Fellow Atheists/Agnostic Atheists - Let's Chat: Do you feel it is risky being "out" these days?

Is there a dark side to Cesar Chavez that I did not know about?

KingGorilla wrote:

Is there a dark side to Cesar Chavez that I did not know about?

I'm pretty sure he's famous for being one of the Roman Empire's blood thirstiest rulers. That's why a Cesar salad is basically a "head" of lettuce.

People who don't know the difference between Cesar Chavez and Hugo Chávez... *sigh* *facepalm*

It's gone from her twitter feed now. I can only assume she got tired of thousands of people telling her how dumb she sounded.

That Tweet was a bit more ironic considering that it's also Passover, that lovely religious celebration of god trying to forcefully impose his will on Egypt by unleashing disease and starvation and, ultimately, murdering thousands and thousands of innocent children.

OG_slinger wrote:

That Tweet was a bit more ironic considering that it's also Passover, that lovely religious celebration of god trying to forcefully impose his will on Egypt by unleashing disease and starvation and, ultimately, murdering thousands and thousands of innocent children.

Oh, I'm sure that someone could tell you why it was okay because it was to all to end the (totally unsupported by any archaeological data) enslavement of the Hebrews. (for bonus points: explain the Biblical phrase "...but God hardened Pharaoh's heart.")

KrazyTacoFO wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

Is there a dark side to Cesar Chavez that I did not know about?

I'm pretty sure he's famous for being one of the Roman Empire's blood thirstiest rulers. That's why a Cesar salad is basically a "head" of lettuce.

Everything is explained by the documentary The Grapes of Wrath.

Nuean wrote:
Higgledy wrote:
Nuean wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

The bible is pretty clear, people with disabilities and terminal diseases are god's puppets to give lessons and warnings to the rest of humanity. I just, eww. A parent using their son like that, eww. Just evil sh*t right there.

Whats worse is the kid clearly doesn't want anything to do with the dog. He is trying his best push it away or to get away from it for the entire video. The kid actually attacks the dog out of frustration (as best he can) at the 1:50 mark. That wasn't a hug. The dog just wants some attention and to be petted. It's clearly a super nice dog, but if it was actually showing empathy, it would have either laid there calmly or just left the kid alone.

To me the kid doesn't want to know at first but is playing with the dog at the end. All the time the dog is encouraging the kid to play and, when just moving forwards doesn't help, it presents itself in a none threatening manner.

The dog is just the sweetest dog ever, no doubt. But man, that kid is not playing with the dog at the end. He is backed up against the wall, can't scoot any further away, and resorts to turning his back to the dog to attempt to make the whole situation go away.

I agree. What reads as empathy is the dog trying to get the kid to pet it over and over. Far from empathy, it is really about as self-centered as it can be. The dog gets props for being sweet about it, but it is doing nothing for the child.

The dewy-eyed myth of the child with Down syndrome as gentle little cherub apparently does not extend to kids with ADHD or autism.

I think a large part of the attraction in being an atheist is that you never have to make excuses for crap like this.

On Monday’s episode of CBN’s The 700 Club, Robertson responded to a viewer who wanted to know why “amazing miracles (people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking) happen with great frequency in places like Africa, and not here in the USA?”

"People overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools,” the TV preacher laughed. “We’re so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out. We know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real.”

“We have been inundated with skepticism and secularism,” he conintued. “And overseas, they’re simple, humble. You tell ‘em God loves ‘em and they say, ‘Okay, he loves me.’ You say God will do miracles and they say, ‘Okay, we believe him.’”

“And that’s what God’s looking for. That’s why they have miracles.”

Paleocon wrote:

I think a large part of the attraction in being an atheist is that you never have to make excuses for crap like this.

On Monday’s episode of CBN’s The 700 Club, Robertson responded to a viewer who wanted to know why “amazing miracles (people raised from the dead, blind eyes open, lame people walking) happen with great frequency in places like Africa, and not here in the USA?”

"People overseas didn’t go to Ivy League schools,” the TV preacher laughed. “We’re so sophisticated, we think we’ve got everything figured out. We know about evolution, we know about Darwin, we know about all these things that says God isn’t real.”

“We have been inundated with skepticism and secularism,” he conintued. “And overseas, they’re simple, humble. You tell ‘em God loves ‘em and they say, ‘Okay, he loves me.’ You say God will do miracles and they say, ‘Okay, we believe him.’”

“And that’s what God’s looking for. That’s why they have miracles.”

So God's omnipotence is stymied by education. Got it.

God of the gaps. Or a god of ignorance.

Penn and Teller or James Randi can demonstrate biblical miracles on stage, can show cold reading is not being psychic or being in touch with ghosts.

The sad thing is that for Africa the mysticism also goes another way. A man or woman might be dragged from their home and killed for practicing dark magics.

It was not so long ago in human history that what is contained in the farmer's almanac was the realm of magic, mysticism, and the gods.

KingGorilla wrote:

The sad thing is that for Africa the mysticism also goes another way. A man or woman might be dragged from their home and killed for practicing dark magics.

Yeah, funny they didn't ask Pat Robertson about that.

AFP[/url]]Bangladesh police have arrested three atheist bloggers for allegedly defaming Islam and the Prophet Mohammed, police said Tuesday, amid calls from religious fundamentalists for an Internet crackdown.

The arrest of the three, who were paraded in handcuffs at a news conference, followed pressure from Islamists who have organised a march from all over the country to the capital to demand the death penalty for atheist bloggers.

"They have hurt the religious feelings of the people by writing against different religions and their prophets and founders including the Prophet Mohammed," said deputy commissioner of Dhaka police, Molla Nazrul Islam.

The three could face 10 years in jail if convicted under the country's cyber laws which outlaw "defaming" a religion, Islam said.

It is entirely okay for religious people to say and do whatever they want, but the non-religious have to be kept down and cannot voice anything of their own.

My sister got married this weekend and I inherited a 7 year old nephew. It will definitely be a struggle because his biological family are all very religious. And he goes to a Christian school. It's going to be really hard to keep from trying to shatter his worldview.

But it did get me thinking this weekend. He still believes in Santa and the Easter bunny (though likely not for much longer). I couldn't help but compare those two make believe characters with Jesus (I'm really happy my phone's swipe dictionary did not include Jesus and dad that it now does). It's like roughly 2000 years ago everyone's parents forgot to tell them Santa wasn't real and now everyone is in an uproar because Santa stopped bringing presents 2000 years ago and it's all the gays' fault.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

It is entirely okay for religious people to say and do whatever they want, but the non-religious have to be kept down and cannot voice anything of their own.

Yup. Free speech until you insult something that specifically matters to someone. They would have been good friends with Isaac Hayes.

Yeah, that Pat Robertson story seems to be making the rounds in the atheist blogosphere. It's par for the course for Pat; smug and almost self-congratulatory in it's delivery, as if he's just sunk our intellectual battleship. And of course, so bat-sh*t insane one hardly knows where to begin.

The threads on the issue he's referencing seem to have died off so I'll share it here.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/O6uL718.jpg)

Now if only we had a politician brave enough to say that.

Higgledy wrote:
Nuean wrote:
KingGorilla wrote:

The bible is pretty clear, people with disabilities and terminal diseases are god's puppets to give lessons and warnings to the rest of humanity. I just, eww. A parent using their son like that, eww. Just evil sh*t right there.

Whats worse is the kid clearly doesn't want anything to do with the dog. He is trying his best push it away or to get away from it for the entire video. The kid actually attacks the dog out of frustration (as best he can) at the 1:50 mark. That wasn't a hug. The dog just wants some attention and to be petted. It's clearly a super nice dog, but if it was actually showing empathy, it would have either laid there calmly or just left the kid alone.

To me the kid doesn't want to know at first but is playing with the dog at the end. All the time the dog is encouraging the kid to play and, when just moving forwards doesn't help, it presents itself in a none threatening manner.

The child seemed slightly interested in the dog as something to look at from a distance but every time the dog made contact the child tried to move it's paw off his body. Right before the 'hug' you can see the child try in vain to lift the dogs paw off his lap then he pulls in on the dog like he is trying to stand up or pull himself out from under the dog. It's sad to watch.

Who was the jerk with the camera filming this entire thing and not intervening?
The kid may love the dog but clearly doesn't want physical interaction right now. But the only person capable of breaking things up is too busy with a camcorder. Just sad.

Looks like the homeschooling materials my sister and her husband use for my niece and nephew.

Probably my favorite is 18, where the official response to somebody who questions young earth creationism is:

were you there?

Which is pretty humorous to me, because if that were actually a valid way to disprove something, the "correct" answers on that test would also be suspect. I just have to wonder / hope that somewhere out there a kid is getting this indoctrination, then asking the teacher "were you there?" when she explains all the magic Jesus was doing.

gore wrote:

Probably my favorite is 18, where the official response to somebody who questions young earth creationism is:

were you there?

Which is pretty humorous to me, because if that were actually a valid way to disprove something, the "correct" answers on that test would also be suspect. I just have to wonder / hope that somewhere out there a kid is getting this indoctrination, then asking the teacher "were you there?" when she explains all the magic Jesus was doing.

Sorry to dash your hopes, but their response is "I don't have to have been there, the Bible says it's so" and that's the end of the debate for them.

I dislike anything that relies on a logical fallacy being taught as a good argument winner to a kid.

Taken to its logical extreme, "were you there" means you can't actually have any knowledge outside of your direct experience.

Unfortunately there are some people who would see that as a feature, not a problem.

Demyx wrote:

Taken to its logical extreme, "were you there" means you can't actually have any knowledge outside of your direct experience.

Unfortunately there are some people who would see that as a feature, not a problem.

*from his mudhut* working as intended!

"Yeah actually I was there, I'm crazy old. You were not there so you don't know I wasn't." :E

The next time someone says "God created the world in 6 days.", what can you say?

were you there
THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

Chewbacca was there during the flood. His fur got all wet and the whole arc smelled for the entire storm.