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

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.

Yonder wrote:

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

IMAGE(http://i.qkme.me/3ppk4j.jpg)

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.

Do I then get to tell this person that JP Satre was an atheist? Existential Christianity floors me.

It is a self-defeating argument.

Who made the universe?

God.

Were you there?

Well, no, but the bible says so.

Who wrote the bible?

God.

Were you there?

... No.

Also gives that creepy easter hymn a whole new dimension.

Were you there when they crucified my lord?

No.

Then how do you know it happened?

NSMike wrote:

Were you there when they crucified my lord?

No.

Then how do you know it happened?

The other danger with asking random people that:
"Yes. Pontius Pilate Punch!"

Watch out for guys with the Roman nose.

You're in trouble if you run into a Highlander.

For example: "Scientists claim the earth is warming, and say that this is the hottest year on record in New York City. What is the logical fallacy here?"

That climate is not the same as weather? That a long-term trend should not be compared to a cherry-picked example? The sum of anecdote is not data?

dejanzie wrote:
For example: "Scientists claim the earth is warming, and say that this is the hottest year on record in New York City. What is the logical fallacy here?"

That climate is not the same as weather? That a long-term trend should not be compared to a cherry-picked example? The sum of anecdote is not data?

I'm confused... taking dejanzie's response as a given... if we are warming up... is it unreasonable for somewhere to be the hottest it's ever been?

The question is probably wanting "The fallacy is that this being the hottest year on record in NYC does not, in itself, imply the earth is warming." as an answer, which is a true statement but clearly misrepresents the actual case, as dejanzie points out, by acting as though that's why (and solely why) the scientists claim the earth is warming. Even if that were the scientists sole evidence this sort of counter argument would be a fallacy fallacy.

krev82 wrote:

The question is probably wanting "The fallacy is that this being the hottest year on record in NYC does not, in itself, imply the earth is warming." as an answer, which is a true statement but clearly misrepresents the actual case, as dejanzie points out, by acting as though that's why (and solely why) the scientists claim the earth is warming. Even if that were the scientists sole evidence this sort of counter argument would be a fallacy fallacy.

Sorry I misstated the question. In the video it was phrased correctly such that the local temperature was the ONLY evidence given for the conclusion.

Hence an actual fallacy existed to point out even though the question was highly suggestive.

Stupid being me.... grrrr

The problem I have with this test is that it teaches scientifically demonstrably incorrect things to children as part of their standard education.

NO school or homeschool should be accredited or allowed to operate for even 1 hour after such a test is found. It is completely unacceptable.
I have no problem with bible study class in a private or homeschool... they were just going to do that after school anyway. But if you teach them the earth is not millions of years old, time to put them back in public school. You have just shown you are either to ignorant (willfully or otherwise), to stupid, or too much of a liar to handle educating a child.

I have seen highly deceptive questions that have a scientifically correct answer and I have *less* of a problem with that.
For example: "Scientists claim the earth is warming, and say that this is the hottest year on record in New York City. What is the logical fallacy here?" If they give the correct answer I am not as upset because at least you have a common logical framework to start from.
Unfortunately a question approximately like this was in the trailer to Jesus Camp and the answer was something about the bible... and the parent said it was correct. F*** that.

EDIT: As people below pointed out the question should read such that the ONLY evidence is the local temperature insert 'proven by the fact that this is' after this is. Sorry I suck.

Well the issue is, for me, even that question completely misstates climate science.

I do not have many issues with people questioning or doubting science, or a branch of math, and so forth. But to out and out lie or be willfully misinformed over the science itself is the heart of this matter of Christians attacking evolution, climate science, geology, archaeology.

It is summed up nicely on the part of evolution, here:
"Darwinists claim that humans evolved from apes."

Also, anyone see the video of Kirk Cameron eating that selectively bred and farm raised banana? Apparently God is a farmer in Ecuador.