off topic The politics of terrorism

[LastPommerFan]

Words matter, though, and using terms like "war" and "assassination" when trying to describe a "condescending sneer" is exactly the type of rhetoric that might push someone who is already cracked to act out those very things. It's unnecessarily inflammatory.

Oh, great. That just proves what I already know. Everyone is nuckin futs and we're all doomed.

 

I was not referring to the sneers and dinosaur jesu and the pasta god. I'm referring to the intellectual atheism that declares faith a burden and danger to the world, that it holds the world back and ought to be eliminated. The cartoon characters are just a pop version of the Richard Dawkinses. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Whiskey Bottle of Emotion

[Neo]

Words matter, though, and using terms like "war" and "assassination" when trying to describe a "condescending sneer" is exactly the type of rhetoric that might push someone who is already cracked to act out those very things. It's unnecessarily inflammatory.

Life's funny. I had the same thought about my post after posting. I watch a lot of news and get my share of Fox. "War" on Christmas is over the top. So is "war" on women. Words do matter. Good point.

[LGR4GM]

Raptor Jesus is a funny gag about some creationists saying the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Nothing more. Don't read more into. It is a meme for the absurd. 

[nfreeman]

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428032/missing-christopher-hitchens-mona-charen

[Weave]

Raptor Jesus is a funny gag about some creationists saying the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Nothing more. Don't read more into. It is a meme for the absurd. 

 

You keep saying it is nothing but there are folks here who are not YEC that are offended.  Turn the tables.

[LGR4GM]

You keep saying it is nothing but there are folks here who are not YEC that are offended.  Turn the tables.

I'm offended by stuff on here at times.  I don't keep bringing it up though.

Also I haven't posted him in awhile out of respect for ppl being offended. 

Edited December 4, 2015 by LGR4GM

[Weave]

I'm offended by stuff on here at times.  I don't keep bringing it up though.

Also I haven't posted him in awhile out of respect for ppl being offended. 

 

I know.  It is appreciated.  I'm merely responding to the idea that because someone says it is a joke, others shouldn't be offended.

[LGR4GM]

I know.  It is appreciated.  I'm merely responding to the idea that because someone says it is a joke, others shouldn't be offended.

I think that ppl need to be offended at specific times to challenge their beliefs validity.  That isn't a shot at religions, I mean in general if you don't ever get offended/challenged you won't grow or learn. You will stagnant.

 

But now we are meandering off topic... let's return back to Radical Islam or Radical Christianity or Radical whatever.

[X. Benedict]

That's a very loose use of the word connection.

It seems they were not formally connected to ISIS, but they self- identified with ISIS. \

 

That's is an important difference, I think. 

[Neo]

Raptor Jesus is a funny gag about some creationists saying the earth is only 6,000 years old.  Nothing more. Don't read more into. It is a meme for the absurd.

 

I'll await the SabreSpace posting of web memes of non-Christian religious figures pointing out the absurdity of their teachings. To be clear, I wasn't calling you out. I forgot you even posted ol' Raptor.

 

I'll point out I'm not offended. Not remotely. I'm aware, though, of the feelings of others around their beliefs. I won't refer to the faith of others as absurd. I feel a pop culture immunity around Christian absurdity memes. Maybe it's me. I couldn't pronounce meme a year ago.

 

What's absurd? Offering proof against faith is absurd. The faithful get proof. Some don't get faith.

[LGR4GM]

I'll await the SabreSpace posting of web memes of non-Christian religious figures pointing out the absurdity of their teachings. To be clear, I wasn't calling you out. I forgot you even posted ol' Raptor.

 

I'll point out I'm not offended. Not remotely. I'm aware, though, of the feelings of others around their beliefs. I won't refer to the faith of others as absurd. I feel a pop culture immunity around Christian absurdity memes. Maybe it's me. I couldn't pronounce meme a year ago.

 

What's absurd? Offering proof against faith is absurd. The faithful get proof. Some don't get faith.

Since you asked I will answer the question. What's absurd is thinking the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived together at some point. Carbon dating, paleontology, and other sciences have helped us to date the earth and document its timeline.  I don't think you have to toss out faith to believe in god and the earth being 4.3 billion years old.  You can have both.

 

Raptor Jesus isn't an attack on faith IMPO. You can believe in god and science, I see no reason why both can't exist or even be part of the same thing.

 

Hope that clarifies things a little.

Edited December 4, 2015 by LGR4GM

[SwampD]

I was not referring to the sneers and dinosaur jesu and the pasta god. I'm referring to the intellectual atheism that declares faith a burden and danger to the world, that it holds the world back and ought to be eliminated. The cartoon characters are just a pop version of the Richard Dawkinses. 

Raptor Jesus and Richards Dawkins,... hmmm, is it just coincidence that it was he who coined the term "meme"?

[SarasotaSabre]

That's a very loose use of the word connection.

Maybe you should issue your observation directly to the CNN Director of Web services, because it was CNN who used the word "connection". I simply re=stated what they had already published.

 

It's only 75 pt font, a headline taking up 1/3 of their home page.....)))

[Neo]

Since you asked I will answer the question. What's absurd is thinking the earth is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs and man lived together at some point. Carbon dating, paleontology, and other sciences have helped us to date the earth and document its timeline.  I don't think you have to toss out faith to believe in god and the earth being 4.3 billion years old.  You can have both.

 

Raptor Jesus isn't an attack on faith IMPO. You can believe in god and science, I see no reason why both can't exist or even be part of the same thing.

 

Hope that clarifies things a little.

My "faith" in you is undiminished!

 

I have loved ones, with advanced degrees in smartness, who believe the earth is 6,000 years old.  They understand your evidence to the contrary.  Me?  I'm your "can have both" guy.  Some would say I therefore have neither.

[PASabreFan]

Maybe you should issue your observation directly to the CNN Director of Web services, because it was CNN who used the word "connection". I simply re=stated what they had already published.

 

It's only 75 pt font, a headline taking up 1/3 of their home page.....)))

I don't care who used it. It's not the right word -- yet.

[PASabreFan]

For everyone who thinks Obama is a pacifist or something, we're running out of bombs. Seriously. We're running out of bombs.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/air-force-20000-bombs-missiles-isis/index.html

[Thwomp!]

Sigh, I had a long post and lost it....

 

The atheist point of view is that religion is everywhere.  Media, politics, sports, talking to random people throughout the day, etc. etc. etc.

 

Forgive an atheist if he reacts with a sneer or dismissive attitude when someone starts talking to them about their beliefs.  The atheist has been there hundreds of times and just doesn't want to hear it again.  They just want to be left alone, which includes not having laws made that are religiously motivated in what is supposedly a secular country.

 

It doesn't help that most of the violence in the world seems to have a large religious element.  Religious people often don't tolerate atheists or other religions well, so it leads to conflict.

 

In short, we need much less religion (especially the fanatical kind of all faiths), not more.

[SarasotaSabre]

I don't care who used it. It's not the right word -- yet.

Mrs. Nutjob swore her allegiance to ISIS just before the massacre via a Facebook post. If that's not a connection in your opinion, then so be it. I get it; you'd rather not go there yet. If you disagree with anyone using the term yet, including a broadcast/web news outlet, that's a strong stance.

 

Question: when do think it would be appropriate to use?

 

FYI, FBI now officially investigating this incident as an act of terrorism; important distinction from potential "workplace violence"

[darksabre]

Sigh, I had a long post and lost it....

 

The atheist point of view is that religion is everywhere.  Media, politics, sports, talking to random people throughout the day, etc. etc. etc.

 

Forgive an atheist if he reacts with a sneer or dismissive attitude when someone starts talking to them about their beliefs.  The atheist has been there hundreds of times and just doesn't want to hear it again.  They just want to be left alone, which includes not having laws made that are religiously motivated in what is supposedly a secular country.

 

It doesn't help that most of the violence in the world seems to have a large religious element.  Religious people often don't tolerate atheists or other religions well, so it leads to conflict.

 

In short, we need much less religion (especially the fanatical kind of all faiths), not more.

I don't know if I agree. I'm an atheist and religion doesn't really bother me. I recognize that many of the morals I was raised with, in an atheist household, are still derived from religion, particularly Christianity. Now, I could try to argue that some morals are human nature, but surely many more stem from man's interpretation of religious text. I can't pretend that some of the things I abide aren't religious in background. 

 

What I would like, however, is an acknowledgement from those who feel that Christianity is under attack (it's not, stop it), that one's moral code does not inherently overrule things that are in the best interest of public health. The major case in point being the conflict between religious morals surrounding birth control, abortion, etc., and the importance of these things to public health, re: the greater good. 

 

The "right" thing doesn't always have to be the "moral" thing. This is a distinction that needs to be recognized. It is important when recognizing things like religious freedom, separation of Church and State, regulation of religious practices that cause harm, etc.  

[LastPommerFan]

I don't know if I agree. I'm an atheist and religion doesn't really bother me. I recognize that many of the morals I was raised with, in an atheist household, are still derived from religion, particularly Christianity. Now, I could try to argue that some morals are human nature, but surely many more stem from man's interpretation of religious text. I can't pretend that some of the things I abide aren't religious in background. 

 

What I would like, however, is an acknowledgement from those who feel that Christianity is under attack (it's not, stop it), that one's moral code does not inherently overrule things that are in the best interest of public health. The major case in point being the conflict between religious morals surrounding birth control, abortion, etc., and the importance of these things to public health, re: the greater good. 

 

The "right" thing doesn't always have to be the "moral" thing. This is a distinction that needs to be recognized. It is important when recognizing things like religious freedom, separation of Church and State, regulation of religious practices that cause harm, etc.  

 

Have you read Mill's "On Liberty" yet?

[Doohickie]

I recognize that many of the morals I was raised with, in an atheist household, are still derived from religion, particularly Christianity. Now, I could try to argue that some morals are human nature, but surely many more stem from man's interpretation of religious text. I can't pretend that some of the things I abide aren't religious in background. 

 

What I would like, however, is an acknowledgement from those who feel that Christianity is under attack (it's not, stop it), that one's moral code does not inherently overrule things that are in the best interest of public health. The major case in point being the conflict between religious morals surrounding birth control, abortion, etc., and the importance of these things to public health, re: the greater good. 

 

The "right" thing doesn't always have to be the "moral" thing. This is a distinction that needs to be recognized. It is important when recognizing things like religious freedom, separation of Church and State, regulation of religious practices that cause harm, etc.  

 

Substitute The United States of America for you and this is the way I perceive the country should be run.  Informed by religious faith?  Yes.  Participating in it?  Oh hell no.

[darksabre]

Have you read Mill's "On Liberty" yet?

Ugh, no. :( I've got this giant Harry Truman biography I'm trying to get through first.

[LastPommerFan]

Ugh, no. :( I've got this giant Harry Truman biography I'm trying to get through first.

 

Mrs. Whiskey has that one on the bedside table. It's a thick one. We'll talk in june.

[Thwomp!]

I don't know if I agree. I'm an atheist and religion doesn't really bother me. I recognize that many of the morals I was raised with, in an atheist household, are still derived from religion, particularly Christianity. Now, I could try to argue that some morals are human nature, but surely many more stem from man's interpretation of religious text. I can't pretend that some of the things I abide aren't religious in background. 

 

What I would like, however, is an acknowledgement from those who feel that Christianity is under attack (it's not, stop it), that one's moral code does not inherently overrule things that are in the best interest of public health. The major case in point being the conflict between religious morals surrounding birth control, abortion, etc., and the importance of these things to public health, re: the greater good. 

 

The "right" thing doesn't always have to be the "moral" thing. This is a distinction that needs to be recognized. It is important when recognizing things like religious freedom, separation of Church and State, regulation of religious practices that cause harm, etc.  

 

I agree with much of what you say here with a couple differences:

 

1.  I think that where you live can have an effect on how much religion can bother you.  There are definitely more secular and more religious areas and states.

 

2.  I think you have the bolded backwards.  I think man does naturally have a moral code that religion claimed as their own, since I would say man and his moral code existed prior to religions being formed, but I guess this is the crux of the religion vs. atheism argument (What came first, God or man?).

[Doohickie]

There are definitely more secular and more religious areas and states.

 

You got that right.  Texas is very Baptist.  I'm Christian (raised Catholic, currently Presbyterian) and I definitely feel like an outsider here when it comes to religion.