|
Post by wackadoodle on Oct 23, 2009 14:42:57 GMT -5
they're right Vene, you SHOULD be respectful towards religion, infact you should show every religion the exact same amount of respect.
So to match the 'respect' the major religions show scientology you should make your rhetoric far more insulting, never ever accept that anyone who's not a brainwashed idiot could think they're religion is true and constantly say the entire thing is a scam and that only a fucking moron would believe a word of their ludicrous story. And then to match the 'respectful' tone of most christians you need to proudly state that every single person who doesnt follow your religion is a bad person who deserves to be brutally tortured for eternity.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger on Oct 23, 2009 23:06:23 GMT -5
Who says that a sensible argument can't have profanity and insults? And, really, if the general population can't handle a little word like "fuck" there is a much deeper problem. I don't have time to respond to your entire post, but if you don't understand by this point that that's not my argument, I really don't see any point in doing so. A sensible argument can have profanity and insults. The tracts are not that. They are a series of insults quite liberally peppered with profanity from which one can see the barest frameworks of a sensible argument. Anyone who is not already inclined to agree with them will skim them over and declare them the work of someone with the maturity of a 14 year old before drop them in the nearest trashcan. To be honest, I wouldn't fault them for it.
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Oct 23, 2009 23:32:48 GMT -5
Liberally peppered? Watch some South Park.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 24, 2009 1:35:04 GMT -5
Series of insults? Liberally peppered with profanity? Don't you think you're overexaggerating at least a LITTLE bit?
Oh, & Vene brings up a good point: There are programs like South Park that mock all sorts of people, & a [debatably] mature person doesn't flip shit about them.
|
|
|
Post by JonathanE on Oct 24, 2009 6:42:21 GMT -5
I mete the same amount respect to Christianity that Christians give atheists. I'm too old to be bothered with most of the niceties. I don't respect religions, therefore I can show little respect to the dluded fools who try to press their particular fetishes off on me. I try to take a live and let live attitude, provided that their nonsense has no affect on my day to day life, but when confronted with the lunacy that religion is, I am liberal about pointing out said lunacy.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 24, 2009 14:33:15 GMT -5
Shit, a lot of these posts are more offensive.
(No offense, John.)
Okay, re-reading. First panel, "grow the fuck up & deal with life." So, from this, I know that my impression of the audience was wrong, & it is actually aimed towards adults. In that case, the message is perfectly reasonable. "Don't rely on a crutch."
2nd panel. There's still hope, take responsibility for your own actions, etc. Well, I suppose that sort of thing WOULD be insulting to True Christians (tm).
|
|
|
Post by tygerarmy on Oct 24, 2009 17:32:55 GMT -5
Wow. I didn't make them I was given them by someone I gave a free hug to. I do not have a problem with religious people. I wish people happy or merry their specific holiday, not happy holidays. I celebrate holidays with religious friends.
But at the same time I agree with Vene. I started a thread about my sister who I haven't seen in 15 years and just started talking to over Facebook who has told me I am going to hell. We don't have to play nice. I don't care if any religion is right. All religion is bad. Because people abuse it, like any concept that can be used to segregate and discriminate people. Without religion we have good people doing good things, and bad people doing bad things, but when we have religion you get good people doing bad things.
A pamphlet isn't going to convert anyone who wasn't already on the edge no matter how tactfully or clever it is written. When I was religious I still despised tracts, religion isn't Chinese food or pizza, you can't hand it out in the streets and expect to get converts, but at the same time we don't have hellfire and brimstone to scare people into our way of thinking. What do we preach? When you die you stop existing. That will scare most religious people away, it is part of the reason people turn to religion. If anything I think the tract is too polite. Where are the Atheist marches, the Atheist protests? Or do we have to wait for a religious group to kill an outspoken Atheist before action on our part is Just?
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Oct 24, 2009 17:54:19 GMT -5
"all ___ is bad because people abuse it"
Hmm... where have I heard that argument before? *sideways glance at the mainpage, the rantings of D Laurier, and books on the Dark Ages*
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 24, 2009 19:11:25 GMT -5
Well, I argue that all religion is bad, regardless off whether or not it's abused.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Oct 24, 2009 21:52:36 GMT -5
I'd say religion is bad just because it's bullshit, plain and simple. If they want respect, show me some tangible proof for their claims, until then, I'm going to take any claims of Jesus/Bhudda/Mohammed/Odin/Zeus/Amaterasu/Whoeverthefuckelse about as seriously as claims of a flying purple hippopotamus who created the world using spit and dog poop and will grant us superpowers if we worship him by dancing naked around the lawnmower of eternal buttsex or some such and give it the exact same amount of respect.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on Oct 24, 2009 22:06:55 GMT -5
But Amaterasu has a damn awesome name!
|
|
|
Post by gomer21xx on Oct 24, 2009 22:44:51 GMT -5
Honestly, I don't think religion, in and of itself, is bad.
'Cause it's not so bad to believe or disbelieve in something. Hell, everybody's got something or someone to believe in, right? Like me, I believe in the great goddess Mammaris, who has taken the form of our dear Lady Renae here.
But when one takes it too seriously and uses it as an excuse to do things like ban gay marriage, force people of a different skin color to work your fields, sucker them into giving you allllll their money, or set people on fire for not believing your way, then we have problems. That's when you need to have some clues forced into your brain, folks.
|
|
|
Post by Lady Renae on Oct 24, 2009 22:57:34 GMT -5
Gomer, please don't drag the mammarism joke into this. It's a fraud, and you know it. Therefore it's a horrible example.
|
|
|
Post by gomer21xx on Oct 24, 2009 23:22:31 GMT -5
Gomer, please don't drag the mammarism joke into this. It's a fraud, and you know it. Therefore it's a horrible example. Fair enough. I still stand by the rest of my post, though.
|
|
|
Post by Oriet on Oct 25, 2009 6:10:54 GMT -5
I feel like throwing in my own 2ยข. A pamphlet isn't going to convert anyone who wasn't already on the edge no matter how tactfully or clever it is written. I quite agree with this. It might help in getting them to think about it, it might help show another line of thought or another point of view they weren't getting, but unless they are willing to read it and consider any of it's points, no matter for how short a time, it will do nothing. From my observations, people, by and large, react emotionally, not logically. If you don't agree with this, think for a moment about commercial advertising. Do they provide you with useful information? Do they show the actual object instead of a show piece being used in an actual setting, or do they fancy it up, put it in an unrealistic situation of which the target audience won't ever use it in (seriously, how many people actually drive an SUV off-road?), and have the entire thing completely staged and built up with hype? Here's another example: professional sports. How emotionally charged are the fans? Why do they pick one team over another to cheer for? If they were doing it more for intellectual pursuits they should root for both teams, and pay attention to the players techniques and the strategies, not get highly upset over the other team winning a point or "their team" loosing the game. Yes, I know some people pay more attention to the technical details and don't care which team wins, but they are most definitely the minority of people who pay attention to sports. Now think about how the fundies, whether they be religious or political, present their arguments. You don't find logic or reason in them, merely emotional appeals and emotional assaults against their opposition. They don't have any examples of how homosexual marriage would undermine heterosexual marriages in any way, yet they've already managed to get a vote through to strip away the right of marriage from those of us who aren't heteronormative. This vote was not passed in any way through reasoned arguments, but rather strictly from emotional appeal. They assailed the opposition, portrayed it in the worst light they could to get people to emotionally react with the negativity, to get people to correlate homosexuality to all manners of despicable things, or at least things people already reacted highly emotionally against. Yes, a rational person will react best to a rational argument, so we still must ensure our arguments have a basis in logic and reason. For these rational people who can follow logic and debate we also need to have more in depth argumentation that presents our reasons and explanations. Most people, however, are not rational, and for them it doesn't matter how rational or how peaceably you present your argument as they will refuse to think about any aspect of it. They will reject it out of hand simply because they have already been trained to associate it with negative emotions. Most people really do not like being stigmatised, or being part of a group that is, and so all that has to be done to sway them is to stigmatise a minority or action that is not well known. That there is also a strong stigma from the religious and political right against education and the exploration of ideas just furthers a lot of people being controlled through emotional appeal, without the need of even the slightest hint of reason. There's a reason they've been able to raise opposition against national healthcare by spouting off about "death panels," or raise opposition against stem cell research even when it uses "leftovers" from in vitro fertilisation (which are definitely not "aborted babies"), or raise a fuss any time someone wants to acknowledge there's other holidays around Christmas. None of this opposition is based on logic, reason, or rational debate. They are also unwilling to listen to logic, reason, or rational debate. When someone presents their argument in a pleasurable format, they will either simply ignore it and act like it doesn't exist, or attack it with strong negative reactions to stigmatise it and further others to react negatively towards it. One way to create an argument that will actually meet the emotionally reactive populace, then, is not to use solely rational arguments (though you do need those as the basis for your argumentation), but to use the kind of discourse the people are used to using, which means drawing upon emotion and not being shy about painting the opposition in a negative light. This isn't "stooping to their level," as there is a basis of logic and reason, but rather using the argumentative techniques that they are successfully using against a largely uneducated and emotionally reactive audience. Another thing about the pamphlet that people seemed to miss was who the target audience actually was. It's target wasn't actually the fundies or strongly religious, but rather those who are either seeking out another option (consciously or unconsciously) or at least receptive to a broader array of viewpoints. Even just getting it accepted that people don't have to have a god to be a good, moral person without "converting" anyone would be a large step in the right direction. For this argument to reach a more emotional, and therefore larger, audience, though, it has to make sure the other side is also stigmatised, even if in a very immediate and temporary way, so as to gain an approximation of emotional balance between the sides, or they will be left as the side that is shunned. This is the reason such language has to be used. This is why there must be loud, abrasive arguments. This is why sometimes violence is the only reason things are heard. Don't take this as to mean I condone violence, but rather that I condemn those who make it the only medium left to people to actually be heard. As for whether intelligent people who refuse to learn are stupid, I say the label is apt as they are functionally the same as those who are simply unable to learn. I agree that it is a little bit of a misnomer, but because the end result is functionally the same they're at least synonymous.
|
|