believe anything in the realm of a “higher power” can be comprehended by humans. Religion, IMHO, is a manmade construct to explain the unexplainable. I don’t have an issue with it per se. My issue is with people who think they are better than me because they live by a book some dudes wrote a long time ago outlining what *they *believed to be ‘divine truth.’ My issue is with people who think I’m not worthy of respect unless I’ve accepted they’re beliefs as my own. Guess what? I’m not you and I don’t really even want to be you.
I do, however, get a bit riled up by people who claim that because I am not religious I have no morals. That couldn’t be further from the truth. My morality may be different than yours, but it’s not inferior to yours. Yours is not the end-all-be-all of upstanding ethics. I am a humanist and I believe in people; not gods. I’m also not a fan of homogenized societies. I rather appreciate our differences. Why can’t everyone?
What she actually said was that pagans and agnostics have values, not that paganism and agnosticism have values.
But by this are you talking more people not believing in God, or are you talking about more people believing in God but also producing billboards with scantily clad underwear models or using drugs or something?
Buf if most Americans are still Christians–and most Americans certainly still say they are–then “Christian culture” is “under threat” from WHOM exactly? It’s other Christians who are doing the “threatening” when it comes to things like which TV shows are hits or the kind of music those kids are listening to these days.