Girl saying the tsunami in Japan is an answer to her prayers.

haha, she can be as sorry as she wants. Something makes me think she's going to get karma deciding to revenge her for that one.

I feel the need to stand up for trolling here... What other video's? Sorry I haven't seen them linked on your youtube page... be gone foul wannabe, banned to the land of /b/

 

I thought it was only illegal hate speech if was untrue?

 

If you're targeting a group it isn't likely you'll go after the majority in any given situation, hence why a term such as minority is a good place holder for other group names. I don't use the term to demean a group of people (as in: Them damn minorities! Takin' my jobs!), just as an easer way to define a group of people that are not in majority (as in: Hey, look at that situationally weaker person over there! Lets go heckle them!). I still stick by my point though: giving a group of people the right to not be offended only serves to demonstrate how much weaker they are from anybody else, and I for one would not like to stand up and say "I am weaker than you are, therefore you legally cannot make fun of me". Is that something you would say?


As to the girls admission of trollism: all well and good, but the fact that she was so easily able to use a variant of biblical scripture to justify the want and desire to kill thousands upon thousands of people, and economically destroy a country should be the shocking part, not that she was joking. Thunderf00t made an exceptionally succinct point in this regard, and I cannot recommend his video on the subject enough. This girl was an idiot, but quite right in pointing out just how easily millennia old sheep-herder's tails can be used to justify the worst of atrocities in a god-figures name, even in modern times. This is what we should be outraged about, and having a discussion over, not some ill-put joke.

 

I did mention the same thing in my post. Religion almost seems to justify things near enough and take the blame away from governments or persons.

Bloody nightmare

 

You think that only religion can be abused like that? Gimme a break.

Let's look at political ideology: we all know how Communism --a political philosophy meant to empower the ordinary citizen-- has been abused to commit oppression and atrocities. Science? check the justifications for eugenics and racism. Justice? Check the many, many abuses of law.

Any unhinged idiot, maniacal despot or crazed sociopath can take the most noble sentiments and the most thoughtful ideology and twist it to suit their agenda. To think it is only religion that can be thus abused is as moronic as the girl in question saying that the tsunami in Japan is somehow connected to her prayers.

 

+!. He who seeks justification finds justification.

 

Well then i guess we're on the same page, albeit opposide sides of it
It was exactly the motivation that I don't agree with, but i do understand it and wanted to give a thumbs up to you, because it is a relief to see religious people speak out publicly against religious nutjobs. Usually, any and all religious people tend to band together and even protect the idiots and other zealots.

I live my life in the firm belief that all organised religion is foolishness, no exceptions. However, i do understand your reasoning, and I won't argue with it, on a live and let live basis.

 

Yeah she can fend her beliefs for herself.. though she's an Athiest as it turns out and not an extremist/mentally retarded Christian.

As much as I wouldn't want to, I would defend her right to say whatever the hell she wanted to say. We're U.S. citizens and I would expect the same from any one else here. On the plus side of that fact, being an American also means that I have the freedom to tell her to go **** herself and walk away. Freedom of Speech isn't just the freedom to say whatever the hell I want to say, it comes with the added responsibility that I should speak up when things are out of hand, speak up for the weak, and be loud and clear about what my boundaries are and defend my neighbors boundaries as well as my own. The whole point of it was that a bunch of guys back in 1789 figured that we could all be respectful enough to govern our selves with freedoms much more efficiently than a powerful central government with a myriad of laws to restrict us. (This is also central to what we refer to these days when we're talking about losing our freedoms.) Our laws were originally put there both to protect the peoples rights AND to restrict government.

 

I don't think anybody of sane mind would say that only a religious mind-set can be used for nefarious means, just that due to rampant indoctrination we're expected to turn the other way in plainly obscene circumstances, such as genital mutilation of the young, chastising and abusing women, and the like. Yeah sure there are some crazy eugenicists out there working from their own skewed perspective of genetics, but other scientists are obliged to look at what is happening with a discerning perspective and point out where they're going wrong. Religion however, does typically get a free pass that goes along the lines of "You can believe in anything you like, without evidence, and practise it".

It is only religious doctrine that is allowed to permanently mutilate the genitalia of defenceless children on the argument that a god-character has told them to do as such. This is what one means when it is said "It takes religion to make a good man do evil things" - Weinberg.

 

If a good man will do evil things.. he's not a good man.

 

There is no good man.

Nexxo has time and time again stated that as humans we all need faith, and I think that the people proclaiming atheism are showing it's just as much a faith as anyone else-and one that's far more bigoted than it wants to believe. I do not dismiss my opponent's argument right out of hand-it leads to me underestimating him. I expect my opponent to bring his A game, but it seems that we got a bunch of second-string arguments in this one.

As to the person referenced by OP, they are seriously delusional, and using religion to justify their beliefs. Like was said, if you want justification, you can find it. Believe me, I've seen a lot of that. Both in and out of the church. We do not claim to have bank on that one. We don't have bank on nutjobs, racism, idiocy, stupidity (there are differences) hatred, ignorance, or cupidity. So please, please, do not act as though we do. This person would be claimed by VERY few churches, and those would be considered fringe and nowhere near mainline beliefs. In fact, every Christian I have seen in this thread has thought that this was utterly daft of the person to say and that it in no way mirrors their beliefs. The thread then basically goes to lump people in together and say "if you have faith, you must be some kind of nutter" even despite the evidence to the contrary. Gets tiring to see time after time. Who's the dogmatist who no evidence will sway?

Besides, there's no proof for atheism as well-in fact, it leaves some pretty big gaps to fill in as well. If we want to really get into this, then the only cogent argument I can find (because believe me, the arguments presented here aren't cogent) is Pascal's wager, and of course that argues for faith.

I really start to question the concept of atheism at all-it would assume that you KNOW there is no God, which is in and of itself an unknowable quantity in scientific terms. Agnosticism is a defensible position at least, and of course, religion operates on the concept of faith-if you then therefore assume there is no God, do you not operate on the same concept, that of faith? There is no litmus test for a Creator-so the knowledge must be then therefore conjecture. If we take that further, most justifications boil down to "I can't see Him, so He's not there" or "I wouldn't allow this, so God must not would either, so He can't be real." Anthropomorphizing and begging the question-in fact dead assumption.

I do believe some of the greatest atrocities in history were committed not by religious groups but by secular ones as well. Nazi Germany, Maoist China-these (are) were secular in nature. Or, if you will Communism and Nazism were just other, substitute religions-much like science, medicine and football are today.

I've watched people take pot shots at faith for a while now, and I do so tire of it. Atheism is no more defensible than faith, so stop propping it up as though it is. If you'd like a debate, with evidence and logic, I'll give it to you, but if you're just going to trot out the same old lines, please, just do yourselves a favor and yank the cord on your brain a little harder-it's starting to wander, and such isn't safe on either side of the fence-atheism or faith.

 

The worst part about all of this is when someone goes out and does something stupid it's publicized and the person gets exactly what they want... She'll get some hate mail for now but in the end, she'll be more popular than ever.

 

So what you're basically saying Kayin, is that my lack of belief in a demonstrably man-made concept is a belief system in and of itself? I'll give you that not believing in something could be likened to the idea that one believes in the concept of nothing, but I don't see how one can make that dogmatic or systemic (two of the core facets of religious belief of all kinds). I'll also give you the benefit of the doubt that there may very well be some god-like entity out there that has inspired various holy books throughout history, but one cannot argue that they were inevitably writ by the hand of man, and edited afterwards through the generations either deliberately, or accidentally. Any biblical scholar will tell you as such - but just the fact that we have so many variations of biblical scripture should be obvious in this matter.

Have you ever considered that maybe people not of your faith keep bringing up the same arguments because faith really only has one argument for itself? I can assure you that there are only so many ways one can state an objection to a rather limited concept (I don't mean that as demeaning, just that in the scope of things theistic literature does tend to get rather limited simply due to it's nature - it's one document, more or less). It is quite easy to point out the obvious fallacies of any version of the bible you were to present, but this wouldn't serve to prove anything other than the mistakes of the man who wrote that version (or made that copy). A god-concept while impossible to disprove, also happens to be rather easy to prove: any slight action against the known characteristics of naturalistic observation would demonstrate either a desperate lack of knowledge within the natural world, or an entity that operates outside of, and able to manipulate the natural world.

The only arguments we have in favour of such evidence is contained within any variety of scripture you would like to quote. I don't feel it's too hard to grasp why people are sceptical.

Another good argument against a god-concept as seen within any religion you would like to reference is that there is such a plethora of religions, all of which happen to be mutually exclusive; no two are in any light compatible. You talk of Pascal's wager, well: which one do you wager on? If I believe in god-concept X, but it turns out that god-concept Y was the correct answer, then I'm just as buggered as if I didn't believe at all. Or what if I dedicate my life towards servitude to god-concept X, living my life in proverbial chains, but it turns out that there isn't anything up there, that everything I'd served my life for was for naught, my life would have been in vain; shackled whilst allowed to be free. In such regard Pascal was flat-out wrong, and should be ignored as such.

I also feel that Adolph Hitler should be touched upon: he was a baptised catholic, the Nazi party was in close allegiance with the catholic church (their first penned out peace agreement was with the church, before any government), the party spoke rather favourably of the church and it's teachings, and even in Mein Kampf, Hitler made quite rather a lot of references to his religious faith. You can argue for eugenics within the party, but killing Jews was sanctioned by the church explicitly and publicly for many years (strangely enough killing Jews only became bad in the pope's eyes after the fall of the Nazi party...).

However, you've hit something squarely on the head: many of the modern disgraces have been perpetrated by leaders of state under a pseudo-religious umbrella. The god-concept within Stalin's Russia was Stalin himself, Maoism much the same. Leading people in a religious way is still a religion, even if it's not an Abrahamic god-concept they're worshipping. It's this idea that I am revolted by.

One last thing, as I've probably not put it as succinctly as I can: I do not mean that people are inherently good or bad by the statement "It takes religion to make a good man do evil things", nor do I mean any one particular religious construct, so please stop taking it out of context and misconstruing it as a personal attack against your particular form of servitude. Lets break this down: a person is generally good, and will generally do good things if they see the situation benefiting them, or they can justify the action morally. However, if their belief system stems entirely from a book that entertains ideas such as genocide, rape, torture, blood-sacrifice, and slavery, they've a whole raft of options to choose from within a situation as to what they can justify doing. One only need to open their eyes to see just how easily power, position and a perceived "right" can effect ones actions. One can claim up and down that guards are on the whole good people, never doing wrong (after all, they're there for your safety), but yet they can so easily justify the worst of things simply based upon the situation and their internal justification as allowed by their position and the indoctrination they've received ("You're in power, you control those lesser than you"). Take away this difference of power, this perceived right, and they're generally good people, like you or I.

 

Interesting, you give food for thought. I'm on heavy meds preparing for surgery next week. After I'm recuperated, this looks like it would be a great topic to pursue with you. Mind if we give it a thread then? I do have some replies, but I feel I would express them poorly through percocet, nortriptyline and clindamycin. It's a bit much to keep it together (my night has been a slow downhill roll, and I feel I should give you a better debate than I'm capable of giving right now. You finally presented rational statements and deserve to be answered in kind. My sincerest apologies, but you honestly deserve a real debate, and not a hastily thrown together statement.

Thanks, BTW, for being willing to use logic to defend your side, instead of just calling mine daft. Can always count on you to make me think. And that's always a good thing.

 

The serious side of this forum always has room for another topic, my friend. And I could definitely tell you weren't quite yourself in that last post, hence why I didn't take what you had said too harshly, just replying in as normal a way as I could.

damnant quod non intelligunt

Or to put it another way: equo ne credite

Though I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring a horse into the conversation...

 

It is true that this century has been the most secular one (as of yet) and also the most violent.

 

100% Agreed . And I'm glad the video isn't there now, saved me a huge annoyance .

Only ever experience a tiny 5.1 earthquake & that scared the sheet out of me, seen some videos of it in action & wow I'd be 100% terrified & things just got worse & worse from there, was a really awful event .

However about my agreeance with BRAWL I do think there are some good points to all religions that are worth living by & I doubt if there is a god He, she or it wouldn't want to be praised & if he, she or it would then it must have a monstrously big ego to want masses of humans to waste their time praying to him, her or it lol.

 

Have to disagree, sorry. "Culture" in general gets as much special consideration as religion, and you'll find that in our society both are subject to law. Genital mutilation of girls is not allowed here, no matter how much the parents jump up and down and claim right to religious practice.

In China they used to bind girls' feet --seen as perfectly normal, no religion involved. Here we have pre-pubertal girls prancing about in high heels and crop tops saying "Future Porn Star". Again, 'tis cultural, not religious. We can also talk about the indoctrination that children get in the class room of Communist countries.

 

It's true... any ideology can be corrupted to serve a purpose to enpower a man over others. Political views are especially falliable to this, however corruption only goes so far before the public kicks in... I'm thinking Libya here, yes it's taken 40 years... BUT it's happened right?

Religion tragically doesn't have a set of peer's it must explain itself to, "you either follow it or you dont" and tragically for those who do, they get dragged into some awful situations. That Rev. in Florida who wanted to burn the Qu'ran? This girl (If real) would have fell under the same category. But as said before, not every religious person is corrupt and twisted past intentions based on the books they worship usually.

All humans require faith to operate, be it faith in a 'God' or faith in themselves. Faith doesn't always have to be external, although I do have faith in my parachute to open when I skydive... go figure?

As for the "if you have faith, you must be some kind of nutter" part. I can't say I've ever said that, might of without realising but considering my family are fairly religious (and I'm not) they're not mad (even if they put up with me) or nutters. MOST religious people are fine and live their lives happily! Obviously I'd never agree religiously that there is a devine entity circling them and protecting them.

As for no proof... I think the idea behind Atheism is that there is no proof, because nothing exists... Brian Griffin (Yes, Family Guy) made a comment once "If there is a god, please send another book" and nothing happened. That sums it up nicely... with a humour that everyone will smile at, well I'd like to think so.

I agree with pot shots at faith. Many people don't understand faith as a specific concept. I have faith, but I'm no where close to religious (quite the opposite, as you can tell). Athiests can be just as hate-fuelled as a religious extremist. I dislike organised religion as it just doesn't work (in my eyes), but it doesn't stop me having faith in myself to do the right thing. I get tired of religious people always trying to justify their religion. The people on here are fantastic and don't do it... tragically I have a lady at work who does, I have my family who like to argue with me (They do the praying thing before dinner when in front of all the family) and a few other people. It gets tedious so I really understand where you're coming from.

Why'd you think I claim to be the God-Emperor? I've got an ego that could strangle the Internet out of existance, seriously. Anyway I jest, don't get me wrong, some religious parts can be quite... good. I.e. they have good intention behind them! But I just think the level of corruption, or potential corruption is just to high for the good intentions to be paid attention to. It causes more wars than anything else... so I think anyway.

 

Hmm, is this faith though? If your parachute is in good working order which I guess you checked before you jumped and it was packed correctly by someone qualified or yourself then isn't 'faith' rather redundant? Sure I guess things can go wrong but..... I don't know, I wouldn't describe this as faith personally.