Spreading Atheism

[Worsle]

Actually it is you who missed the point, even though I used bold. Let me try this again using a combination of bold, underline, and italics.

Lets see if you can tell the difference between these two statements.

1. I believe there is no god.

2. There is no god.

To help you I sort of emphasised the difference. When people discuss each others beliefs as beliefs, then they can approach the subject with respect and maturity, as a belief because belief gives room for doubt. It isn't claimed as fact. That in itself isn't bigotry, it is just fundamentalism. It crosses into bigotry once one side sets about trying to convert the other.

Ok if this is the direction your argument is going lets look at the statement again.

"There is probably no god"

Note the word in bold there, that is an important word and makes it a different sentence from "there is no god".

That and if you are against people trying to convert peoples beliefs then what are you doing here in this thread? That and why are you not saying you believe it crosses the line into bigotry rather than just stating it as fact?

Edit. You know what I just thought how funny it would be if churches where required to say they are probably the house of the lord. It is PC gone mad I tells you.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Actually it is you who missed the point, even though I used bold. Let me try this again using a combination of bold, underline, and italics.

Lets see if you can tell the difference between these two statements.

1. I believe there is no god.

2. There is no god.

To help you I sort of emphasised the difference. When people discuss each others beliefs as beliefs, then they can approach the subject with respect and maturity, as a belief because belief gives room for doubt. It isn't claimed as fact. That in itself isn't bigotry, it is just fundamentalism. It crosses into bigotry once one side sets about trying to convert the other.

Ok if this is the direction your argument is going lets look at the statement again.

"There is probably no god"

Note the word in bold there, that is an important word and makes it a different sentence from "there is no god".

It is not the important word. "Belief" is the word. "Belief" is the same as "I think, but I am not absolutely certain". It is an extremely important word when dealing with theology.

That and if you are against people trying to convert peoples beliefs then what are you doing here in this thread? That and why are you not saying you believe it crosses the line into bigotry rather than just stating it as fact?

Again, you completely failed to comprehend my posts. Tell me once where I have told anyone what to believe. Just once. Not just in this thread, but in my thousands of posts at this site. Just once.

 

[Worsle]

It is not the important word. "Belief" is the word. "Belief" is the same as "I think, but I am not absolutely certain". It is an extremely important word when dealing with theology.

Are you familiar with the word probably?

Again, you completely failed to comprehend my posts. Tell me once where I have told anyone what to believe. Just once. Not just in this thread, but in my thousands of posts at this site. Just once.

You have directly posted that it is bigotry, if being told there probably is no god is telling me what to believe then so are you. You are telling me to conform to your ideals of what should and should not be said, the very fact action of arguing your point goes against your point.

Edit. Obama probably the best candidate for president.

 

[AcacianLeaves]

Look the bottom line is that Atheists are still a small, fringe group in the world. Promoting Atheism by attacking people's beliefs is not the right way towards tolerance and acceptance of Atheism as a mainstream belief system. Should they be allowed to paint "There is probably no God" on the cannon? Sure, but it's only going to get them negative attention and not mainstream acceptance. Also, adding the modifier 'probably' is more of an agnostic philosophy anyway...

I disagree with you here. There are a lot of atheists in the world, the vast majority of whom are content to just be atheists without being a bother. The people you are talking about are people on the lunatic fringe (you will see many such people on this forum). You know how moderate reasonable Christians hate to be associated with the likes of Phelps and Falwell? Be careful you don't fall into the trap of associating reasonable and tolerant atheists with the likes of Harris and certain Escapist posters.

This is absolutely true, but in the end people that are not a part of that system of belief are going to associate that belief with the fringe. How many Christians think most Muslims are terrorists or somehow hate America? How many Atheists think most Christians are fanatics? Denouncing the fringe has to come from within the belief system or community itself.

On a different note, Atheism is no more based on science and reason than Theism is. They are both based on a conceptual and metaphysical idea that, by its nature, does not directly interact with reality in any way that we can test or measure.

For instance, can you prove indisputably to a colorblind man that colors exist as we see them and not as he does? As far as he knows, people are lying to him and his perception is the true way to see things.

Or for a better example in the context of this argument, try to conceptualize what human beings are to a single-celled organism. Such an organism has no means to possibly determine our existence. It can't 'see' us, it can't even really directly feel the effects we may have on the world in which it exists. A single celled organism, even if they were as intelligent as human beings, have zero chance of ever proving (or for that matter disproving) our existence. Does this then mean that we don't exist?

 

[Timotei]

Im glad atheism is spreading because now that we're in this setback financially, people are thinking more logically and seeing that we're wasting a lot of money on churches

The government was able to take us as stupid asses who'd believe the story of jesus if we told them but that's starting to fade away

It's actually quote the opposite. People are turning to the church in droves as times get tougher and they need some personal guidance. Atheism is also on the rise as well since people now think more logically then ever.

And it doesn't depend if we believe in Jaysus or not, the government will always treat its people like dumbasses and will try and see exactly how they can get away with.

EDIT: if that person with a huge face in black in white for an avatar quotes me, i'll kick ur ass

OOOH! An Internet Tuff Guy! What are you, 13? Does it really matter if someone makes a smartass quote? Is it going to fuck up your life *that* badly?

Welcome to the Internets. Enjoy your stay.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

The point is, they could have put up anything and still wouldn't have been pointing their accusing fingers at one specific religion and it's denominations. If they said, "There is probably no Allah" we would still have the same problem. Same with any other religion they could pick on, though it seems Christianity is the hometown favorite of the atheist scoff.

The sign says there is no god, Allah is a god so the sign is saying there is no Allah. It does not say there is no Jehovah, witch would be a lot more specific and give you a point. Also christians are really passive aggressive really, oh know atheists in predominantly christian countries are more likely to say things about christianity? Well boho.

Also why is it always Allah people go for? Why not Vishnu? Is it because christian's see muslims as scary despite them being mostly the same thing?

Okay, now your just picking on any statement that might contradicting in a certain context rather than responding to the heart of the matter. I dunno about you, but I got one of those "let people believe what they friggin' want to, and let me believe what I want" creeds. If I had said Vishnu, you probably would have called me on it anyway, just so you could argue something.

And I don't know if you know this, but there are HUNDREDS of other religions out there that don't even worship a "god" figure at all, and yes they are classified as religions. Yet, despite this they clearly put "There is no god." And like you said, this is a country that is predominantly Christian. And in my experience, starting a thread based on Vishnu doesn't insight as much atheist rage as a thread based on Christianity or Catholicism. Face it, most of you guys have favoritism when choosing which religion to put up at the targeting range.

Either way, it doesn't matter. None of that matters because my entire point is that it was clearly offensive for the sake of being offensive. Anybody can see that. Any idiot can see that. Why you or anyone else couldn't doesn't make a lick of sense to me, but the fact that your arguing with me even now proves that you just don't want to. I'm sorry but it's true. So, boohoo to you... or "boho" or whatever...

 

[Alex_P]

Atheism still has a shared idea of an ultimate truth dealing with the metaphysical nature of the human soul.

So rejecting metaphysics as empty fap makes me a metaphysician?

-- Alex

 

[xplay3r]

OT:There will always be a battle of belief as long as two types of beliefs exsist, wich there always will, no matter what facts come out. Figthing about it is stupid and is fultile, because faith is believeing in something when there is no proof, so you can't prove anything.
It's like fighting over a flower, I think it's beautiful and smells good, you think it's ugly and smells bad. Neither can prove it because there's a feeling or a reaction in me that says one thing and vise versa.

Sorry but that statement is completely void when comparing religious belief and atheism.
Atheism is not built on "feelings" or "belief" it's based on science, reason and most importantly a lot evidence in it's favour.

If I've to use your anology its like religion saying there is a belief that this plant produces healing leaves and atheism saying that while science can't disprove this outright, there is overwhelming evidence to show the plants leaves have no positive effect at all.

I believe there is no god based on the facts i've seen. and I'm feel that I'm right. I'm right. thats a belief and a feeling. no it not faith, it's not believeing in something when there is no proof, there's logical and scientific facts that make the exsistance of a god highly unlikley. So it's not faith, because it's built on solid facts, but it is a belief. I believe there is no god. true or not it's what I feel given the evidence. I could be wrong, god could descend from the heavens and hit me with lightning. but given the evidence I've said I highly doubt a god exsists.

Yes but the power of the mind is amazingly powerful.
They could have solid concrete proof that these plants did nothing, but if someone truley believed those plants could heal them, they could actually trick they're mind into believing those plants are healing them.
True or not they're believe is making it work.
So I KNOW the plant does nothing, and I also BELIEVE it does nothing. If I KNOW that it doesn't work but I BELIEVE that science is wrong then the placyebo effect could take place. Most religions claim to KNOW there is a god, as science KNOWS there is no god. People just listen to the answer that makes them feel better, and believe it. Fact or not. Belief doesn't mean fact it's just how you feel and think about things.
You can KNOW there is no god but still talk to him everyonce in a while talk to him, not bevause you believe he's real, but because it gives you comfort to talk to someone, and it makes you feel less crazy then talking to yourself lol

It's a fine line but belief and knowlage are to diffrent things.



I'm not feeling very eloquent today, I just woke up and I'm feeling kinda under the wether, so I'm not sure if I'm making my point clear, or if I'm just rambleing on, I do apologize if it's the latter....or If I'm just flat wrong in what I'm trying to say lol

 

[guttergal]

xplay3r, I liked your reply even though it was pretty jumbled however I still think my point stands.

I don't think the flower analogy can be applied to the struggle between religion and science/atheism as it does not take into consideration that;

1. Religion is based on a set of rules and ideology hundreds of years old and relies on faith and the denial of proof so that it's beliefs can be preserved.

2. Science does not take into consideration personal taste (e.g. joy/displeasure of the flower) or gut feelings, just evidence which it will then use to adapt its view (not beliefs) on what is observed.

 

[Alex_P]

It depends on the level one takes their atheism too. Some people practice their atheism to such a level it becomes almost like a cult. People do the same with PS3s, PCs, Xboxes, Batman, Yahtzee, ice cream, The Office, Xenu, political parties, hair colour, 4chan, and all manner of stupid things. In these instances the actual thing they are obsessing over (whether atheism or crappy Christian Bale movies) are not to blame for their malady.

You're cheating with definitions of "cult" here, and in a rather bad way.

"Cult" in the generic cultural sense just refers to a devoted followers of a fad, yes, but in modern popular usage, a religious "cult" is much, much more than that -- it's an authoritarian group that employs psychological abuse ("coercive persuasion", "brainwashing" in pop culture) to draw in and retain its members. Random fans of Jesus aren't a "cult"; people who believe their founder is Jesus and give him all their money or kill themselves for him are a cult.

Stupidly devoted fans of The Office, its "cult following", are still just fans of The Office. They don't love-bomb people to make them fans of The Office. They don't form separatist communities consisting solely of fans of The Office. They don't give their money away to an Office-fan-leader. They don't acquiesce to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse at the hands of other Office fans because they can't imagine a life away from other fans of The Office.

And, when it comes to organized cults, yes, the beliefs of the cult are to blame for its excesses. Because those beliefs aren't just an accident -- they're the foundation of the entire system of control and abuse.

-- Alex

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Bias yes...

Playing devils advocate, ha ha, I can see why they did it though. They might not have seen it as an advertisement of the atheist club. I don't have all the facts, I feel, but they could of easily over looked the fact the atheist group wrote it. Instead believing the sole purpose of the writing was inflammatory, designed as a insult to religious people everywhere and nothing more. In basic, seeing it as a single person writing it with no more intention then to cause trouble.

I can understand why some people might take offence at such a statement and in doing so fail to understand the political/social message behind it. Stupid people, in my opinion, but I can understand their over-reaction.

As for the people who do get up in arms over such a message: GROW UP! Either they need to get over their massive egos, which refuses to entertain that they might be wrong, or stop being so insecure about their own beliefs that someone saying 'I disagree with you' shakes their very core. Both cause an irrational 'flight or fight' response and either reaction is wrong in many situations, almost all of them, because both tend to cause a 'over-reaction' where rational thought would come to a much more reasonable outcome.

Over responses such as this one... the erasing a reasonable, written, statement because of some perceived 'threat' to the security of the student body that doesn't even exist. The correct, and only reasoning, response is accepting that others hold different views and letting then have as much say as you would like to have as well. In a place like a school, such views should be encouraged as they can teach a wide range of things. At the very least, how to debate in a reasonable and respectful fashion.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

It depends on the level one takes their atheism too. Some people practice their atheism to such a level it becomes almost like a cult. People do the same with PS3s, PCs, Xboxes, Batman, Yahtzee, ice cream, The Office, Xenu, political parties, hair colour, 4chan, and all manner of stupid things. In these instances the actual thing they are obsessing over (whether atheism or crappy Christian Bale movies) are not to blame for their malady.

You're cheating with definitions of "cult" here, and in a rather bad way.

"Cult" in the generic cultural sense just refers to a devoted followers of a fad, yes, but in modern popular usage, a religious "cult" is much, much more than that -- it's an authoritarian group that employs psychological abuse ("coercive persuasion", "brainwashing" in pop culture) to draw in and retain its members. Random fans of Jesus aren't a "cult"; people who believe their founder is Jesus and give him all their money or kill themselves for him are a cult.

Stupidly devoted fans of The Office, its "cult following", are still just fans of The Office. They don't love-bomb people to make them fans of The Office. They don't form separatist communities consisting solely of fans of The Office. They don't give their money away to an Office-fan-leader. They don't acquiesce to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse at the hands of other Office fans because they can't imagine a life away from other fans of The Office.

And, when it comes to organized cults, yes, the beliefs of the cult are to blame for its excesses. Because those beliefs aren't just an accident -- they're the foundation of the entire system of control and abuse.

-- Alex

While some of that is true, people have beaten up, killed, and otherwise resorted to extreme violence in the name of atheism( [citation with links from that citation [http://www.prattle.net/archives/002288.html]]. Look at something like natural selection, a science which Hilter used to justify his purge and/or forced sterilizations of people who were "inferior". Does this mean that atheism or survival of the fittest are responsible for what happened? Of course not.

I think that blaming an actual belief for anything unleashes an evil new evil on the world - accepting that people are not wholey responsible for what they do because they believed something. I, for instance, have an extremely nature-centric Pagan belief. I believe that life is completely sacred and that humans have no rights to, for instance, factory farm animals. But that doesn't mean I am going to go out there and free all the sheep, then murder everyone who works in abattoirs. Why, if I utterly believe such things are wrong, wouldn't I interviene? Because my actions are not based soley on my beliefs. If I did do such a thing, could I just blame my beliefs and tell the rest of the world I was doing them a favour?

Only when one acts soley on their beliefs do such things as cults become dangerous. When all common sense and actual humanity and compassion are thrown out of the window for the sake of things like "truth", or "righteousness" or "making the world better for everyone" do such things become dangerous. And when this happens it is no good blaming whatever belief or event started it, the person who decided to abandon all else and just do what they believed has to be held responsible.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Personally, on atheism...

I think people, self-proclaimed atheists mostly, throw around words like facts and science without realising just what these things mean. I know a few will get up in arms about it but most of the time I have seen Atheists doing exactly the same thing the Gnostics do, claiming they have the backing of facts, knowledge and in cases even science.

Most of the 'facts' anyone has presented to me has been nothing more then personal experiences and opinions. While these are well and good, never underplay a personal experience, neither actually contribute to a 'fact' in any shape or form. They are beliefs. One should not have to feel shame about having a belief, it is something that defines who we are no matter what that belief is. Nothing wrong with it so there is no reason to demand a persons belief be considered fact.

Also the use of the term 'scientific' is greatly misleading. The scientific method can not be applied to religion. Not because it proves religion wrong, not being applicable doesn't automatic mean 'science has disproved' something. It simply means, at this point in time, there is no experiment out there capable of proving any outcome. Without a way to test something it can neither be proven or disproved via the scientific method, and hence can not have the backing of 'science.'

But, outside of misusing the language to mislead, I don't have a problem with Atheists or Gnostic. I respect Agnostics though, cause they have taken the only reasonable path: Stating they don't have a clue. A well thought out and very reasonable response to the question does god exist. Never a mistake admiting you don't have the answer to a question, twice so one as large as that.

PS: Some may very well take my lack of respect for the English language as 'fact' there is no god of grammar though.... I personally like to believe it will forgive my spelling and hopefully will let my message be understood.

 

[Jinx_Dragon]

Congress offically made Atheism a religion

Source. That's the first I heard of it.

I did a quick look and can't find where congress made such a ruling, which would be very bizarre as congress has NO POWER to make such a ruling. Hell congress doesn't even have more then a handful of politicians willing to admit they are Atheists, so the chance of such a ruling getting through is slim to none. Constitutionally they can't even make the ruling that Christianity is a religion! No where in that document does it allow the executive or legislative branches to define what is and isn't a religion.

BUT...

The courts, that is a different matter and only because they have the means to further define a amendment... defacto means to destroy them too but that is another gripe for another day. Not only do they have the power to say Atheism is protected as a religion they also have done just that. When a Wisconsin prison official put down a 'study group' of Atheists the court ruled, clearly, that it violated the first amendment. In doing so they have stated that the US government must view Atheism as a religion and hence protected by the constitution.

I don't need to explain the amount of 'conservative' groups that pissed off... do I?
Do have to ask though: What the hell is up with these bigots always giving them self names like "The American Family (so and so)...." It is getting the point I can't see someone claiming to be 'representing American family values' without replacing those words with "I am a Christian fundamentalist who would shit on American families for having 'the wrong faith' "

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's the comment itself. It would start the real world equivalent of a flame war. You would have a thread locked on here if you did the same thing. Something more like "Do you not believe in god? Join our group!" would have been more acceptable.

yes because that statement is far far far far far far far far worse than say, "Jesus loves you, repent now or burn in hell for all eternity."

As a general rule of thumb I look down on the religious for being deluted fuck wits. Religion has done nothing useful and all that jazz, but in practice some of them aren't that bad.

It's quite simple, looking beyond all this "probably" whatever blah. Would that statement survive as a post on the Escapist? It wouldn't. If a topic was posted with only "There is probably no god", it would be locked. In the same way, the administration just "locked" the statement.

There's an obvious difference -- the medium. The standards for a forum where you can write paragraphs and paragraphs of text are different from the standards of a place (or, in this case, object) designed specifically for quick, eye-grabbing advertisements.

Here's an easy example. On a forum, a thread that just contained the text "youfoundthecard.com" would probably be locked for lack of content. That doesn't mean "youfoundthecard.com" cards are somehow bad themselves.

"There is probably no God" isn't indecent language, it's not hate speech, and it's not frivolous as far as student-group rhetoric goes.

-- Alex

To both of you. We don't have enough information.

This argument against the school is only there if "Jesus loves you" or something along those lines were put on the cannon as well. If it wasn't, it just means some atheists wrote "You're probably wrong" with no follow up. It is inflammatory speech.

 

[SonicKoala]

Why would you spread a lack of belief in something? That doesn't make any sense. Atheism is not something that is practiced, nor is it a belief system that requires you do anything whatsoever - it is simply a definition. Therefore, no, there shouldn't be any groups that "spread Atheism", because that's just stupid. You know how you often see environmental activist groups around College or University campuses? Well, would it make any sense if you saw a similar group who was spreading a message of complete and utter apathy towards the environment? No, because that would be fucking retarded.

That being said, I do agree that there is a double-standard in allowing religious groups to spread their message, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't see the problem in letting them hand out their bibles or put up their posters. You don't have to believe in God, just as you don't have to care about the environment if some hippy activist gives you a pamphlet about the poor polar bears. Just throw it away, or ignore it. It's simple.

Actually it makes perfect sense, if someone can be allowed to try and convert people to believing in a higher power which is intimately interested in our day-to-day lives and problems then why can't someone try and convert people to believing that we are not here on this earth because some guy in the clouds wanted us here??? After all, Athieism isn't so much a non-belief system, as it is a belief system pertaining to the non-existance of something (in this case a God of some sort).

EDIT: BTW OP, awesome BuckyBall avatar.

No, it doesn't make sense. Christians are trying to convert people who already DON'T have a belief system. The only people that these Atheistic preachers would be talking to would be either theists (who wouldn't listen) or agnostics, so that's why I say having a bunch of Atheists handing out pamphlets is similar to a group preaching apathy for something. And you do realise that your last sentence was redundant, right? Having a non-belief system = believing in nothing. Sure, you have a BELIEF, but it just happens to be in nothing, so there's really no point in going around and talking about how proud you are that you believe in nothing.

 

[SonicKoala]

Why would you spread a lack of belief in something? That doesn't make any sense. Atheism is not something that is practiced, nor is it a belief system that requires you do anything whatsoever - it is simply a definition.

Atheism isn't a lack of belief anymore than being bald is a lack of a hairstyle--it's a definition of people who hold a certain belief on a question of religious subject matter.

Now, atheist is "not something that is practiced, nor is it a belief system that requires you do anything whatsoever" but that doesn't mean atheists don't have a belief in common. That belief is not a religion anymore than a bald man has a hair color, but nevertheless, atheism *is* a belief, not just a lack of belief.

Okay, first of all, if you are bald, you do lack a hairstyle. It's not your fault, but you do. And yes, you do have a belief, but that belief happens to be in absoloutely nothing. So, yeah, actually, it IS a lack of belief - you lack a belief in some sort of divine entity. A belief in nothing is not something worth preaching about - it's just as easy to believe in nothing as it is to believe in a divine being. The only people that you could possibly spread this message of nothingness to would be theists, who wouldn't listen anyway.

"That belief is not a religion anymore than a bald man has a hair color" - just as a side note, that statement makes no grammatical sense, and you need to cool it with the hair analogies.

 

[SonicKoala]

Why would you spread a lack of belief in something? That doesn't make any sense. Atheism is not something that is practiced, nor is it a belief system that requires you do anything whatsoever - it is simply a definition. Therefore, no, there shouldn't be any groups that "spread Atheism", because that's just stupid. You know how you often see environmental activist groups around College or University campuses? Well, would it make any sense if you saw a similar group who was spreading a message of complete and utter apathy towards the environment? No, because that would be fucking retarded.

That being said, I do agree that there is a double-standard in allowing religious groups to spread their message, but as long as they aren't hurting anyone, I don't see the problem in letting them hand out their bibles or put up their posters. You don't have to believe in God, just as you don't have to care about the environment if some hippy activist gives you a pamphlet about the poor polar bears. Just throw it away, or ignore it. It's simple.

Actually it makes perfect sense, if someone can be allowed to try and convert people to believing in a higher power which is intimately interested in our day-to-day lives and problems then why can't someone try and convert people to believing that we are not here on this earth because some guy in the clouds wanted us here??? After all, Athieism isn't so much a non-belief system, as it is a belief system pertaining to the non-existance of something (in this case a God of some sort).

EDIT: BTW OP, awesome BuckyBall avatar.

No, it doesn't make sense. Christians are trying to convert people who already DON'T have a belief system. The only people that these Atheistic preachers would be talking to would be either theists (who wouldn't listen) or agnostics, so that's why I say having a bunch of Atheists handing out pamphlets is similar to a group preaching apathy for something. And you do realise that your last sentence was redundant, right? Having a non-belief system = believing in nothing. Sure, you have a BELIEF, but it just happens to be in nothing, so there's really no point in going around and talking about how proud you are that you believe in nothing.

atheism is a negation of theism. it is the opposite, blah blah blah. there is no belief there is a refusal to believe. that being said, if the crazies get to spread their bullshit around campus, why don't others get to show the counter arguments?[/quote]

The fact that you would make such a blatantly offensive and ignorant statement is just one argument as to why we shouldn't let people like you go around campus spreading your "ideas".

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's the comment itself. It would start the real world equivalent of a flame war. You would have a thread locked on here if you did the same thing. Something more like "Do you not believe in god? Join our group!" would have been more acceptable.

yes because that statement is far far far far far far far far worse than say, "Jesus loves you, repent now or burn in hell for all eternity."

As a general rule of thumb I look down on the religious for being deluted fuck wits. Religion has done nothing useful and all that jazz, but in practice some of them aren't that bad.

It's quite simple, looking beyond all this "probably" whatever blah. Would that statement survive as a post on the Escapist? It wouldn't. If a topic was posted with only "There is probably no god", it would be locked. In the same way, the administration just "locked" the statement.

There's an obvious difference -- the medium. The standards for a forum where you can write paragraphs and paragraphs of text are different from the standards of a place (or, in this case, object) designed specifically for quick, eye-grabbing advertisements.

Here's an easy example. On a forum, a thread that just contained the text "youfoundthecard.com" would probably be locked for lack of content. That doesn't mean "youfoundthecard.com" cards are somehow bad themselves.

"There is probably no God" isn't indecent language, it's not hate speech, and it's not frivolous as far as student-group rhetoric goes.

-- Alex

To both of you. We don't have enough information.

This argument against the school is only there if "Jesus loves you" or something along those lines were put on the cannon as well. If it wasn't, it just means some atheists wrote "You're probably wrong" with no follow up. It is inflammatory speech.

except the statement, "there is probably no god," is the one most supported by the evidence, or lack thereof as the case may be.

But the point behind Christianity is that they have to go on faith. Under that assumption, they think they are right. So writing "There probably is no god." is about like saying "You're probably wrong." to them. Without any follow up for where to discuss this, it's trolling.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

It's the comment itself. It would start the real world equivalent of a flame war. You would have a thread locked on here if you did the same thing. Something more like "Do you not believe in god? Join our group!" would have been more acceptable.

yes because that statement is far far far far far far far far worse than say, "Jesus loves you, repent now or burn in hell for all eternity."

As a general rule of thumb I look down on the religious for being deluted fuck wits. Religion has done nothing useful and all that jazz, but in practice some of them aren't that bad.

It's quite simple, looking beyond all this "probably" whatever blah. Would that statement survive as a post on the Escapist? It wouldn't. If a topic was posted with only "There is probably no god", it would be locked. In the same way, the administration just "locked" the statement.

There's an obvious difference -- the medium. The standards for a forum where you can write paragraphs and paragraphs of text are different from the standards of a place (or, in this case, object) designed specifically for quick, eye-grabbing advertisements.

Here's an easy example. On a forum, a thread that just contained the text "youfoundthecard.com" would probably be locked for lack of content. That doesn't mean "youfoundthecard.com" cards are somehow bad themselves.

"There is probably no God" isn't indecent language, it's not hate speech, and it's not frivolous as far as student-group rhetoric goes.

-- Alex

To both of you. We don't have enough information.

This argument against the school is only there if "Jesus loves you" or something along those lines were put on the cannon as well. If it wasn't, it just means some atheists wrote "You're probably wrong" with no follow up. It is inflammatory speech.

except the statement, "there is probably no god," is the one most supported by the evidence, or lack thereof as the case may be.

But the point behind Christianity is that they have to go on faith. Under that assumption, they think they are right. So writing "There probably is no god." is about like saying "You're probably wrong." to them. Without any follow up for where to discuss this, it's trolling.

ok, recommend some inoffensive statement that would get the same point across. You can't anything that is said will be like trolling because it won't unquestionably honor their beliefs and they can't stand that. any rational person when confronted with a statement tantamount to, you're probably wrong would respond with something along the lines of, I demand to know why. they didn't they chose censorship. it's not our fault they're irrational.

It's not that it's a trolling statement! Pay attention! It's a trolling statement with no follow up. The most acceptable statement would have been "Do you not believe in god? come to blah blah blah and join our discussions". After what they put, "There probably is no god. If you would like to discuss this statement, come to blah blah blah". It's not that difficult!