Science and Theology, the sequel

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

03/07/2010 11:26:17 PM · #1676

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What was the name of the organization raising Cain?

In this specific instance it would be the group referred to Here

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What do we know about this judge? Does she have a history or pattern of such abuse? or did she choose to show her colors for the first time, not with someone of her own sect, but with a Muslim?

Does it really matter what we know about this judge or what her reasons were. Hers was a faux-pas and should not have been a factor in the decision making process. I am certainly not advocating that she be tied to the stake or hung in effigy, but surely this should be considered a transgression and she should be the subject of some form of review.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I know we may all look the same to you, but religion is not somehow joined in its conspiracy against atheism.

To be honest with you I doubt anyone could identify one's religion simply by looking at the person... with the exception of Cardinals and other similarly readily discernible individuals, and considering the limited number of atheist, a conspiracy against them would be a gross overkill.

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-03-07 23:39:53.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

03/08/2010 05:51:41 PM · #1677

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

What do we know about this judge? Does she have a history or pattern of such abuse? or did she choose to show her colors for the first time, not with someone of her own sect, but with a Muslim? I know we may all look the same to you, but religion is not somehow joined in its conspiracy against atheism.

She and her husband came out very publicly in favour of Catholicism a couple of years ago. Her husband is accused of helping to start an illegal war that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The link seems to not be working for me again, but I'll put my money where my mouth is. What was the name of the organization raising Cain? I'm guessing if they have a wiki we will see a history of controversy a la PETA. The goal is merely to raise their profile by making outlandish claims, etc etc etc. This preaches to the choir who give them more money to continue their crusade (and I use that in the fully religious sense without irony).

Atheists don't tend to get much in the way of representation despite forming a very significant proportion of the world's population. Obstacles include the absence of: a promise of eternal life in exchange for donations; and a grand unifying body.

Religions do have vast monetary reserves, they lobby hard and play dirty (they have a lot of worldly wealth and power to lose). Here is an example in the US: //newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/07/christianity-crucifying-the-constitution/

Message edited by author 2010-03-08 17:52:23.

03/08/2010 06:34:26 PM · #1678

That's gotta be a pretty bizarre reply Matthew. I don't know what you are getting at.

So she is very publicly in favor of Catholicism and her husband helped start a war that killed lots of Muslims, and as a continuation of this egregious pattern she excuses a criminal because he's Muslim? That makes no sense to me.

Another obstacle for atheists is they are like nailing Jell-O to the wall. At times they are a coherent body, as in this case. Atheists are outraged that religious people are given preference. Then at other times, when beneficial, they point out that they don't have any central creed and the group is quite heterogenous except for their lack of belief in gods. In fact, we're all atheists, but some go one God further, right? ;)

Message edited by author 2010-03-08 18:35:05.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

03/08/2010 06:44:38 PM · #1679

Or they go one God further right. :-)

03/08/2010 08:16:56 PM · #1680

Originally posted by Melethia:

Or they go one God further right. :-)

Who comes next alphabetically after God? Horus? Or would it be one right from Yahweh? Zeus? Man those atheists are totally confused! :-)

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

03/08/2010 09:27:41 PM · #1681

I think it means "right" from the viewer's viewpoint of the big group shot.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/09/2010 01:34:49 AM · #1682

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Or they go one God further right. :-)

Who comes next alphabetically after God? Horus? Or would it be one right from Yahweh? Zeus? Man those atheists are totally confused! :-)

But going left brings you closer to his noodly appendage...

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

03/09/2010 05:46:58 AM · #1683

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's gotta be a pretty bizarre reply Matthew. I don't know what you are getting at.

It looked like you didn't know who she was - I was just explaining, not making a real point. One of the reasons that Cherie Booth gets quoted whereas other judges do not is her high public profile.

Regardless of all of this, as a point of principle, it is totally unacceptable for criminal sentencing to take into account religiosity as a redeeming factor. Sentencing is not â��finger in the airâ�� stuff anymore and Cherie made a significant mistake by taking this into account. It calls into question the judge's impartiality (especially in this case when she has made a public commitment towards a religion).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Another obstacle for atheists is they are like nailing Jell-O to the wall. At times they are a coherent body, as in this case. Atheists are outraged that religious people are given preference. Then at other times, when beneficial, they point out that they don't have any central creed and the group is quite heterogenous except for their lack of belief in gods. In fact, we're all atheists, but some go one God further, right? ;)

And religionists are coherent? There are a million different interpretations of what is right/wrong or indifferent. The one thing that they all agree is that as part of your worship it is important to donate money to them for them to use in self-perpetuation.

03/11/2010 03:39:03 PM · #1684

Looks like the old National Secular Society is at it again...atheist guilty over leaving cartoons at Liverpool airport.

The crusade continues!

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/11/2010 03:58:29 PM · #1685

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Looks like the old National Secular Society is at it again...atheist guilty over leaving cartoons at Liverpool airport.

The crusade continues!

And if I'm "offended" by pictures of the Crucifixion -- certainly a gory spectacle -- such as those often promulgated by Jehovah's Witnesses, what recourse would you suggest I have/should have?

FWIW I think the answer is "none" ...

03/11/2010 04:22:34 PM · #1686

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Do you think the same about a good noose hanging in a strategically located tree?

Message edited by author 2010-03-11 16:22:47.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/11/2010 04:46:52 PM · #1687

What do you think?

03/11/2010 05:07:54 PM · #1688

I think a song like that on the radio today would raise quite an uproar.

03/11/2010 06:08:39 PM · #1689

Uh oh, it's a bad day today. Someone get on the NSS batphone!

Court upholds "under God" in pledge and "In God we trust" on coins

Actually, to tell you the truth, I don't recite the pledge, but that's a different matter.

03/11/2010 06:19:18 PM · #1690

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Looks like the old National Secular Society is at it again...atheist guilty over leaving cartoons at Liverpool airport.

The crusade continues!

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Do you think the same about a good noose hanging in a strategically located tree?

Why don't you answer Paul's question instead of trying to be clever and side-step it?

What if it offends someone's sensibilities to see someone stuck on a cross with spikes driven through their hands and feet?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/11/2010 06:27:18 PM · #1691

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Someone get on the NSS batphone!

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Actually, to tell you the truth, I don't recite the pledge, but that's a different matter.

Interesting ...

My parents once knew a guy with a ranch/commune up in Sonoma County. One day he went into the Recorder's office with the intent of deeding the property over to God. When the not-so-helpful clerk tried to point out that the Governement didn't recognize God as an entity, he just pulled a quarter out of his pocket, pointed to the inscription and said, "I mean this one."

03/11/2010 07:33:03 PM · #1692

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Looks like the old National Secular Society is at it again...atheist guilty over leaving cartoons at Liverpool airport.

The crusade continues!

Originally posted by GeneralE:
And if I'm "offended" by pictures of the Crucifixion -- certainly a gory spectacle -- such as those often promulgated by Jehovah's Witnesses, what recourse would you suggest I have/should have?

FWIW I think the answer is "none" ...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you think the same about a good noose hanging in a strategically located tree?

Why don't you answer Paul's question instead of trying to be clever and side-step it?

What if it offends someone's sensibilities to see someone stuck on a cross with spikes driven through their hands and feet?

Well, if there was a reasonable expectation that the group may be offended by it, I'd have issues with someone forcing it upon them. I'm not going to condone someone raising a crucifix at a jewish synagogue.

But you are missing some of the point. Intent is important. A noose in a black person's yard has an intent. This dude leaving cartoons of religious figures in sexual positions in a chapel goes beyond "challenging the views of others" in exactly the same way. It's so obvious to me it's not even worth arguing about. I mainly brought it up because I'm enjoying poking fun at the NSS. They seem to be the PETA of atheism and having driven by PETA headquarters every day on my way to work as a resident, I know they are worth mocking (even though I'm generally against cruelty to animals).

03/11/2010 07:52:44 PM · #1693

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But you are missing some of the point. Intent is important. A noose in a black person's yard has an intent. This dude leaving cartoons of religious figures in sexual positions in a chapel goes beyond "challenging the views of others" in exactly the same way. It's so obvious to me it's not even worth arguing about. I mainly brought it up because I'm enjoying poking fun at the NSS. They seem to be the PETA of atheism and having driven by PETA headquarters every day on my way to work as a resident, I know they are worth mocking (even though I'm generally against cruelty to animals).

Yes, but is this a crime best served by jailing someone? I'm having a hard time understanding that on any level. Hate groups are permitted to demonstarte, and they often exhibit bad taste, but you don't often hear of people being jailed until a physical altercation ensues.

How offensive do you find this?

Depending on your point of view, it's either hilarious, or outright blasphemy, right?

But should this person got to jail for it?

Did this atheist do anything more than position religious figures in lewd poses? Did he damage or deface anything?

I'm not sure this is remotely a jailable offense without dragging out some 18th century law that has no business being on the books.

03/11/2010 08:16:06 PM · #1694

I guess the laws say it's a jailable offense. I don't think the law is from the 1800s. I don't know if he defaced anything. Remember this is the UK and not America. Laws are not all the same. If the hate groups, for example, protested in Germany, they could certainly wind up in jail.

So you think this guy's action is excusable? Do we just give him an "aw, shucks, he dadn't meen nuthin!"? I just find it amusing these cases the NSS seems to dig up and defend. Who in their right mind thinks that leaving a picture of Jesus doin' it doggy style with Mother Theresa and leaving it in an airport chapel is reasonable behavior? If you want to put yourself in his corner, then knock yourself out.

Aren't you the "live and let live" guy? How does this dude play into that?

Message edited by author 2010-03-11 20:25:48.

03/11/2010 08:41:46 PM · #1695

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So you think this guy's action is excusable? Do we just give him an "aw, shucks, he dadn't meen nuthin!"? I just find it amusing these cases the NSS seems to dig up and defend. Who in their right mind thinks that leaving a picture of Jesus doin' it doggy style with Mother Theresa and leaving it in an airport chapel is reasonable behavior? If you want to put yourself in his corner, then knock yourself out.

Aren't you the "live and let live" guy? How does this dude play into that?

Yeah, that's really nice.......put myself in his corner.

Please explain how on any level my asking whether this guy's offense is jailworthy somehow condones his actions.

When you say things like this, you just confirm my suspicion that fine, upstanding Christians such as yourself seem have a pretty thin veneer over their serious nastiness.

03/11/2010 08:44:42 PM · #1696

Oi vey!

If your only point was to ask whether jail time was reasonable, then that's fine. In the US, at least, we throw far too many people in jail. Give him a big fine or community service, that's fine with me. The NSS is arguing he was doing nothing wrong at all, which is the part I find to be funny.

Message edited by author 2010-03-11 20:48:15.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/11/2010 08:50:43 PM · #1697

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It is not "exactly" the same unless you don't see any diference betweeen an insult and a threat.

It would have been much simpler to just fine him $500 (or pounds) for littering.

03/11/2010 08:55:12 PM · #1698

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If you'd read my response, you'd have figured that out with no effort.

FWIW, I found the gay male nun hilarious......but it was at a Gay Pride event. I think that would be wholly inappropriate at an ordination of a cardinal.

I think what the guy did was grievous, and in incredibly bad form, but I don't think jail is really the answer, do you?

Hey the stuff Coley does here, and some of Jorge's work straddles the line, but in context, it's expression, and like it or not, the KKK has every right to stage peaceful demonstrations as well.

I don't think the UK is particularly more uptight about things than we are, but their religious traditions are older, and this decidedly isn't funny. I'd definitely accuse most of the Germans as not being fun guys, though I do know for a fact from family members and friends that Swedes have their sense of humor surgically removed as early as they can endure general anaesthesia......8>)

Message edited by author 2010-03-11 20:55:58.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

03/11/2010 08:56:34 PM · #1699

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Looks like the old National Secular Society is at it again...atheist guilty over leaving cartoons at Liverpool airport.

The crusade continues!

Originally posted by GeneralE:
And if I'm "offended" by pictures of the Crucifixion -- certainly a gory spectacle -- such as those often promulgated by Jehovah's Witnesses, what recourse would you suggest I have/should have?

FWIW I think the answer is "none" ...

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you think the same about a good noose hanging in a strategically located tree?

Why don't you answer Paul's question instead of trying to be clever and side-step it?

What if it offends someone's sensibilities to see someone stuck on a cross with spikes driven through their hands and feet?

Well, if there was a reasonable expectation that the group may be offended by it, I'd have issues with someone forcing it upon them. I'm not going to condone someone raising a crucifix at a jewish synagogue.

But you are missing some of the point. Intent is important. A noose in a black person's yard has an intent. This dude leaving cartoons of religious figures in sexual positions in a chapel goes beyond "challenging the views of others" in exactly the same way. It's so obvious to me it's not even worth arguing about. I mainly brought it up because I'm enjoying poking fun at the NSS. They seem to be the PETA of atheism and having driven by PETA headquarters every day on my way to work as a resident, I know they are worth mocking (even though I'm generally against cruelty to animals).

This comparision is a bit ridiculous in my opinion. Hanging a noose in a black person's yard is to suggest violence toward that individual or his race. Those cartoons did nothing of the sort. But if you don't believe that then I don't know what to tell you. Maybe you should try out both and see which produces the greater reaction?

Message edited by author 2010-03-11 21:00:01.