Jesus Camp (the movie) - DPChallenge Forums

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

09/04/2014 04:36:56 PM · #26

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The conflicts between the zealous religious nuts and militant atheists...

Oooh... watch out fo those militant atheists! Always knocking on your door to hand out atheist literature, interjecting quotes of disbelief into unrelated conversations, offering to not pray to a sky fairy on your behalf in tough times, appealing for donations to help spread secularism on national TV and local community centers ...

Case in point, Paul. In the real world Shannon is very likely a well adjusted guy ...

I agree, but I'm quite not sure how I got dragged into this thread ...

BTW Shannon forgot to mention how the militant atheists demand that their collective income and property be exempt from taxes ...

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/04/2014 05:16:53 PM · #27

Originally posted by scalvert:

Oooh, now I'm combative, extreme and violent... in text. Hang on while I write something mean to a teddy bear. I'm sure you're an almost-equally-likeable guy who probably HAS done some of the things I mentioned.
PFFFFT! ;-P <--- (extreme atheist military action)

Geez... I misspelled my jihadist strike.

I'll give you violent. It's hard to be violent on the internet. I dunno. Maybe you slam your shoe on the desk repeatedly or bang your keyboard a lot...

Just saying what it looks like from over here. Feel free to ignore it or, better, PM someone you trust and ask them their opinion about it.

09/04/2014 05:45:48 PM · #28

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just saying what it looks like from over here.

Oh, I know exactly what it looks like. I'm intentionally (and deservedly) mocking you over an idiotic false equivalency. Your first point about minority extremes was perfectly valid, but c'mon man, can you not see the insanity of implying the fringes of both groups are even remotely on par? Think carefully because some secular zealot might be reading this and unleash upon you that most terrifying of militant atheist weapons: a billboard. The things you might consider innocuous mainstream expressions of personal belief, from affirming God in the previously-secular pledge of allegiance to protecting "traditional" marriage, are more oppressively "militant" than the harshest Facebook post or newspaper ad by orders of magnitude. If there were any real equivalence, we might see news headlines like this: "ISIS Militants launch savage poster campaign against Shiites who insist on making everyone follow their beliefs in public schools. Millions forced to avert eyes."

When you tack on unsolicited jabs like "militant" to an otherwise-legitimate observation, you demonstrate in flashing neon lights the sort of ostracism and intolerance that likely prompted Paul to post this thread in the first place.

Message edited by author 2014-09-04 17:47:01.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/04/2014 06:22:29 PM · #29

Meh. Your sarcastic style generally makes it hard to tell when you are being OVERLY sarcastic.

"militant atheist" has been used enough to have its own entry in the urban dictionary:
"A militant atheist is one who is hostile towards religion. They differ from moderate atheists because they have the desire to propagate atheism and also hold religion to be harmful. Militant atheism was an integral part of the French Revolution, Soviet Union, Cultural Revolution, and is expresses itself today in the ideas of the New Atheist authors."

I felt justified using the term. Likewise I used the term "religious nut" which also has its own urban dictionary entry. I could have gone with "Jesus freak" as well. Don't get so caught up in the words. My takehome point is that the religion vs. secular conflict is overemphasized on the internet and rarely plays out in real life (though there are indeed unusual examples of such) in everyday America.

Message edited by author 2014-09-04 18:23:19.

09/04/2014 07:23:27 PM · #30

Awesome. Then I shall call you "Jesus Freak" or "relgious nut" from now on. I'm not too caught up in the words, so pick your favorite. Fair enough?

You needn't worry about shoe abuse or damaged keyboards, either, as that would require points worthy of frustration. Try facepalm. Pretty much the same reaction whenever I hear Louie Gohmert or Michele Bachmann: rarely anything to stress over, but irresistible for ridicule. Trust me... overly sarcasctic is holding back.

09/04/2014 07:46:36 PM · #31

You know I'm totally messing with you, right? ;-P

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

09/04/2014 08:06:20 PM · #32

It's hard to tell through the makeup and whiskers.

I'm partial to Jesus Freak. DC Talk has a song by that name which is somewhat dated to sounding like the 80s but is still cool nonetheless. It's sorta been coopted like "queer".

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

09/08/2014 03:39:38 PM · #33

Originally posted by Paul:

A few weeks ago I heard an article on Radio 4 relating to American children who expressed atheist views being spat upon and ostracised at school. This evening I've watched 'Jesus Camp' about an indoctrination camp for children where the pastor tells them (among other things) that Harry Potter is a worlock and ungodly.... warlocks are not heros (etc). We see a mother home-schooling her son to ensure the creationist myths dominate. The children's pastor says she wishes the children could be radicalised like Muslim children (her reference) to carry grenades and guns to defend the gospel.

Linky?

Originally posted by Paul:

What protections are there to preserve separation of state and church (if any)? Is the cultural trend likely to close or open that gap?

I didn't know there was a separation of state and church. I know there's no separation in the UK.

Mousie

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

10/01/2014 12:06:30 PM · #34

Actually this thread is the 'case in point'.

Thanks for volunteering!

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

01/24/2015 06:05:47 PM · #35

Somehow, it really warms my heart that I can be away from DPC for a year and come back to see Jason and Shannon still giving each other grief over religion.

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

01/24/2015 07:06:09 PM · #36

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Somehow, it really warms my heart that I can be away from DPC for a year and come back to see Jason and Shannon still giving each other grief over religion.

Erastus

01/29/2015 07:41:59 AM · #37

The thread that won't go away. LOL Atheism is certainly a religion. Shannon is it's chief proselytizer!
:) As a proponent of Panspermia my beliefs are a bit harder to categorize. But I accept Shannon's belief/non-belief like I do any other religion. If personal, not supported by Gummit, and doesn't infringe on the rights of others I'm all for it. It's just Shannon's "I'm smarter than everyone else" attitude that creates the fingernails on the chalkboard for me. LOL But hell, I guess that's required of a good Atheist.

(nice pic General)

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

01/29/2015 09:11:20 AM · #38

Originally posted by Erastus:

... It's just Shannon's "I'm smarter than everyone else" attitude that creates the fingernails on the chalkboard for me. LOL But hell, I guess that's required of a good Atheist.

Well, to be honest, I'm guilty of the same, we don't mean to come off that way really, it's just that so many religious arguments are so obviously mindless that we have a hard time NOT wanting to just grab the stick...

And, really, I'm sure you can see that while not all religious people are idiots, almost all idiots are religious, so unfortunately they get sorta lumped together, and I have no doubt that some of the stuff other religious people say makes the reasonably intelligent religious people cringe... But, that's the problem with religion isn't it? Doesn't matter how outlandish the idea, as long as SOMEONE believes it, the general idea is that everyone is supposed to 'respect' their beliefs.

01/29/2015 10:18:50 AM · #39

Originally posted by Cory:

And, really, I'm sure you can see that while not all religious people are idiots, almost all idiots are religious, so unfortunately they get sorta lumped together, and I have no doubt that some of the stuff other religious people say makes the reasonably intelligent religious people cringe... But, that's the problem with religion isn't it? Doesn't matter how outlandish the idea, as long as SOMEONE believes it, the general idea is that everyone is supposed to 'respect' their beliefs.

Almost all people are intolerant, irrational, and coercive, not just the religious.

Theists believe god exists and atheists believe he doesn't, both believe something, neither has any proof whatsoever. if anything the atheist is on shakier ground by taking the stronger position that requires scientific proof when they have very little, what they do have is a lot of theory.

Message edited by author 2015-01-30 06:06:41.

02/04/2015 07:39:42 AM · #40

who knew?

02/04/2015 08:09:59 AM · #41

Originally posted by Mike:

Theists believe god exists and atheists believe he doesn't, both believe something, neither has any proof whatsoever. if anything the atheist is on shakier ground by taking the stronger position that requires scientific proof...

Wrong. If I said Elvis was buried on Mars, you would not be on shakier ground for doubting me because the burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the positive claim.

02/04/2015 08:44:08 AM · #42

Originally posted by scalvert:

Wrong. If I said Elvis was buried on Mars, you would not be on shakier ground for doubting me because the burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the positive claim.

no, you would be making a claim, you dont need to proof to make a claim (although its usually a good idea). its on me or someone else to prove you incorrect are if I cared to dispute you.

scientists do this all the time, they dream up theories that sometimes get universal acknowledgement until an experimentalist can prove if they are right or not. the person making the theory or claim is under no obligation to prove anything.

02/04/2015 12:49:10 PM · #43

Originally posted by Mike:

the person making the theory or claim is under no obligation to prove anything.

Sorry, you are completely wrong. That's NOT how burden of proof works. Elvis is buried on Mars, aliens from space built the pyramids, humans can live to be 600 years old, snakes can talk, and natural disasters can be averted by clasping your hands together and thinking the right words in your head. Skepticism of any of these is not a claim of its own, but the default position for any fantastic assertion, and the burden of proof lies solely with the party making the positive claim. It is NOT up to a doubter to prove that unicorns exist or a teapot orbits the sun. That onus rests exclusively upon the person claiming it's true.

RayEthier

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

02/04/2015 02:13:48 PM · #44

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Wrong. If I said Elvis was buried on Mars, you would not be on shakier ground for doubting me because the burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the positive claim.

no, you would be making a claim, you dont need to proof to make a claim (although its usually a good idea). its on me or someone else to prove you incorrect are if I cared to dispute you.

scientists do this all the time, they dream up theories that sometimes get universal acknowledgement until an experimentalist can prove if they are right or not. the person making the theory or claim is under no obligation to prove anything.

When scientists propose a theory, they do not do that in a vacuum. A scientific theory is defined as follows:

"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested"

You will note the slight differences between what is being mentioned here and what you are advancing.

Ray

02/04/2015 02:13:58 PM · #45

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Mike:
the person making the theory or claim is under no obligation to prove anything.

Sorry, you are completely wrong. That's NOT how burden of proof works. Elvis is buried on Mars, aliens from space built the pyramids, humans can live to be 600 years old, snakes can talk, and natural disasters can be averted by clasping your hands together and thinking the right words in your head. Skepticism of any of these is not a claim of its own, but the default position for any fantastic assertion, and the burden of proof lies solely with the party making the positive claim.

so then why to atheists feel the need to offer proof that god doesn't exist if they aren't under any obligation to do so?

Message edited by author 2015-02-04 14:14:30.

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

02/04/2015 02:23:08 PM · #46

Originally posted by Mike:

so then why to atheists feel the need to offer proof that god doesn't exist if they aren't under any obligation to do so?

Who has said they do? You can't "prove" a negative, so the obligation falls on those advancing the positive theory (there is a god) to prove their position.

02/04/2015 02:47:14 PM · #47

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Wrong. If I said Elvis was buried on Mars, you would not be on shakier ground for doubting me because the burden of proof rests entirely on the person making the positive claim.

no, you would be making a claim, you dont need to proof to make a claim (although its usually a good idea). its on me or someone else to prove you incorrect are if I cared to dispute you.

scientists do this all the time, they dream up theories that sometimes get universal acknowledgement until an experimentalist can prove if they are right or not. the person making the theory or claim is under no obligation to prove anything.

When scientists propose a theory, they do not do that in a vacuum. A scientific theory is defined as follows:

"A scientific theory is a series of statements about the causal elements for observed phenomena. A critical component of a scientific theory is that it provides explanations and predictions that can be tested"

You will note the slight differences between what is being mentioned here and what you are advancing.

Ray

and if the test hasn't been devised yet? The Higgs boson was proposed decades ago, yet was only able to be tested after decades and billions of dollars.

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

02/04/2015 02:57:47 PM · #48

Originally posted by Mike:

and if the test hasn't been devised yet? The Higgs boson was proposed decades ago, yet was only able to be tested after decades and billions of dollars.

The Higgs was proposed, hypothesized, but no one said that it absolutely existed until after the test was devised and run.

AFAIK no one has yet devised and run a scientifically valid test to prove God exists, despite centuries of existence and billions of dollars collected by the Catholic Church alone ...

02/04/2015 03:30:34 PM · #49

Originally posted by Mike:

so then why to atheists feel the need to offer proof that god doesn't exist if they aren't under any obligation to do so?

If a zoologist announced the discovery that flying reindeer are in fact real, reporters would demand proof, and the zoologist would be laughed out of the room if he asked reporters to prove they're not. Are you under any obligation to prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Of course not, but at some point as a kid you probably explained your reasons for skepticism to a friend or sibling. Now imagine if the people who still believed in Santa proposed or passed laws requiring rooftop hitching posts, annual milk and cookie quotas, a ban on shaving beards, and public shaming and distrust of non-believers. You'd either have to accept the myth to fit in or have strong arguments for refusing to do so.