Was Chang wrong to point to the sky when winning matches against Agassi? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Was Chang wrong to point to the sky when winning matches against Agassi?

martinatreue
11-06-2009, 07:35 PM
I don't want this thread to be separate and consumed by the Agassi thread about meth. This is not about Agassi but about the appropriateness of what Chang did. I agree with Andre Agassi on this one. Many players thank god PUBLICLY (Serena, are you listening?) when winning matches. Is God on their side and not that of their opponents? How rude and insulting! :mad::mad:

r2473
11-06-2009, 07:43 PM
There is also a full chapter in the book that discusses how much he hated Becker's shorts. He thought it was very distracting and disrespectful to his opponents.

What do you guys think?

http://hisfashioneye.buy.co.uk/files/2008/10/boris-becker-mandj98-wikipedia.jpg

Voo de Mar
11-06-2009, 07:47 PM
Was Becker always playing with erection of his penis? :o :p

Corey Feldman
11-06-2009, 07:48 PM
he read Becker's serve by Boris sticking his tongue out - true story.

r2473
11-06-2009, 07:50 PM
Was Becker always playing with erection of his penis? :o :p

Pretty distracting, eh?

serveandvolley80
11-06-2009, 07:53 PM
Pretty distracting, eh?

If this was today's era, he would have gotten a classy nickname like Boris Pecker.

All tennis shorts from the 70's and 80's were pretty brutal lol.

irma
11-06-2009, 07:54 PM
Andre has a secret crush on Boris? yikes

serveandvolley80
11-06-2009, 07:56 PM
Andre has a secret crush on Boris? yikes

I don't understand how you could say you lost to a guy because you were distracted by his shorts, that is kind of a weird excuse because it makes you seem like you play on the other side of the net if you know what i mean.

tennis2tennis
11-06-2009, 07:58 PM
There is also a full chapter in the book that discusses how much he hated Becker's shorts. He thought it was very distracting and disrespectful to his opponents.

What do you guys think?

http://hisfashioneye.buy.co.uk/files/2008/10/boris-becker-mandj98-wikipedia.jpg

wait andre thought the short shorts were disrespectful but didn't mind getting dressed like Daffyd from Little Britain?

serveandvolley80
11-06-2009, 07:59 PM
wait andre thought the short shorts were disrespectful but didn't mind getting dressed like Daffyd from Little Britain?

Pink or purple skin tight pants were surely less distracting in Andre's eyes.......

Jōris
11-06-2009, 08:05 PM
I don't want this thread to be separate and consumed by the Agassi thread about meth. This is not about Agassi but about the appropriateness of what Chang did. I agree with Andre Agassi on this one. Many players thank god PUBLICLY (Serena, are you listening?) when winning matches. Is God on their side and not that of their opponents? How rude and insulting! :mad::mad:

If I was a deity, I'd rather intervene in the outcome of a tennis match than help children dying of hunger. Maybe Chang has a point.



Becker's shirt is the most offensive in that picture.

Jōris
11-06-2009, 08:06 PM
I'd like to thank God for this thread.

juliehardwick
11-06-2009, 08:08 PM
a full chapter in the book that discusses how much he hated Becker's shorts.

How do you know that? Have you seen the book? A whole chapter on that can't be true. I'm also doubtful he gives that as a reason for losing even if he doesn't like it.

Those photos of Becker are hilarious though. I'd forgotten.

jmsx521
11-06-2009, 08:18 PM
Many players thank god PUBLICLY (Serena, are you listening?) when winning matches. Is God on their side and not that of their opponents? How rude and insulting! :mad::mad:Yes, you're right. But the thing is that their god never seems to tell them not to do it, because she/he enjoys being worshiped: That's one conceited and self-centered god, right?!

sawan66278
11-06-2009, 08:25 PM
There needs to be real theological introspection and discussion when discussing this question. However, one should NEVER force one's beliefs on others. Agassi is entitled to his opinion, as is Michael in doing what he did.

irma
11-06-2009, 08:33 PM
Chang was still talking about God when he couldn't win a match anymore, and I think he is a minister now
His faith obvious means a big deal to him and I think that's fine.

Lee
11-06-2009, 08:42 PM
If you don't believe in God, why would you care about Michael thanking his God for whatever achievement he had? :confused:

If you believe in the same God, you should check with your God why he favoured him over you. ;)

If you believe in a different God, blame your God not being as powerful as Michael's God. :p

Amber Spyglass
11-07-2009, 12:10 AM
I don't want this thread to be separate and consumed by the Agassi thread about meth. This is not about Agassi but about the appropriateness of what Chang did. I agree with Andre Agassi on this one. Many players thank god PUBLICLY (Serena, are you listening?) when winning matches. Is God on their side and not that of their opponents? How rude and insulting! :mad::mad:

Well,most of the time she says she wants to thank her God "for allowing me to be out here" so that's not the same as saying that God took sides in the match

calvinhobbes
11-07-2009, 12:24 AM
Was Becker always playing with erection of his penis? :o :p

If an erection is like this, then mankind is in serious danger. . . . .:devil::devil::devil:

Voo de Mar
11-07-2009, 01:16 AM
If an erection is like this, then mankind is in serious danger. . . . .:devil::devil::devil:

:toothy: :dog:

Howard
11-07-2009, 01:43 AM
What I don't understand is why people like Chang, who give God the credit when they win, don't blame God when they lose. Just once I'd like to hear one of them say, "God really sucked today. He couldn't hit a backhand worth a damn and his serve was just pathetic. What a fuckin' mug."

Probably not gonna happen.

out_here_grindin
11-07-2009, 02:23 AM
If I was a deity, I'd rather intervene in the outcome of a tennis match than help children dying of hunger. Maybe Chang has a point.



Becker's shirt is the most offensive in that picture.

God's a tennis fan.

Last I heard he was a Rafatard

Doggy
11-07-2009, 02:29 AM
There is also a full chapter in the book that discusses how much he hated Becker's shorts. He thought it was very distracting and disrespectful to his opponents.

What do you guys think?

http://hisfashioneye.buy.co.uk/files/2008/10/boris-becker-mandj98-wikipedia.jpg


WOW, his thighs, inner thighs, and legs are :drool: especially his thighs, I would like to lay there

paseo
11-07-2009, 04:26 AM
No, Chang wasn't wrong. Del Potro also thanked his God after a win. The way I see it, you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody or illegal.

Agassi was young. He hated losing, so he searched something about Chang that he can hate. I'm sure there are players that hate Stepanek worm dance, or Murray's little Dance, or Del Potro thanking his God, etc. Agassi just being a sore loser at that time.

chammer44
11-07-2009, 05:04 AM
This is how we dressed in the 80s early 90s folks. Seriously. Nothing strange about these shorts for the times. Knee length shorts were about a decade away. Mac Lendl Connors all had shorts of about the same length.
It's in the name people: shorts.

jmf07
11-07-2009, 05:50 AM
Chang was perfectly fine to do that. Im thinking Agassi must still be on meth considering some of the stuff to come from this book.

God's a tennis fan.

Last I heard he was a Rafatard

Rafatards will tell you that God is Rafa.

scoobs
11-07-2009, 08:25 AM
I miss those shorts. On some of today's players they would look fantastic. I'd have to stare. I don't think I'd get anything else done.

As for the God thing, I think it's disrespectful for any player to imply or suggest that things going their way in a match is down to God. I doubt God, if she exists, pays any attention whatever to the current score in a tennis match, unless she spends a lot of time logged on to bet365.com.

Yves.
11-07-2009, 08:53 AM
I'd like to thank God for this thread.

this guy just keeps spreading around quotes!

Clydey
11-07-2009, 09:16 AM
I'd like to thank God for this thread.

Hi cutie.

Clydey
11-07-2009, 09:18 AM
Yes, you're right. But the thing is that their god never seems to tell them not to do it, because she/he enjoys being worshiped: That's one conceited and self-centered god, right?!

I think I know what you're trying to say. It is best summed up as "God is a **** if he exists." (which he doesn't)

I agree.

rhinooooo
11-07-2009, 09:26 AM
I miss those shorts. On some of today's players they would look fantastic. I'd have to stare. I don't think I'd get anything else done.

As for the God thing, I think it's disrespectful for any player to imply or suggest that things going their way in a match is down to God. I doubt God, if she exists, pays any attention whatever to the current score in a tennis match, unless she spends a lot of time logged on to bet365.com.

The bookies always win... even against God...

Goldenoldie
11-07-2009, 11:29 AM
Believers are entitled to their belief.
Disbelievers are entitled to their disbelief.
I think this thread should be moved to off-topic, as it has nothing to do with tennis.
Please

Gnomey
11-07-2009, 12:05 PM
If I was a deity, I'd rather intervene in the outcome of a tennis match than help children dying of hunger.
Well, God helps neither tennis players nor starving children anyway.
:shrug:

andylovesaustin
11-07-2009, 12:24 PM
Well it sure doesn't help Serena to "thank God," when she turns around to curse-out and threaten a linesperson! Looks like Serena hasn't learned many lessons...

In general, I don't care much about it. It doesn't fit in with my interpretation of spirituality, but if it makes them feel better, more power to them.

I'm sure it annoys a lot of people... in a similar way that Rafa picking his hoo-ha annoys a lot of people. I wouldn't do either.

thrust
11-07-2009, 07:50 PM
There is also a full chapter in the book that discusses how much he hated Becker's shorts. He thought it was very distracting and disrespectful to his opponents.

What do you guys think?

http://hisfashioneye.buy.co.uk/files/2008/10/boris-becker-mandj98-wikipedia.jpg

I think Andre got distracted by Beckers legs, etc.-LOL!! Agassi is a jerk!

CyBorg
11-07-2009, 08:21 PM
What I don't understand is why people like Chang, who give God the credit when they win, don't blame God when they lose. Just once I'd like to hear one of them say, "God really sucked today. He couldn't hit a backhand worth a damn and his serve was just pathetic. What a fuckin' mug."

Probably not gonna happen.

Probably because they're irrational fundamentalists.

I agree with Agassi. Godboy practiced selective praise.

Orka_n
11-07-2009, 09:12 PM
Wow, long since I saw a thread full of this many people not knowing what they're talking about. The OP doesn't get it either. It makes me sad. =(

Lleyton_ said something good, though.

quentinak
11-07-2009, 11:24 PM
Believers are entitled to their belief.
Disbelievers are entitled to their disbelief.
I think this thread should be moved to off-topic, as it has nothing to do with tennis.
Please

this
But it wouldn't be off-topic though as it deals with celebrations after a tennis match. I say it's relevant enough to be on GM.

"Probably because they're irrational fundamentalists. I agree with Agassi. Godboy practiced selective praise."

If they were irrational fundamentalists they would be bombing the tennis tournaments that they lose it to destroy the infidels.

Not everyone who likes to believe in God and gives thanks for things is a fundamentalist. Although, it could be annoying for people who aren't religious to see someone doing it publicly :shrug:

TeamID
11-07-2009, 11:33 PM
I think Andre felt that for him to thank god meant that Chang believed god was on his side, or more importantly against his opponent; he didn't like the idea that god would decide to pick sides.

If we follow that line of thought, it could be interpreted that Chang was essentially saying that he was more godly, or more in tune with god than his opponent. I could see how that would be insulting

quentinak
11-07-2009, 11:48 PM
I think Andre felt that for him to thank god meant that Chang believed god was on his side, or more importantly against his opponent; he didn't like the idea that god would decide to pick sides.

If we follow that line of thought, it could be interpreted that Chang was essentially saying that he was more godly, or more in tune with god than his opponent. I could see how that would be insulting

Depends on how you look at it. If you think God allowed you the win, in that he gave you the talent, good environment, and good health, etc. to play well, then it implies that God gave Agassi a win on a particular because he was given the talent and good fortune. You can gripe against God for not giving you Federer's tennis talent, I guess.

But if you think God fatalistically determines who wins and loses on this own particular whim of the moment, or that he pick Chang over Agassi just because he felt like it today, or that Chang kisses up to him more, then, well, I can see how that can be a problem.

BigJohn
11-08-2009, 12:25 AM
Agassi and Sampras are to be blamed for the phasing out of short shorts. Those were the days. We can only hope that one day, the trend will reverse the other way and some Brazilian dude will show up with a square leg speedo. Then everything will be fine again.

That book makes Agassi look like an ass. His wig was more distracting and disrespectful to his opponents (and former fans)than Becker's shorts.

BTW, Becker does not seem extremely well-endowed, so by admitting that, Agassi is either admitting that he is short in the pants or that he can't stop himself from starring at other guys' junk. Neither make him look good.

Winston's Human
11-08-2009, 10:47 AM
I suspect that Agassi's bitter response to Chang is a certain jealousy that Chang had the confidence (born of a supportive family) to be open in his beliefs and true feelings whereas Agassi (burdened by his abusive father and disfunctional family) could not move beyond his faux-image.

Goldenoldie
11-08-2009, 11:09 AM
I wonder if anybody has asked Chang for his opinion?

The Pro
11-08-2009, 11:51 AM
Boris Becker had nice gams.

That is all.

JolánGagó
11-08-2009, 12:34 PM
Everyone is entitled to thanking whomever they want. Why would someone refrain from thanking God if he thinks He was instrumental to victory? It's ridiculous that some take offense on that and pretend others to behave according their stupidity and übersensitivity.

andylovesaustin
11-08-2009, 12:49 PM
Well, do Chang and Serena thank God when they lose?

I mean, for me, just being alive is a miracle. To me, it's not whether one wins or loses. I'm thankful everyday.

I can understand people getting annoyed if the only time they "thank" God is when they win. A lot of people have faith in God, but it's not about "winning" or "losing," more about being spiritually evolved. So for Chang and Serena only to thank God when they win is sort of missing the point... for me, personally. :shrug: Losing is blessing. Competing is a blessing. Breathing is a blessing.

So...I think it's sort of in bad taste to "thank" God only when one wins. It gives the false impression that God was somehow on the winner's side--very Puritanical in interpretation, imo. But I don't think Serena and Chang probably meant it that way.

If one believes, the truth is God is on "everybody's" side, even in our darkest hours and moments. Of course, others believe in the strength of the human spirit, not having anything to do with any "god" at all. Winning or losing has nothing to do with it. It's just "being" aware of that strength.

JolánGagó
11-08-2009, 01:10 PM
Well, do Chang and Serena thank God when they lose?

I mean, for me, just being alive is a miracle. To me, it's not whether one wins or loses. I'm thankful everyday.

I can understand people getting annoyed if the only time they "thank" God is when they win. A lot of people have faith in God, but it's not about "winning" or "losing," more about being spiritually evolved. So for Chang and Serena only to thank God when they win is sort of missing the point... for me, personally. :shrug: Losing is blessing. Competing is a blessing. Breathing is a blessing.

So...I think it's sort of in bad taste to "thank" God only when one wins. It gives the false impression that God was somehow on the winner's side--very Puritanical in interpretation, imo. But I don't think Serena and Chang probably meant it that way.

If one believes, the truth is God is on "everybody's" side, even in our darkest hours and moments. Of course, others believe in the strength of the human spirit, not having anything to do with any "god" at all. Winning or losing has nothing to do with it. It's just "being" aware of that strength.

Your interpretation's only business is with you and those who freely choose it. Your interpretation means donkey shit for Chang and any other individual with his own interpretation. Why would Chang care about Agassi's interpretation in order to decide whether to thank God or not? :shrug:

andylovesaustin
11-08-2009, 01:31 PM
Your interpretation's only business is with you and those who freely choose it. Your interpretation means donkey shit for Chang and any other individual with his own interpretation. Why would Chang care about Agassi's interpretation in order to decide whether to thank God or not? :shrug:

I absolutely agree with you. Ultimately, it's his business to thank God whenever he choses just as much as it's Rafa Nadal's business to pick his butt.
I find both in poor taste, but more power to em.

Ya know... you all act like people can't have an opinion about anything. Even Andre can have an opinion, obviously. But the difference is he was paid 5 million dollars in advance for sharing HIS opinion when HIS opinion isn't really worth any more than mine or YOURS for that matter. :lol:

duong
11-09-2009, 10:10 AM
I already gave an answer about this (see below) : it's cultural

Judging somebody because of his culture (and unless it leads to a bad effect to human welfare) is absurd or a lack of openmindedness in my opinion.

You cannot do anything against the fact that people in different places of the world have developed different cultures, which all have their inner coherence.

If this culture doesn't do anything against human welfare, judging it just shows that you have a cultural difference and cannot open to that difference, that's all ... but that's very very very common :shrug:

From what I remember, actually it was something like "thanking God for giving me the victory".

In that time with my French culture I was shocked by that.

However since then, I've met many Asian people and I know that it's an integral part of Asian culture, at least in the "Chinese world" (China, Vietnam ...) to have this "superstitious" relation with religion ... a religion which was not usually Christianism initially.

And when the people from this culture get attached to Christianism, they are used to keeping this relationship.

But this is real faith, it's not essential to the faith itself.

It's highly respectable : it's only a different culture :shrug:

I've seen other sportsmen with this "superstitious" relationship with religion, also in South America there may also be a culture like that ... but at least as far as Asian people are concerned I know why they may think like that. It's cultural, not related to Chang as an individual.

andylovesaustin
11-09-2009, 12:42 PM
I already gave an answer about this (see below) : it's cultural

Judging somebody because of his culture (and unless it leads to a bad effect to human welfare) is absurd or a lack of openmindedness in my opinion.

You cannot do anything against the fact that people in different places of the world have developed different cultures, which all have their inner coherence.

If this culture doesn't do anything against human welfare, judging it just shows that you have a cultural difference and cannot open to that difference, that's all ... but that's very very very common :shrug:

I don't think people are "judging" them--except I did not think Serena's outburst was very humble. So yeah, I'm judging her outburst at the US Open. It did not look very spiritually enlightened to me.

With this "thank god" thing, I think people are just disagreeing with them, based upon their own "culture" or understanding of religion. I already said in my post I don't think Serena or Michael meant any harm with their practice. It does annoy me Andre would be so openly critical of Michael Chang in the book he's peddling. How did Chang's thanking god ever "hurt" Andre? But I guess Andre is entitled to his opinion, too.

If it makes Michael feel better to thank god for victories, well go on ahead. I wouldn't do it because it's not part of my belief system. But I don't think there should be a rule, banning the thanking of god.

quentinak
11-09-2009, 04:20 PM
Serena is a Jehovah Witness. Their beliefs are pretty wacky and cultish imho (eg. no celebration of birthdays, Christmas, Thanksgiving, or other holidays; taught to limit friendships with non-believers, uses ostracism to punish its members for disobeying rules, etc).

But regarding the outburst, that probably has more to do with her temperament, and maybe upbringing (messed up father), than spiritual enlightenment or lack of.

Chang's beliefs seems much less fundamentalist.

And yes, religious beliefs can be viewed as a culture. But even cultures can be constructive criticized I think, ONLY IF the person has intimate experience/knowledge/understanding of the culture (ie. a person from that said culture).

FairWeatherFan
11-09-2009, 10:03 PM
I never liked Chang. People should keep religion out of their professions, and that includes tennis.

Clydey
11-09-2009, 10:47 PM
I suspect that Agassi's bitter response to Chang is a certain jealousy that Chang had the confidence (born of a supportive family) to be open in his beliefs and true feelings whereas Agassi (burdened by his abusive father and disfunctional family) could not move beyond his faux-image.

Yeah, Chang was a real rebel, making his Christian beliefs known in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian. Fucking bad to the bone.

Sunset of Age
11-09-2009, 10:52 PM
I never liked Chang. People should keep religion out of their professions, and that includes tennis.

On the whole I agree.
It always seems rather awkward to me, players praising their 'god' for a victory... isn't the translation of that something like, "I am better than you, my god is better than yours, he was on my side, na-na-na-na-na"? :rolleyes:
Very unspiritual imho. :shrug:

I agree with Duong as well, stating that it's in fact a 'cultural' matter very often, not surprisingly, as in some countries/cultures, you'll be marked being an evil villan with 'no morals' merely for stating that you're an atheist. :o

Scotso
11-09-2009, 10:58 PM
Chang was still talking about God when he couldn't win a match anymore, and I think he is a minister now
His faith obvious means a big deal to him and I think that's fine.

I agree. I can't imagine why people would possibly get bent out of shape because of this, other than because they're pissy and sore losers.


If you don't believe in God, why would you care about Michael thanking his God for whatever achievement he had? :confused:

If you believe in the same God, you should check with your God why he favoured him over you. ;)

If you believe in a different God, blame your God not being as powerful as Michael's God. :p

:lol:


I think Andre felt that for him to thank god meant that Chang believed god was on his side, or more importantly against his opponent; he didn't like the idea that god would decide to pick sides.

If we follow that line of thought, it could be interpreted that Chang was essentially saying that he was more godly, or more in tune with god than his opponent. I could see how that would be insulting

Well, if there is an all-powerful God that controls everything, it would seem that (s)he did favor the winner.

Clydey
11-09-2009, 10:59 PM
On the whole I agree.
It always seems rather awkward to me, players praising their 'god' for a victory... isn't the translation of that something like, "I am better than you, my god is better than yours, he was on my side, na-na-na-na-na"? :rolleyes:
Very unspiritual imho. :shrug:

I agree with Duong as well, stating that it's in fact a 'cultural' matter very often, not surprisingly, as in some countries/cultures, you'll be marked being an evil villan with no morals, merely for stating that you're an atheist. :o

Atheists are officially the most distrusted minority group in the USA according to a recent poll. I find that astonishing and pretty pathetic. People talk about ethnic minorities and the problems they face, which they undoubtedly do. I think it's worse for atheists nowadays, though. There is only one elected official in the USA who is openly an atheist. A black man is President and woman can be President (Hilary would have become President had she won the nomination). An atheist cannot be President.

Scotso
11-09-2009, 11:00 PM
Serena is a Jehovah Witness.

Not a very good one. I can't imagine they approve of telling someone you're going to shove a ball down their throat.


Atheists are officially the most distrusted minority group in the USA according to a recent poll. I find that astonishing and pretty pathetic. People talk about ethnic minorities and the problems they face, which they undoubtedly do. I think it's worse for atheists nowadays, though. There is only one elected official in the USA who is openly an atheist. A black man is President and woman can be President (Hilary would have become President had she won the nomination). An atheist cannot be President.

An open atheist might not be elected, but in the big picture I really don't see how atheists are discriminated against. When does that topic come up when you're just walking around public places? I really don't see much evidence of atheists being persecuted in the West. It actually seems that it's the "cool" thing to be lately.

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:08 PM
An open atheist might not be elected, but in the big picture I really don't see how atheists are discriminated against. When does that topic come up when you're just walking around public places? I really don't see much evidence of atheists being persecuted in the West. It actually seems that it's the "cool" thing to be lately.

No, it's not the cool thing to be. It's cool if you value reason and logic, I suppose. It is not cool to be an atheist in a society that values superstition. And yes, atheists are discriminated against. Kids get picked on at school for not observing school prayer, families get hounded (in some cases having to leave town). When as recently as the 1980s the President says "I do not know that atheists should be considered citizens" you know there's a problem.

As I said, a recent poll has revealed that atheists are the most distrusted minority in the USA, below muslims, black people, jews.

Sunset of Age
11-09-2009, 11:12 PM
Atheists are officially the most distrusted minority group in the USA according to a recent poll. I find that astonishing and pretty pathetic. People talk about ethnic minorities and the problems they face, which they undoubtedly do. I think it's worse for atheists nowadays, though. There is only one elected official in the USA who is openly an atheist. A black man is President and woman can be President (Hilary would have become President had she won the nomination). An atheist cannot be President.

I'm afraid you're right about this right now, but do remember, some 10-20 years ago it was kinda unthinkable of the USA having a 'black' or 'female' president. Well... things surely have changed for the better lately! :D
So I'm not giving up hope, there *might* come a time when folks realize that being atheist DOES NOT equal being 'without morals'. ;)
Rather the contrary, I'd say. Too many atrocities being committed in the name of religion the past 20 centuries... ever heard of one of those happening in the name of atheism? ;)

An open atheist might not be elected, but in the big picture I really don't see how atheists are discriminated against. When does that topic come up when you're just walking around public places? I really don't see much evidence of atheists being persecuted in the West. It actually seems that it's the "cool" thing to be lately.

From what I heard from visiting various intellectuals in the US during the past 20 years, yes, it IS a problem. Better to hide your atheism, if you really want to have a good chance in politics, or any public function in many cases, over there.
Unfortunately, over here nowadays as well. :(

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:14 PM
I'm afraid you're right about this right now, but do remember, some 10-20 years ago it was kinda unthinkable of the USA having a 'black' or 'female' president. Well... things surely have changed for the better lately! :D
So I'm not giving up hope, there *might* come a time when folks realize that being atheist DOES NOT equal being 'without morals'. ;)
Rather the contrary, I'd say. Too many atrocities being committed in the name of religion the past 20 centuries... ever heard of one happening in the name of atheism? ;)



Precisely. It's literally impossible to do something like that in the name of atheism. It's like committing a crime because you don't believe in unicorns. People often make the mistake of thinking that because a crime is committed by an atheist that there is a causal connection.

buddyholly
11-09-2009, 11:22 PM
Everyone is entitled to thanking whomever they want. Why would someone refrain from thanking God if he thinks He was instrumental to victory? It's ridiculous that some take offense on that and pretend others to behave according their stupidity and übersensitivity.

Yes, he has the right to do it. But then I would have liked to see him give the finger to the sky when he lost. The religious players who do this seem to think it is OK to thank their god for giving them a win. Does that mean they really think their god gave them an advantage over their opponent? So the flipside should naturally be that when they lose their god is sticking it to them. They don't seem to see that part of the equation.

They can make religious statements and we atheists just ignore their foolishness. But what would happen if an atheist player stated that he owes his win entirely to himself, given the obvious fact that no supernatural entity exists? I think we would see the real face of Christian love-thy-neighbour philosophy.

Sunset of Age
11-09-2009, 11:24 PM
Precisely. It's literally impossible to do something like that in the name of atheism. It's like committing a crime because you don't believe in unicorns. People often make the mistake of thinking that because a crime is committed by an atheist that there is a causal connection.

I wouldn't go as far as to state that, but I see where you're coming from.
In all, Atheism, or rather, Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) states that everyone is indeed responsible for his/her own deeds (exceptions being someone being obviously mentally ill), and there's no such thing as 'god loving/hating you' to glorify or damn your achievements.
I rather like that concept.

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:25 PM
Yes, he has the right to do it. But then I would have liked to see him give the finger to the sky when he lost. The religious players who do this seem to think it is OK to thank their god for giving them a win. Does that mean they really think their god gave them an advantage over their opponent? So the flipside should naturally be that when they lose their god is sticking it to them. They don't seem to see that part of the equation.

They can make religious statements and we atheists just ignore their foolishness. But what would happen if an atheist player stated that he owes his win entirely to himself, given the obvious fact that no supernatural entity exists? I think we would see the real face of Christian love-thy-neighbour philosophy.

I personally point to the sky and thank the flying spaghetti monster after I win a tennis match.

Sunset of Age
11-09-2009, 11:26 PM
I personally point to the sky and thank the flying spaghetti monster after I win a tennis match.

+1. :lol:

Lee
11-09-2009, 11:26 PM
No, it's not the cool thing to be. It's cool if you value reason and logic, I suppose. It is not cool to be an atheist in a society that values superstition. And yes, atheists are discriminated against. Kids get picked on at school for not observing school prayer, families get hounded (in some cases having to leave town). When as recently as the 1980s the President says "I do not know that atheists should be considered citizens" you know there's a problem.

As I said, a recent poll has revealed that atheists are the most distrusted minority in the USA, below muslims, black people, jews.

I'm afraid you're right about this right now, but do remember, some 10-20 years ago it was kinda unthinkable of the USA having a 'black' or 'female' president. Well... things surely have changed for the better lately! :D
So I'm not giving up hope, there *might* come a time when folks realize that being atheist DOES NOT equal being 'without morals'. ;)
Rather the contrary, I'd say. Too many atrocities being committed in the name of religion the past 20 centuries... ever heard of one of those happening in the name of atheism? ;)



From what I heard from visiting various intellectuals in the US during the past 20 years, yes, it IS a problem. Better to hide your atheism, if you really want to have a good chance in politics, or any public function in many cases, over there.
Unfortunately, over here nowadays as well. :(

I don't understand why Europeans here are so sure atheists are discriminated in US. :shrug: Federal building in US can't decorate with any religious symbol, no matter how big or small. The teachers in public school can't even say Christmas or talk about any religious holiday. The school calendar in public school has to call Christmas holiday as winter break. The school district in my area has many Christians and Jews and to prevent too many students from skipping class on Good Friday, the calendar has to call that day spring break (no class) and for Jewish New Year, fall break. :shrug:

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:27 PM
I wouldn't go as far as to state that, but I see where you're coming from.
In all, Atheism, or rather, Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism) states that everyone is indeed responsible for his/her own deeds (exceptions being someone being obviously mentally ill), and there's no such thing as 'god loving/hating you' to glorify or damn your achievements.
I rather like that concept.

How does one commit a crime in the name of atheism, though? A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that it's a philosophy.

buddyholly
11-09-2009, 11:28 PM
I personally point to the sky and thank the flying spaghetti monster after I win a tennis match.

You are right. That is a much better way to spoof religion.

buddyholly
11-09-2009, 11:30 PM
How does one commit a crime in the name of atheism, though? A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that it's a philosophy.

We could become suicide bombers and shout ''Allah is Fake'' before hitting the button.

buddyholly
11-09-2009, 11:32 PM
I don't understand why Europeans here are so sure atheists are discriminated in US.

Imagine someone running for office and his platform is clearly far superior to that of any other candidate. He is an atheist. Would he win?

The reasons you gave above are just politically correct nonsense. They state why state-sponsored religion is being reined in, not why atheists are free from discrimination.
Believe me, when religious symbols were banned from a federal buildings it was not to make atheists happy. It was because they did not want to allow symbols of all religions.

Sunset of Age
11-09-2009, 11:34 PM
I don't understand why Europeans here are so sure atheists are discriminated in US. :shrug:

Well, as I said, I spoke with a lot of US fellows, who told me that if you refuse to join a church, you're not even a part of the social community over there. Might well be that I only talked to frustrated no-chance intellectuals, but somehow I doubt that...
I tell you, it's not that different from how things are over here right now. ;)

Federal building in US can't decorate with any religious symbol, no matter how big or small. The teachers in public school can't evan say Christmas or talk about any religious holiday. The school calendar in public school has to call Christmas holiday as winter break. The school district in my area has many Christians and Jews and to prevent too many students from skipping class on Good Friday, the calendar has to call that day spring break (no class) and for Jewish New Year, fall break. :shrug:

Okay - didn't know that. I stand corrected.
But I've heard quite the opposite things of that just the same... :shrug:
In all, it's not THAT differing from the way it is in my country, a country once denounced being Sodom-and-Gomorra from one of the former US presidents. :p

fast_clay
11-09-2009, 11:35 PM
How does one commit a crime in the name of atheism, though? A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that it's a philosophy.

it would be tough... knowing that both you and your victim are assigned to oblivion soon enough... so, best just to put the ak47 down and watch some footy... a more modern and relevant religion...

i would like to thank zidane for this post...

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:36 PM
I don't understand why Europeans here are so sure atheists are discriminated in US. :shrug: Federal building in US can't decorate with any religious symbol, no matter how big or small. The teachers in public school can't evan say Christmas or talk about any religious holiday. The school calendar in public school has to call Christmas holiday as winter break. The school district in my area has many Christians and Jews and to prevent too many students from skipping class on Good Friday, the calendar has to call that day spring break (no class) and for Jewish New Year, fall break. :shrug:

Rubbish on all counts. I follow this issue closely. Only a few idiots have attacked the notion of Christmas, and it is certainly not a word any teacher would avoid using. You are flat out making stuff up.

Atheists are discriminated against in the US. They are the most distrusted minority in the US. What does that tell you?

Also, what planet are you living on if you think there are no relgious symbols allowed? The 10 commandments is displayed outside of more than one courthouse. Not only that, but there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. There is not supposed to be an endorsement of any religion. Therefore, there actually shouldn't be any religious symbols outside of federal buildings.

Sunset of Age
11-09-2009, 11:37 PM
How does one commit a crime in the name of atheism, though? A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that it's a philosophy.

The Soviets 1945 - 1989 gave it a good try, but ultimately - rightly - failed. :p

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:42 PM
Okay - didn't know that. I stand corrected.
But I've heard quite the opposite things of that just the same... :shrug:
In all, it's not THAT differing from the way it is in my country, a country once denounced being Sodom-and-Gomorra from one of the former US presidents. :p

The reason you haven't heard it is because he made it up. What he also doesn't realise is that the USA is supposed to have a separation of church and state. Other than the nonsensical thing about teachers not saying Christmas, which is untrue and more about free speech, the things he mentioned are actually unconstitutional. There shouldn't be religious symbols outside of federal buildings any more than there should be signs outside federal buildings stating "There is no God". The government are not supposed to adopt the position that there is a God. It is supposed to be neutral on the issue.

tennizen
11-09-2009, 11:43 PM
I never liked Chang. People should keep religion out of their professions, and that includes tennis.

What a :retard: to say. Then people should not thank their parents, team or anyone else too.

People should be able to thank whoever the fuck they want to. They should be able to thank a bed bug if they felt like it.

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:44 PM
The Soviets 1945 - 1989 gave it a good try, but ultimately - rightly - failed. :p

That wasn't in the name of atheism. That's communism or a twisted version of it, at least. Stalin was an atheist, but he didn't do what he did in the name of atheism, just as he didn't do what he did because he had a moustache.

Lee
11-09-2009, 11:47 PM
Imagine someone running for office and his platform is clearly far superior to that of any other candidate. He is an atheist. Would he win?

You mean for the presidency of USA?

It's more the political party (old boys club) than the real climate, IMO.

Sunset of Age
11-09-2009, 11:50 PM
The reason you haven't heard it is because he made it up. What he also doesn't realise is that the USA is supposed to have a separation of church and state. Other than the nonsensical thing about teachers not saying Christmas, which is untrue and more about free speech, the things he mentioned are actually unconstitutional. There shouldn't be religious symbols outside of federal buildings any more than there should be signs outside federal buildings stating "There is no God". The government are not supposed to adopt the position that there is a God. It is supposed to be neutral on the issue.

I think any a PTB should be clearly neutral, and avoiding any signs of religion or anti-religion just the same. And yes, the separation of Church and State - all hailz Mr. Baron de Montesquieu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Secondat,_baron_de_Montesquieu)! :worship:

That wasn't in the name of atheism. That's communism or a twisted version of it, at least. Stalin was an atheist, but he didn't do what he did in the name of atheism, just as he didn't do what he did because he had a moustache.

Well the atrocities of the Soviets surely got poored on them by the anti-atheists, so far I'm sure.

Clydey
11-09-2009, 11:51 PM
You mean for the presidency of USA?

It's more the political party (old boys club) than the real climate, IMO.

Nice to see that you have a quote by an atheist in your signature. And no, I don't mean Susan Sarandon.

Lee
11-09-2009, 11:54 PM
Rubbish on all counts. I follow this issue closely. Only a few idiots have attacked the notion of Christmas, and it is certainly not a word any teacher would avoid using. You are flat out making stuff up.

Atheists are discriminated against in the US. They are the most distrusted minority in the US. What does that tell you?

Also, what planet are you living on if you think there are no relgious symbols allowed? The 10 commandments is displayed outside of more than one courthouse. Not only that, but there is supposed to be a separation of church and state. There is not supposed to be an endorsement of any religion. Therefore, there actually shouldn't be any religious symbols outside of federal buildings.

You are the one that's full of rubbish. Check the law in US. It's against the law. All those religious symbols you talked about, the government has to spend money to remove them.

You want me to send you my son's school calendar? It's on internet, you can check it yourself. I don't know how you can know more than I do that what the teachers can talk because I was there every year working and volunteering in my son's classroom with those teachers. :shrug: And yes, he goes to a PUBLIC school.

Lee
11-09-2009, 11:59 PM
Nice to see that you have a quote by an atheist in your signature. And no, I don't mean Susan Sarandon.

:lol: You find fault in me because of the quote I have from Mother Teresa. That woman, even though she had a very deep religious believe herself, go to another country which has a totally different religion than her own, take care of those people abandoned by their own people. Taking care of those people who know nothing about her religion.

She's almost the only person who received the Nobel Peace Award that's truly worthy.

Shows how ignorant and the kind of person you are.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 12:00 AM
You are the one that's full of rubbis. Check the law in US. It's against the law. All those religious symbols you talked about, the government has to spend money to remove them.

You want me to send you my son's school calendar? It's on internet, you can check it yourself. I don't know how you can know more than I do that what the teachers can talk because I was there every year working and volunteering in my son's classroom with those teachers. :shrug: And yes, he goes to a PUBLIC school.

I'm not denying that these holidays are called what you say they are called. I'm saying it has bugger all to do with atheists being sensitive. That's what you are making up.

And no, it is not against the law. It was recently ruled that the ten commandments are allowed outside courthouses. The fact is that it should be illegal and that you would have no cause to complain if it was. The government are not supposed to endorse any religion, even the notion that there is a God.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 12:04 AM
:lol: You find fault in me because of the quote I have from Mother Teresa. That woman, even though she had a very deep religious believe herself, go to another country which has a totally different religion than her own, take care of those people abandoned by their own people. Taking care of those people who know nothing about her religion.

She's almost the only person who received the Nobel Peace Award that's truly worthy.

Shows how ignorant and the kind of person you are.

I didn't find fault with you. I just said that it's nice that you have a quote from an atheist. You mean you didn't know that Mother Teresa was an atheist? It came out after she died.

“Where is my faith? Even deep down … there is nothing but emptiness and darkness … If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul … How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, … What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true” - Mother Teresa

She desperately wanted to believe, but she didn't.

Now, what were you saying about ignorance?

Lee
11-10-2009, 12:04 AM
I'm not denying that these holidays are called what you say they are called. I'm saying it has bugger all to do with atheists being sensitive. That's what you are making up.

And no, it is not against the law. It was recently ruled that the ten commandments are allowed outside courthouses. The fact is that it should be illegal and that you would have no cause to complain if it was. The government are not supposed to endorse any religion, even the notion that there is a God.

Really, than I have to smash the local government spending money to remove them because this state is in deep shit debt.

Now that I showed you're wrong, you change your argument. Same old. Same old.

Again, total waste of my time.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 12:12 AM
Really, than I have to smash the local government spending money to remove them because this state is in deep shit debt.

Now that I showed you're wrong, you change your argument. Same old. Same old.

Again, total waste of my time.

I didn't change my argument. Everyone who is at all familar with US culture is aware of things like Spring Break. You thought I was denying that such a thing exists? Get a grip.

I was objecting to your idiotic assertion that it has anything to do with atheists being too sensitive. I was also arguing against the similarly stupid assertion that teachers are afraid to say "Christmas".

Lee
11-10-2009, 12:14 AM
I didn't find fault with you. I just said that it's nice that you have a quote from an atheist. You mean you didn't know that Mother Teresa was an atheist? It came out after she died.

“Where is my faith? Even deep down … there is nothing but emptiness and darkness … If there be God—please forgive me. When I try to raise my thoughts to Heaven, there is such convicting emptiness that those very thoughts return like sharp knives and hurt my very soul … How painful is this unknown pain—I have no Faith. Repulsed, empty, no faith, no love, no zeal, … What do I labor for? If there be no God, there can be no soul. If there be no soul then, Jesus, You also are not true” - Mother Teresa

She desperately wanted to believe, but she didn't.

Now, what were you saying about ignorance?

Did she say there's no God there? She said, "If there be no God, there can be no soul." She said, "...hurt my very soul" So she claimed her soul hurt, then to her, there should be a God. It's during her difficult time, she lost part of her faith and that hurt her. If she really don't believe in God, no faith would be no problem to her.

Anyway, this is not about debating the faith of Mother Teresa and I put her in my signature, have everything with what she did, not what her reigion is.

And most important, has nothing to do with what's being discuss in this thread.

Lee
11-10-2009, 12:18 AM
I didn't change my argument. Everyone who is at all familar with US culture is aware of things like Spring Break. You thought I was denying that such a thing exists? Get a grip.

I was objecting to your idiotic assertion that it has anything to do with atheists being too sensitive. I was also arguing against the similarly stupid assertion that teachers are afraid to say "Christmas".

Are you putting words in my mouth? Where do I say atheists being too sensitive? You are the one being ultra sensitive.

Teachers are not afraid to say "Christmas" but they are not supposed to say "Christmas" in class. Any correspondence from the school to students will have no mention of anything related to religion. That's what I am saying.

Again, I was there, you're not. So please kindly don't ever put any more words in my mouth anymore.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 12:25 AM
Did she say there's no God there? She said, "If there be no God, there can be no soul." She said, "...hurt my very soul" So she claimed her soul hurt, then to her, there should be a God. It's during her difficult time, she lost part of her faith and that hurt her. If she really don't believe in God, no faith would be no problem to her.



So the declaration of "I have no faith" suggests what to you? It means she didn't believe in God. What else do you think it could mean?

In reference to belief, she also said: "But as for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great, that I look and do not see, — Listen and do not hear — the tongue moves [in prayer] but does not speak".

When she says "If there be a God..." she is seeking forgiveness for not believing.

I love that I have to spell this shit out to you. Do you need an explicit statement of "I do not believe in God" or are you capable of understanding anything more subtle than a popup book?

Clydey
11-10-2009, 12:30 AM
Are you putting words in my mouth? Where do I say atheists being too sensitive? You are the one being ultra sensitive.

Teachers are not afraid to say "Christmas" but they are not supposed to say "Christmas" in class. Any correspondence from the school to students will have no mention of anything related to religion. That's what I am saying.

Again, I was there, you're not. So please kindly don't ever put any more words in my mouth anymore.

I didn't put words in your mouth. It was a logical inference. If the teachers are not allowed to say "Christmas" it can only be because atheists are overly sensitive.

Where is your evidence that they are not supposed to say "Christmas"? Based on your track record, I certainly won't take your word for it. The fact that there has been no mention of this in the news (at least as far as I can tell) doesn't help your case either.

Junkyard Racket
11-10-2009, 01:08 AM
I didn't put words in your mouth. It was a logical inference. If the teachers are not allowed to say "Christmas" it can only be because atheists are overly sensitive.

So you're saying it can't be because of concern of offending Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.?

Clydey
11-10-2009, 01:22 AM
So you're saying it can't be because of concern of offending Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.?

The conversation is about atheists. I think it's logical to assume that he's putting it down to atheists being overly sensitive, particularly given that he is trying to contradict the idea that atheists are victims of discrimination. If the conversation was about another minority, you may have had point.

dabeast
11-10-2009, 01:55 AM
what's the big deal about Chang pointing to the sky? he's a Christian. He's not saying God meant for him to win rather than Agassi. He's just thanking God for the victory. Man is Agassi a sensitive tightwad.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 09:04 AM
The Soviets 1945 - 1989 gave it a good try, but ultimately - rightly - failed. :p

I don't think they failed, in fact rabid commies all around the world did succeed in committing millions of crimes in tha name of atheism (among other things)

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 09:09 AM
You are the one that's full of rubbish. Check the law in US. It's against the law. All those religious symbols you talked about, the government has to spend money to remove them.

You want me to send you my son's school calendar? It's on internet, you can check it yourself. I don't know how you can know more than I do that what the teachers can talk because I was there every year working and volunteering in my son's classroom with those teachers. :shrug: And yes, he goes to a PUBLIC school.

If Clydey says he knows better than you about your son school calendar tell him OK unless you want a 100pgs thread explaining how that's even possible.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 11:12 AM
I don't think they failed, in fact rabid commies all around the world did succeed in committing millions of crimes in tha name of atheism (among other things)

This is the part where you take off and don't bother substantiating that claim. Nevertheless, I'll give you the opportunity to make me out to be a liar.

In what way did Stalin commit crimes in the name of atheism? I guess he was just so adamant that there is no God that he started massacring people. That makes sense, I suppose. I constantly kill random people because I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 11:48 AM
I dunno why Agassi considers this to be so important. People have different beliefs and different ways of expressing them. These sorts of expressions are just as part of the game as Hewitt's CMONs, and a whole range of players chucking their shirts, socks, headbands, balls, etc etc into the crowd. Other forms of celebration are just as "indulgent" as thanking God, so I don't see what the big deal is.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 12:09 PM
This is the part where you take off and don't bother substantiating that claim. Nevertheless, I'll give you the opportunity to make me out to be a liar.

In what way did Stalin commit crimes in the name of atheism? I guess he was just so adamant that there is no God that he started massacring people. That makes sense, I suppose. I constantly kill random people because I don't believe in the Easter Bunny.

Spain, Mexico, Cuba, North Korea... just three places where countless crimes in the name of atheism were commited.

Oh Im not interested in making you out to be anything, you're quite clear yourself in that respect.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 12:15 PM
Spain, Mexico, Cuba, North Korea... just three places where countless crimes in the name of atheism were commited.

Oh Im not interested in making you out to be anything, you're quite clear yourself in that respect.

You can't really say crimes in those countries were committed in the name of atheism. Communism is basically a religion in itself, in terms of devoting oneself to the state, while other places like NK, Spain, Nazi Germany etc. developed cults of personality. People who committed atrocities in those countries did them to benefit a greater power, albeit not God in a traditional sense

andylovesaustin
11-10-2009, 12:32 PM
I would say that atheists are ostracized in the U.S. if not discriminated against. I have a very good friend who's an atheist. She doesn't go around advertising it though because she fears personal and professional ostracizing and then possible discrimination based upon being ostracized.

The thing is a lot of religious people think atheists are "bad" people which is not the case--or it's not any more the case than say the incidence of supposed Christians being "bad" people.

I mean, a lot of people equate atheism with a lack of morals.. or maybe a character flaw. The truth is that atheists just do not believe in God. So subsequently, they believe good and evil come from within man as in man being responsible for his/her own redemption for only himself in the present, not to be saved or rewarded after death.

But I've seen a lot of things on TV and elsewhere equating atheism with being a "bad" person which is NOT necessarily the case.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 12:44 PM
I would say that atheists are ostracized in the U.S. if not discriminated against. I have a very good fried who's an atheist. She doesn't go around advertising it though because she fears personal and professional ostracizing and then possible discrimination based upon being ostracized.

The thing is a lot of religious people think atheists are "bad" people which is not the case--or it's not any more the case than say the incidence of supposed Christians being "bad" people.

I mean, a lot of people equate atheism with a lack of morals.. or maybe a character flaw. The truth is that atheists just do not believe in God. So subsequently, they believe good and evil come from within man as in man being responsible for his/her own redemption for only himself in the present, not to be saved or rewarded after death.

But I've seen a lot of things on TV and elsewhere equating atheism with being a "bad" person which is necessarily the case.

Atheists aren't discriminated against any more than other groups that deviate from accepted norms. I know people in the opposite situation who are strongly religious and are ostracized against as a result.

The common argument leveled against Christians is that they're hypocrites actually - but by the same token, the incidence of hypocrites in the church is no less than the incidence of hypocrites elsewhere.

The real difference between an atheist and someone who believes in God is who they believe is responsible for their redemption - as you said atheists believe that its a temporal thing that man achieves himself, while a person who believes in God and divine judgment believe that its something that cannot be achieved in a human lifetime and can only be done by God.

andylovesaustin
11-10-2009, 12:46 PM
Atheists aren't discriminated against any more than other groups that deviate from accepted norms. I know people in the opposite situation who are strongly religious and are ostracized against as a result.

The common argument leveled against Christians is that they're hypocrites actually - but by the same token, the incidence of hypocrites in the church is no less than the incidence of hypocrites elsewhere.

The real difference between an atheist and someone who believes in God is who they believe is responsible for their redemption - as you said atheists believe that its a temporal thing that man achieves himself, while a person who believes in God and divine judgment believe that its something that cannot be achieved in a human lifetime and can only be done by God.


You can be believe what you want, but I'm telling you in some parts of the South, atheists are ostracized if not discriminated against--even in progressive cities like Austin. It all depends upon where a person lives and works.

I'm just saying...

And strongly religious people are not ostracized in Texas. Christianity is very powerful in Texas. I don't know about say... L.A., but in Texas--even in Austin, Christianity is very powerful. In San Antonio... where that evangelical Hagee has his big ol' church, it's even worse!

Now in other parts of the country, it might be different. But in TExas we have a Bible belt.. up around down, sort of filtering down... organized religion is a very powerful, non-taxed "lobby."

P.S. Apparently, Christianity is very powerful in Cali... if Mormons are buying up ad time to support Prop. 8. The same thing happened in Maine. Look at the ads on TV during the presidential campaign. No... make no mistaker, Christianity is a very powerful lobby. I think churches should be "taxed" for engaging in politics, but they walk a very fine line "voicing an opinion" rather than actually campaigning.

Oh, btw way there is only ONE openly atheist congressman in the U.S. I can't remember his name! :lol: But I'm telling you if an atheist campaigned for President in the u.s., he/she wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 12:53 PM
No that's fine.... I agree with a lot of what you're saying.

I would say America as a whole is much much more conservative than any other Western industralized society in the world, so its not surprising that "progressive cities" are still antagonistic towards atheists.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 12:59 PM
You can't really say crimes in those countries were committed in the name of atheism.

Oh yes of course I can, in fact i do say a lot of crimes in those countries were committed explicitly in the name of atheism, as they were in fact. Please inform yourself better before issuing sweeping statements like above. I suggest you may first try Spanish Civil War for a starter, our fellow poster GlennM can give you leads.

andylovesaustin
11-10-2009, 01:06 PM
[QUOTE=IrvingBerlin;9299487]You can't really say crimes in those countries were committed in the name of atheism.[/youtube]

Oh yes of course I can, in fact i do say a lot of crimes in those countries were committed explicitly in the name of atheism, as they were in fact. Please inform yourself better before issuing sweeping statements like above. I suggest you may first try Spanish Civil War for a starter, our fellow poster GlennM can give you leads.

Well, there are a lot of crimes committed in the name of Christianity or other religions,too.

We've have CHRISTIAN cults compounds blowing themselves up. Or their leaders use Christianity to condone incest and/or child molestation. Then, we've had moms drown their babies in because their babies are "devils."

We've had doctors who perform abortions shot to death by anti-abortionists.

I'm not even touching all the wars that have been started in the name of religion.

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right. And I'm not saying these religious people doing this stuff aren't crazy because they are. Or perhaps they have their own agendas--using religion to attain power--it's not "religion" they're most concerned about.

So... there are bad people or crazy people everywhere.

Everko
11-10-2009, 01:08 PM
So you're saying it can't be because of concern of offending Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.?

If simply saying merry christmas offends you than you need to grow some thicker skin.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 01:12 PM
Oh yes of course I can, in fact i do say a lot of crimes in those countries were committed explicitly in the name of atheism, as they were in fact. Please inform yourself better before issuing sweeping statements like above. I suggest you may first try Spanish Civil War for a starter, our fellow poster GlennM can give you leads.

Oh and this statement of yours isn't a sweeping statement is it? :rolleyes:

Seriously get your head out of your ass. Just because the Republicans were out to destroy the Catholic establishment does not mean they were fighting for the cause of atheism. With the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, its no surprise that so many people were antagonistic towards it.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 01:16 PM
Oh and this statement of yours isn't a sweeping statement is it? :rolleyes:

No it isn't, it's a suggestion :shrug:

Seriously get your head out of your ass. Just because the Republicans were out to destroy the Catholic establishment does not mean they were fighting for the cause of atheism. With the history of the Catholic Church in Europe, its no surprise that so many people were antagonistic towards it.

You should read some more, sorry.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 01:20 PM
So is this your glib reply to anyone who disagrees with you?

It's obvious you don't really have a proper argument if you're not willing to engage in debate about it.

andylovesaustin
11-10-2009, 01:22 PM
I just think everybody needs to be more tolerant of each other.

What's wrong with using happy holidays? Or if I might say "Merry Christmas" to an atheist, so what?

I just think we need to light-up on the small stuff, but get tougher.. when a church is so powerful they are trying to push their agendas into law. I don't agree with teaching devine design as part of science in public schools, for example. It's not based on science, so why make it part of science? I believe in the strict separation of church and state even though I'm will to "bend" on a few issues.

My atheist friend and her family celebrate Christmas, but they celebrate more the season then actually buying into the story of Jesus, per se. She doesn't her knickers in a twist about singing a carol or two. She just doesn't look at carols and HER truth.

I'm Christian. We've had many discussions. And I appreciate her point of view even though I don't agree with her. She an adult. She was raised Unitarian Universalist. She's aware of Christianity and other religions.

Ultimately, she believes what she believes. But that doesn't mean she isn't a good person or is some sort of...Satanic cult person trying to hurt people. She doesn't believe in Satan either! :lol:

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 01:23 PM
So is this your glib reply to anyone who disagrees with you?

Obviously not, it was my reply just to you and your baseless statement.

It's obvious you don't really have a proper argument if you're not willing to engage in debate about it.

debate? argument? first read some more and then we'd perhaps do all that (don't hold your breath though)

Lee
11-10-2009, 01:28 PM
If Clydey says he knows better than you about your son school calendar tell him OK unless you want a 100pgs thread explaining how that's even possible.

:lol:

That's why I use a certain function provided by this board.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 01:28 PM
Your arrogance is amusing JolanGago.

There is obviously no need to continue any form of discussion with you as it seems that you believe your version of history is the Word of God, and that since I don't hold to that I must be wrong. Now that'd really hold up in a public debate.

Lee
11-10-2009, 01:31 PM
I just think everybody needs to be more tolerant of each other.


Agree 100%!

Clydey
11-10-2009, 01:50 PM
Spain, Mexico, Cuba, North Korea... just three places where countless crimes in the name of atheism were commited.

Oh Im not interested in making you out to be anything, you're quite clear yourself in that respect.

So you're not going to answer the question? I asked you in what way those crimes were committed in the name of atheism?

I could say that Hitler and Stalin both committed crimes because they had moustaches. That doesn't make it true, though. You have to justify such a claim. You can't, though. That's why you'll find a way to leave the discussion, rather than answer a simple question.

In fact, I'd bet good money that you will avoid the question at all costs. Your response will amount to little more than an ad hominem attack. That's what people do when they do not have a coherent argument.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 01:52 PM
You can be believe what you want, but I'm telling you in some parts of the South, atheists are ostracized if not discriminated against--even in progressive cities like Austin. It all depends upon where a person lives and works.

I'm just saying...

And strongly religious people are not ostracized in Texas. Christianity is very powerful in Texas. I don't know about say... L.A., but in Texas--even in Austin, Christianity is very powerful. In San Antonio... where that evangelical Hagee has his big ol' church, it's even worse!

Now in other parts of the country, it might be different. But in TExas we have a Bible belt.. up around down, sort of filtering down... organized religion is a very powerful, non-taxed "lobby."

P.S. Apparently, Christianity is very powerful in Cali... if Mormons are buying up ad time to support Prop. 8. The same thing happened in Maine. Look at the ads on TV during the presidential campaign. No... make no mistaker, Christianity is a very powerful lobby. I think churches should be "taxed" for engaging in politics, but they walk a very fine line "voicing an opinion" rather than actually campaigning.

Oh, btw way there is only ONE openly atheist congressman in the U.S. I can't remember his name! :lol: But I'm telling you if an atheist campaigned for President in the u.s., he/she wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.

His name is Pete Stark.

Goldenoldie
11-10-2009, 01:53 PM
I just think everybody needs to be more tolerant of each other.


I agree as well, but we're fighting a losing battle on this forum

Clydey
11-10-2009, 01:55 PM
I agree as well, but we're fighting a losing battle on this forum

Debate is healthy. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone's views and being intolerant of them.

tnosugar
11-10-2009, 02:00 PM
Spain, Mexico, Cuba, North Korea... just three places where countless crimes in the name of atheism were commited.

Oh Im not interested in making you out to be anything, you're quite clear yourself in that respect.

The list of countries in which countless crimes were committed in the name of Christianity is much, much, much longer and extends far more back into time. And one of the primary victims were atheists.
And what does this have to do with tennis and Chang?

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:02 PM
Your arrogance is amusing JolanGago.

I know, glad you're amused too.

There is obviously no need to continue any form of discussion with you as it seems that you believe your version of history is the Word of God, and that since I don't hold to that I must be wrong. Now that'd really hold up in a public debate.

I haven't disclosed any version of History, let alone mine. I've just invited you to inmerse in relevant literature so you could talk with some knowledge of some sort of what happened, for instance, in Spain during Civil War. You chose not to, it's your right but spare me the sanctimonious BS.

Goldenoldie
11-10-2009, 02:03 PM
Debate is healthy. There's a difference between disagreeing with someone's views and being intolerant of them.

True, but how often is there "healthy" debate on this forum? Perhaps 10% of the time? The rest is taken up by "I'm right, you're wrong, so fuck off", "no you fuck off", schoolkid type of comment.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:05 PM
So you're not going to answer the question? I asked you in what way those crimes were committed in the name of atheism?

I could say that Hitler and Stalin both committed crimes because they had moustaches. That doesn't make it true, though. You have to justify such a claim. You can't, though. That's why you'll find a way to leave the discussion, rather than answer a simple question.

Im not here to provide you with the info you should've already provided yourself with previous to engaging in pretendedly serious discussions on topics you seem not to have much idea about.

www.google.com. I hope this helps.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:06 PM
The list of countries in which countless crimes were committed in the name of Christianity is much, much, much longer and extends far more back into time. And one of the primary victims were atheists.
And what does this have to do with tennis and Chang?

Oh i don't know, ask Clydey.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:08 PM
So you're not going to answer the question? I asked you in what way those crimes were committed in the name of atheism?

I could say that Hitler and Stalin both committed crimes because they had moustaches. That doesn't make it true, though. You have to justify such a claim. You can't, though. That's why you'll find a way to leave the discussion, rather than answer a simple question.

In fact, I'd bet good money that you will avoid the question at all costs. Your response will amount to little more than an ad hominem attack. That's what people do when they do not have a coherent argument.

Evidently he's not since he's refusing to respond to me :shrug: He already is avoiding the question at all costs.

The list of countries in which countless crimes were committed in the name of Christianity is much, much, much longer and extends far more back into time. And one of the primary victims were atheists.
And what does this have to do with tennis and Chang?

I'd really hesitate before starting a "what ideology/religion has more blood and atrocity to answer for" debate, especially when you cite Christianity as having a more extensive record of atrocity

Firstly, Christianity does not necessarily equate to Roman Catholicism and all its manifestations. My own personal opinion is that the Catholic Church isn't really Christian, and I'd be happy to debate that point out.

Based on that, a majority of supposedly "Christian" atrocities are really "Roman Catholic Church" atrocities.

Secondly, the early Christians were one of the most heavily persecuted groups in history - even if you don't agree with the biblical record, there are enough non-Christian sources to substantiate mass persecution of Christians by Jews and Roman authorities supporting them.

...of course none of this really has anything to do with the OP, so I would suggest this be moved to NT too

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:12 PM
Im not here to provide you with the info you should've already provided yourself with in order to engage in pretendedly serious discussions on topics you seem not have much idea about.

www.google.com. I hope this helps.

As predicted, you're avoiding the question at all costs and have resorted to ad hominems. Far too predictable.

You could make me look very silly right now and prove me wrong by answering my question. Is it too much to ask that you back up your views?

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:13 PM
Based on that, a majority of supposedly "Christian" atrocities are really "Roman Catholic Church" atrocities.


:spit:

too funny, so the Protestants and orthodox don't have any record of "atrocities" in their closet :haha:

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:15 PM
I know, glad you're amused too.

I haven't disclosed any version of History, let alone mine. I've just invited you to inmerse in relevant literature so you could talk with some knowledge of some sort of what happened, for instance, in Spain during Civil War. You chose not to, it's your right but spare me the sanctimonious BS.

I'm aware of the facts. I'm just choosing not to wade into the murky waters of "relevant literature" as I'm not really keen on spending time reading volumes on Spanish history. You still haven't told me what glaring historical error I've committed yet.... I really don't want to play a guessing game as to that. If your argument is that the Republican anarchists did do all these acts in the "name of atheism", I'd invite you to tell me your definition of atheism. Because what you'd class as atheism in the 1930s is hardly the same as atheism today.

quentinak
11-10-2009, 02:18 PM
Kids get picked on at school for not observing school prayer, families get hounded (in some cases having to leave town). When as recently as the 1980s the President says "I do not know that atheists should be considered citizens" you know there's a problem.

As I said, a recent poll has revealed that atheists are the most distrusted minority in the USA, below muslims, black people, jews.

Seriously ,where are you getting this stuff from? Or am I missing the sarcasm here?

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:19 PM
:spit:

too funny, so the Protestants and orthodox don't have any record of "atrocities" in their closet :haha:

Um I didn't say that. :rolleyes:

I'm speaking RELATIVELY - you really think anything committed by protestants and orthodox christians can compare to atrocities committed during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish conquest of the Americas... I could go on and on and on if you want

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:20 PM
As predicted, you're avoiding the question at all costs and have resorted to ad hominems. Far too predictable.

You could make me look very silly right now and prove me wrong by answering my question. Is it too much to ask that you back up your views?

As predicted, you're characteristically trying at all cost to engage in a circular "discussion" in which others are repeteadly asked to "prove", "back" or otherwise "substantiate" claims you easily could, if you wished, substantiate yourself, without first showing the slightest intention of properly "prove", "back" or "substantiate" other claims previously made by you without any backing, proof or substance attached to it. Im not in the mood to be swept by that kind of verbal diaohrrea right now, sorry. As I said, help yourself, you know how to do it: www.google.com

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Seriously ,where are you getting this stuff from? Or am I missing the sarcasm here?

The news?

Which part do you think I'm wrong about?

Here is the exhange with George Bush.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens,
nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle
the separation of state and church?

Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:22 PM
and let's take a look at your beloved Spanish Civil War why don't we?

How about the Nationalists? Executing school teachers, massacring civilians, massacring anyone with leftist affiliations. Yeah those Church-defending types were real great weren't they?

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:24 PM
As predicted, you're characteristically trying at all cost to engage in a circular "discussion" in which others are repeteadly asked to "prove", "back" or otherwise "substantiate" claims you easily could, if you wished, substantiate yourself, without first showing the slightest intention of properly "prove", "back" or "substantiate" other claims previously made by you without any backing, proof or substance attached to it. Im not in the mood to be swept by that kind of verbal diaohrrea right now, sorry. As I said, help yourself, you know how to do it: www.google.com

:smash:

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:24 PM
I'm aware of the facts.

Your statements on the matter indicate the contrary.

I'm just choosing not to wade into the murky waters of "relevant literature" as I'm not really keen on spending time reading volumes on Spanish history....

Oh Im sorry about that, Im not really kind on wading into any kind of waters just to get your lazy ass out of them. :shrug: Help yourself.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:26 PM
Um I didn't say that. :rolleyes:

I'm speaking RELATIVELY - you really think anything committed by protestants and orthodox christians can compare to atrocities committed during the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Spanish conquest of the Americas... I could go on and on and on if you want

You obviously know donkey shit of History, European History at least. Yes, you can go on and on and on, ignorance is potentially infinite.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:27 PM
Your statements on the matter indicate the contrary.



Oh Im sorry about that, Im not really kind on wading into any kind of waters just to get your lazy ass out of them. :shrug: Help yourself.

I'm impressed. You have managed to sustain a debate for 2 hours without at any point actually bringing out anything to support your argument. Of course that's something that's beneath you isn't it?

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:30 PM
As predicted, you're characteristically trying at all cost to engage in a circular "discussion" in which others are repeteadly asked to "prove", "back" or otherwise "substantiate" claims you easily could, if you wished, substantiate yourself, without first showing the slightest intention of properly "prove", "back" or "substantiate" other claims previously made by you without any backing, proof or substance attached to it. Im not in the mood to be swept by that kind of verbal diaohrrea right now, sorry. As I said, help yourself, you know how to do it: www.google.com

So I'm supposed to go and substantiate your claim, which I know to be false. That's a new debating tactic. State your opinion and get the opposition to try and substantiate it?

Allow me to demonstrate how idiotic your suggestion is. Based on your post, above, this is how a debate should go.

You: Pigs can fly!

Me: Offer some proof to back up that assertion.

You: No, you prove it!



Words fail me...

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:33 PM
So I'm supposed to go and substantiate your claim, which I know to be false.

No, you don't know it to be false, you merely believe it. Im not paid to convince you otherwise, neither do I care one way or another.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:38 PM
No, you don't know it to be false, you merely believe it. Im not paid to convince you otherwise, neither do I care one way or another.

Um you're the one who made the claim we're arguing about in the first place. And yet you continue to deride us for questioning your claim without actually convincing us of its validity in the first place. Your claim is not fact, it is an opinion, and you can't just spout opinions without giving arguments for them.

"in the Spanish Civil War, atrocities were committed in the name of atheism" does not equal "Berlin is the capital of Germany" in terms of factual basis.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:39 PM
No, you don't know it to be false, you merely believe it. Im not paid to convince you otherwise, neither do I care one way or another.

I know it to be false because it is impossible to commit a crime in the name of not believing in a deity. It's like committing a crime because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Stalin happened to be an atheist. That doesn't mean he committed those atrocities because he was an atheist. He also had a moustache. The atrocities he committed had nothing to do with ill-advised facial hair either. There is no connection between the two.

If you could back up your assertion, you would. The only thing you have proved is that you can't. As a result, your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous, to the point that you actually told me to do a google search and substantiate YOUR claim. Are you so detached from reality that you cannot see how idiotic that is?

Everko
11-10-2009, 02:41 PM
I know it to be false because it is impossible to commit a crime in the name of not believing in a deity. It's like committing a crime because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Stalin happened to be an atheist. That doesn't mean he committed those atrocities because he was an atheist. He also had a moustache. The atrocities he committed had nothing to do with ill-advised facial hair either. There is no connection between the two.

If you could back up your assertion, you would. The only thing you have proved is that you can't. As a result, your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous, to the point that you actually told me to do a google search and substantiate YOUR claim. Are you so detached from reality that you cannot see how idiotic that is?

So you mean that only religios can commit crimes in the name of something? By this logic athiesm is never wrong

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 02:46 PM
Atheists have persecuted religious people at times. Chinese Communists have been horrible to the Tibetan Buddhists, for example. Whether this is motivated by atheism per se or by the fact that adherents of the religion in question oppose Marxism & the Communist regime, is another question. At the same time, of course, religious bigots who persecute atheists - historically, it has generally been heretics rather than atheists, as avowed atheists were & are rare outside 20th/21st-Century Europe (& ancient Greece & Rome) - aren't necessarily doing so in the name of *theism* per se, but rather of a particular religion. Either way, this of course has no bearing on the truth-claims of either atheism, theism, or any religion in particular. My impression is that religious people are more likely to be intolerant, bigoted, and persecutory, simply because they are by definition prone to irrationality, believing as they do in something of great importance to the universe & to their own lives on no other basis than "faith" - but of course religions aren't the only irrational belief-systems, & Marxism is another classic example.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:47 PM
So you mean that only religios can commit crimes in the name of something? By this logic athiesm is never wrong

In the name of something? Crimes needn't be committed in the name of a religion. However, they do offer a powerful justification for almost any act. Atheists are not unified by the existence of a holy book, a set of beliefs, practices, etc. The only thing that atheists have in common, collectively, is a lack of belief in a deity. You can no more commit a crime because you don't believe in the God of the bible than you can commit a crime because you don't believe in Zeus.

If you think you can, please tell me how.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:47 PM
I know it to be false because it is impossible to commit a crime in the name of not believing in a deity. It's like committing a crime because you don't believe in the Easter Bunny. Stalin happened to be an atheist. That doesn't mean he committed those atrocities because he was an atheist. He also had a moustache. The atrocities he committed had nothing to do with ill-advised facial hair either. There is no connection between the two.

If you could back up your assertion, you would. The only thing you have proved is that you can't. As a result, your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous, to the point that you actually told me to do a google search and substantiate YOUR claim. Are you so detached from reality that you cannot see how idiotic that is?

Um ok while I've agreed with you up to now, I have to disagree with you on this point.

Its just as feasible to commit a crime against someone in the name of not believing/not being something. Just as religious people are capable of persecuting atheists, non-religious people are capable of persecuting theists. Of course that hasn't happened yet in any discernable form, but you can't say its impossible.

Everko
11-10-2009, 02:48 PM
Um ok while I've agreed with you up to now, I have to disagree with you on this point.

Its just as feasible to commit a crime against someone in the name of not believing/not being something. Just as religious people are capable of persecuting atheists, non-religious people are capable of persecuting theists. Of course that hasn't happened yet in any discernable form, but you can't say its impossible.

come again??

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:51 PM
Atheists have persecuted religious people at times. Chinese Communists have been horrible to the Tibetan Buddhists, for example. Whether this is motivated by atheism per se or by the fact that adherents of the religion in question oppose Marxism & the Communist regime, is another question. At the same time, of course, religious bigots who persecute atheists - historically, it has generally been heretics rather than atheists, as avowed atheists were & are rare outside 20th/21st-Century Europe (& ancient Greece & Rome) - aren't necessarily doing so in the name of *theism* per se, but rather of a particular religion. Either way, this of course has no bearing on the truth-claims of either atheism, theism, or any religion in particular. My impression is that religious people are more likely to be intolerant, bigoted, and persecutory, simply because they are by definition prone to irrationality, believing as they do in something of great importance to the universe & to their own lives on no other basis than "faith" - but of course religions aren't the only irrational belief-systems, & Marxism is another classic example.

No one is denying that atheists have committed crimes and atrocities. There are bad people in every walk of life. However, there is a huge difference between an atheist committing a crime and an atheist committing a crime that is motivated by his/her atheism.

No matter how you look at it, it is impossible to commit a crime simply because you do not believe in some supernatural entity. Where is the motivating factor?

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:53 PM
"in the Spanish Civil War, atrocities were committed in the name of atheism" does not equal "Berlin is the capital of Germany" in terms of factual basis.

Both statement are equally correct. Your statement that they aren't isn't a fact but an opinion based on your lack of knowledge on the matter, in any case smth you must factually substantiate before categorizing it as "fact". I understand you don't feel like submerging yourself in books on the matter BUT your intention to force me to provide you with everything you feel lazy to look up yourself is unrealistic, even ludicrous.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:54 PM
Um ok while I've agreed with you up to now, I have to disagree with you on this point.

Its just as feasible to commit a crime against someone in the name of not believing/not being something. Just as religious people are capable of persecuting atheists, non-religious people are capable of persecuting theists. Of course that hasn't happened yet in any discernable form, but you can't say its impossible.

That isn't atheism. That is anti-theism. Atheism does not come hand in hand with an religious intolerance. Not believing in a God is not the same as hating religion. That's the problem. People seem incapable of separating the two.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 02:54 PM
come again??

Have you seen a government of atheists yet? I don't mean communists or fascists or other groups of people who don't believe in God... I mean a government which has as its ideology that religious belief (and I count Communism and cults of personality as religious) of any form is wrong.

Yes the USSR banned the Orthodox Church, and there are plenty of examples of communists/fascists persecuting particular religious groups. But there is not a government in history that has launched a pogrom against people of faith in GENERAL.

Everko
11-10-2009, 02:56 PM
No matter how you look at it, it is impossible to commit a crime simply because you do not believe in some supernatural entity. Where is the motivating factor?

Hatred for the thiests.

It's simple really

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 02:57 PM
I know it to be false because it is impossible to commit a crime in the name of not believing in a deity.

Impossible? why so? please substantiate your claim with smth more solid than your proof on the right of Lee's son's teachers to say "Christmas" in classroom.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 02:57 PM
No one is denying that atheists have committed crimes and atrocities. There are bad people in every walk of life. However, there is a huge difference between an atheist committing a crime and an atheist committing a crime that is motivated by his/her atheism.

No matter how you look at it, it is impossible to commit a crime simply because you do not believe in some supernatural entity. Where is the motivating factor?

I agree with your first paragraph, BUT it is theoretically & psychologically possible to beat the shit out of somebody because he believes in Zeus & you don't. Imagine if Richard Dawkins, rather than being an academic who wins battles by argument, were some kind of badass gangster who settled disagreements by less civilised means.

Everko
11-10-2009, 02:58 PM
Hatred for the thiests.

It's simple really

Answer to Clydey questiona bout the motivating factor.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 02:59 PM
Hatred for the thiests.

It's simple really

That isn't what atheism is. That's anti-theism.

An antitheist is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "One opposed to belief in the existence of a God." The earliest citation given for this meaning is from 1833. An antitheist may be opposed to belief in the existence of any god or gods, and not merely one in particular. The concept allows a distinction to be drawn between the simple indifference or apathy towards theism, atheism or agnosticism (cf. apatheism), and a position of antipathy or opposition towards such beliefs.

There's no doubt that many atheists are anti-theists. I count myself among them to some extent. However, they are not the same thing. There is a distinction to be made between the two.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 02:59 PM
But there is not a government in history that has launched a pogrom against people of faith in GENERAL.

Khmer Rouge?

Everko
11-10-2009, 03:00 PM
That isn't what atheism is. That's anti-theism.


There's no doubt that many atheists are anti-theists. I count myself among them to some extent. However, they are not the same thing. There is a distinction to be made between the two.

But why are the anti-thiest? becuase they are athiest

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 03:02 PM
That isn't what atheism is. That's anti-theism.


There's no doubt that many atheists are anti-theists. I count myself among them to some extent. However, they are not the same thing. There is a distinction to be made between the two.

I kind of see the value of the distinction, but it seems a matter of degree than a difference in kind. An anti-theist is just an atheist who cares about his (non-)belief.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:02 PM
I agree with your first paragraph, BUT it is theoretically & psychologically possible to beat the shit out of somebody because he believes in Zeus & you don't. Imagine if Richard Dawkins, rather than being an academic who wins battles by argument, were some kind of badass gangster who settled disagreements by less civilised means.

Theoretically possible? It's not even theoretically possible. You might be an Azeusian, but it would require a fundamental opposition to anyone believing in Zeus before it could potentially lead to violence. There's a difference between not believing in Zeus and hating those who do believe in Zeus.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 03:04 PM
Both statement are equally correct. Your statement that they aren't isn't a fact but an opinion based on your lack of knowledge on the matter, in any case smth you must factually substantiate before categorizing it as "fact". I understand you don't feel like submerging yourself in books on the matter BUT your intention to force me to provide you with everything you feel lazy to look up yourself is unrealistic, even ludicrous.

:bs:

I'm going to stop here because this argument has basically become impossible to resolve. It's basically now this:

Me: Your statement is not a fact. Prove it.

You: Your statement about my statement is not a fact. Prove it.

Me: Your statement about my statement is not a fact. Prove it.

You: Your statement about my statement is not a fact. Prove it........... ad infinitum

I'm not going to go to the effort of becoming an expert in Spanish history seeing as you haven't seen fit to engage with me on any factual arguments.


That isn't atheism. That is anti-theism. Atheism does not come hand in hand with an religious intolerance. Not believing in a God is not the same as hating religion. That's the problem. People seem incapable of separating the two.

That's because people disagree on whether the two can be separated. It really all comes down to how you define atheism, and that is a definitional debate without end. Not that I'm adverse to discussing it though. My personal view is that atheism is as much of a belief system as any other religion. (...and now that I've said that, we should really move this thread to NT as it has no relevance to the OP anymore. It seriously needs to be moved or we're just going to have an endless philosophical debate on GM)

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 03:04 PM
There's a difference between not believing in Zeus and hating those who do believe in Zeus.

Of course there is, but it's POSSIBLE for the first to inspire the second.

Everko
11-10-2009, 03:05 PM
Theoretically possible? It's not even theoretically possible. You might be an Azeusian, but it would require a fundamental opposition to anyone believing in Zeus before it could potentially lead to violence. There's a difference between not believing in Zeus and hating those who do believe in Zeus.

and why do they hate those who believe in Zeus? Because they do not believe on Zeus.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:06 PM
I kind of see the value of the distinction, but it seems a matter of degree than a difference in kind. An anti-theist is just an atheist who cares about his (non-)belief.

I can't agree with that. I know many atheists who are indifferent to the beliefs of others. They believe religion is a private matter and do not take any measures to change anyone's mind. Then there are others, like Dawkins and Hitchens, who are famous anti-theists. That sort of hatred of religion can lead to violence, in theory. Has it ever happened, though? Anti-theists tend to take an intellectual approach, as opposed to a violent one.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 03:07 PM
Khmer Rouge?

They killed everyone though. Not just people of religion, but intellectuals, former government supporters, non-Cambodians. Basically anyone who was a threat/not in line with the Khmer Rouge's ideals.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:08 PM
and why do they hate those who believe in Zeus? Because they do not believe on Zeus.

Well, no. I don't believe in Santa Claus, but I don't hate those who do. There are many things I disagree with. That doesn't mean that it leads me to hate those who hold opposing views. Atheism (or agnosticism, I suppose) is a necessary condition for anti-theism. However, it is not a sufficient condition.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 03:10 PM
I can't agree with that. I know many atheists who are indifferent to the beliefs of others. They believe religion is a private matter and do not take any measures to change anyone's mind. Then there are others, like Dawkins and Hitchens, who are famous anti-theists. That sort of hatred of religion can lead to violence, in theory. Has it ever happened, though? Anti-theists tend to take an intellectual approach, as opposed to a violent one.

Fair points again, but really a more useful distinction might be between subjectivist atheists (well, if it's true for you, that's fine, it ain't for me), who are probably just agnostics by default, and those who believe there is an arguable (if not ultimately decidable) fact of the matter. Committed atheists, being by & large intelligent, generally use their intelligence to fight their corner, but I would say the Khmer Rouge were a good example of people who used violence to enforce their atheism on others.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 03:11 PM
They killed everyone though. Not just people of religion, but intellectuals, former government supporters, non-Cambodians. Basically anyone who was a threat/not in line with the Khmer Rouge's ideals.

True, but their nihilistic ideals included atheism (or anti-theism), & they killed people as a result.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:11 PM
Of course there is, but it's POSSIBLE for the first to inspire the second.

Of course it is. No one is denying that. That does not change the fact that there is a difference and that one does not neccesarily follow the other. In fact, in most cases anti-theism is not the result of one's atheism. Most atheists are raised in a religious background. It's hard to hate something that your family believes in.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 03:12 PM
I can't agree with that. I know many atheists who are indifferent to the beliefs of others. They believe religion is a private matter and do not take any measures to change anyone's mind. Then there are others, like Dawkins and Hitchens, who are famous anti-theists. That sort of hatred of religion can lead to violence, in theory. Has it ever happened, though? Anti-theists tend to take an intellectual approach, as opposed to a violent one.

The thing is though, most people see Dawkins and Hitchens as atheists.

Many friends have started calling themselves "secular humanists" to differentiate themselves from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, which imho seems a better term than just "atheist". If you just define atheism as not believing in a god, then anti-theism can be defined as atheism just as much as "secular humanism" can be defined as atheism.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:14 PM
That's because people disagree on whether the two can be separated. It really all comes down to how you define atheism, and that is a definitional debate without end. Not that I'm adverse to discussing it though. My personal view is that atheism is as much of a belief system as any other religion. (...and now that I've said that, we should really move this thread to NT as it has no relevance to the OP anymore. It seriously needs to be moved or we're just going to have an endless philosophical debate on GM)

In what way is atheism as much a belief system as any "other" religion? You'll have to go some way to make that fly. For something to be considered a religion, it requires more than a solitary, unifying belief.

If you say atheism is a belief system, not believing in the Easter Bunny is a belief system.

Everko
11-10-2009, 03:17 PM
In what way is atheism as much a belief system as any "other" religion? You'll have to go some way to make that fly. For something to be considered a religion, it requires more than a solitary, unifying belief.

If you say atheism is a belief system, not believing in the Easter Bunny is a belief system.

False.

Athiesm does have bigegr ideals than something like not believing in fairies or stuff of that nature.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:18 PM
The thing is though, most people see Dawkins and Hitchens as atheists.

Many friends have started calling themselves "secular humanists" to differentiate themselves from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, which imho seems a better term than just "atheist". If you just define atheism as not believing in a god, then anti-theism can be defined as atheism just as much as "secular humanism" can be defined as atheism.

Atheism is not believing in God. Anti-theism is the fundamental opposition to the belief in God. Atheism can be characterised by a lack of belief accompanied by indifference to the beliefs of others. That's not what anti-theism is. I don't like the term "atheist" anyway. It annoys me that there is even a term for it.

Doomach777
11-10-2009, 03:18 PM
No he wasnt. If u believe in God he is with you ... belive it or not...

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 03:18 PM
True, but their nihilistic ideals included atheism (or anti-theism), & they killed people as a result.

True as well, but the motivation of the Khmer Rouge wasn't because they were offended by the idea of believing in a god. It was out of mere self-interest. From the Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea:

Reactionary religions which are detrimental to Democratic Kampuchea and Kampuchean people are absolutely forbidden.

Doomach777
11-10-2009, 03:19 PM
False.

Athiesm does have bigegr ideals than something like not believing in fairies or stuff of that nature.

Atheist's are stupid. One girl which is going in school with me is an atheist, but she is celebrating Christmas, Easter and other Catolics holidays... stupid..

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:20 PM
False.

Athiesm does have bigegr ideals than something like not believing in fairies or stuff of that nature.

No, it doesn't.

Atheism simple means "not a theist", in the same way atypical means "not typical".

Tell me, how do you define an atheist?

Everko
11-10-2009, 03:22 PM
No, it doesn't.

Atheism simple means "not a theist", in the same way atypical means "not typical".

Tell me, how do you define an atheist?

You misunderstood me. I agree that there is no such thing as a 1st church of Athiest where athiets go, because they have no belief system.

I was saying that being an Athiest in obviously more important than matters like not believing in a bunny. And because of that, it is more controversial and can be considered a belief on the basis that it goes againts another widely held belief.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:22 PM
True, but their nihilistic ideals included atheism (or anti-theism), & they killed people as a result.

Nihilistic ideals? I'm certainly a nihilist, too. I don't think one logically subscribe to the theory of evolution and be anything other than a nihilist. Probably opening up a can of worms with that one.

quentinak
11-10-2009, 03:22 PM
Have you seen a government of atheists yet? I don't mean communists or fascists or other groups of people who don't believe in God... I mean a government which has as its ideology that religious belief (and I count Communism and cults of personality as religious) of any form is wrong.

Yes the USSR banned the Orthodox Church, and there are plenty of examples of communists/fascists persecuting particular religious groups. But there is not a government in history that has launched a pogrom against people of faith in GENERAL.

Communism and Marxism basically saw religion in GENERAL as "opium of the people." These systems of government are inherently anti-theistic and has shown themselves to act out aggressively against religion. It is this view on religion that motivates the leaders of Communist regimes to persecute religious people.

But does all this mean that Michael Chang's expression of religious faith after a tennis match should be respected, or frowned upon?

Snoo Foo
11-10-2009, 03:23 PM
Atheist's are stupid. One girl which is going in school with me is an atheist, but she is celebrating Christmas, Easter and other Catolics holidays... stupid..

holidays are fun, why not celebrate them all?

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:24 PM
You misunderstood me. I agree that there is no such thing as a 1st church of Athiest where athiets go, because they have no belief system.

I was saying that being an Athiest in obviously more important than matters like not believing in a bunny. And because of that, it is more controversial and can be considered a belief on the basis that it goes againts another widely held belief.

The reason it is more controversial is because monotheism is so prevalent. If 90% of the planet believed in and worshipped the Easter Bunny, Abunnyists would create controversy, too. It also stems from an opposition to what is a belief shared by the vast, vast majority of the planet.

Doomach777
11-10-2009, 03:26 PM
holidays are fun, why not celebrate them all?

Holidays are best time of the year... I think atheist shouldnt celebrate them, casue they dont belive in God, and if they dont believe in God, it would be fair not to celebrate them.

quentinak
11-10-2009, 03:27 PM
True as well, but the motivation of the Khmer Rouge wasn't because they were offended by the idea of believing in a god. It was out of mere self-interest. From the Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea:

I am pretty sure that the Crusades were more motivated by self-interest than religion.

Islamic terrorists, or "martyrs," are doing this stuff for self-interest. Love for Allah really is secondary.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:27 PM
Holidays are best time of the year... I think atheist shouldnt celebrate them, casue they dont belive in God, and if they dont believe in God, it would be fair not to celebrate them.

Why do you celebrate Christmas? From what I gather, you're not a pagan.

Bernard Black
11-10-2009, 03:29 PM
So I'm supposed to go and substantiate your claim, which I know to be false. That's a new debating tactic. State your opinion and get the opposition to try and substantiate it?

Words fail me...

As predicted, you're characteristically trying at all cost to engage in a circular "discussion" in which others are repeteadly asked to "prove", "back" or otherwise "substantiate" claims you easily could, if you wished, substantiate yourself, without first showing the slightest intention of properly "prove", "back" or "substantiate" other claims previously made by you without any backing, proof or substance attached to it. Im not in the mood to be swept by that kind of verbal diaohrrea right now, sorry. As I said, help yourself, you know how to do it: www.google.com



If you could back up your assertion, you would. The only thing you have proved is that you can't. As a result, your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous, to the point that you actually told me to do a google search and substantiate YOUR claim. Are you so detached from reality that you cannot see how idiotic that is?

:lol:

I'm about to write an essay for my course and this has inspired me now to make a bunch of outlandish claims backed up with a single solid reference - www.google.com - and a note telling the marker to go and find the relevent literature for themselves!

Top marks for me, surely.

Doomach777
11-10-2009, 03:29 PM
Why do you celebrate Christmas? From what I gather, you're not a pagan.

Thats the day when Jesus was born...
and u ?

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 03:31 PM
In what way is atheism as much a belief system as any "other" religion? You'll have to go some way to make that fly. For something to be considered a religion, it requires more than a solitary, unifying belief.

If you say atheism is a belief system, not believing in the Easter Bunny is a belief system.

You can't compare belief in God to belief in the Easter Bunny. The key difference is evidence. The Easter Bunny came about in German folk stories of the 1600s and no one has ever seriously bothered looking for evidence as to its "existence" seeing as it is agreed it was a made up character just the same as Harry Potter or Mickey Mouse. On the other hand, people have been creating proofs, presenting evidence and arguing vehemently over the existence of God since time immemorial - its a debate that remains unresolved. Whether you agree with it or not, there is more accepted "evidence" concerning the existence of God, as opposed to basically zero concerning the existence of the Easter Bunny.

Atheism is not believing in God. Anti-theism is the fundamental opposition to the belief in God. Atheism can be characterised by a lack of belief accompanied by indifference to the beliefs of others. That's not what anti-theism is. I don't like the term "atheist" anyway. It annoys me that there is even a term for it.

That definition of atheism you give seems to be more in line with secular humanism. And if that is the correct definition, I'm willing to bet 99% of people don't see the distinction.

Well I'll stop using the term atheist if you do then, Clydey. ;)

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:32 PM
:lol:

I'm about to write an essay for my course and this has inspired me now to make a bunch of outlandish claims backed up with a single solid reference - www.google.com - and a note telling the marker to go and find the relevent literature for themselves!

Top marks for me, surely.

:haha:

I think we've just discovered a new philosophy: JolanGagoism.

Claims require no proof from the JolanGagoist whatsoever. It is up to the opposition to consult google and discover why the JolanGagoist's claim is true.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 03:33 PM
:lol:

I'm about to write an essay for my course and this has inspired me now to make a bunch of outlandish claims backed up with a single solid reference - www.google.com - and a note telling the marker to go and find the relevent literature for themselves!

Top marks for me, surely.

Deserved marks for anyone stupid enough to mistake a troll-infested tennis forum for a -supposedly- academic institution of some sort.

IrvingBerlin
11-10-2009, 03:36 PM
Communism and Marxism basically saw religion in GENERAL as "opium of the people." These systems of government are inherently anti-theistic and has shown themselves to act out aggressively against religion. It is this view on religion that motivates the leaders of Communist regimes to persecute religious people.

But the reason for this Marxist idea of religion wasn't based on atheism. It was based on the fact that religion was used to exploit the working classes. Lenin himself said:

Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion. All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are always considered by Marxism as the organs of bourgeois reaction, used for the protection of the exploitation and the stupefaction of the working class.

So really the motivation was to remove the shackles of religion from the people.

But does all this mean that Michael Chang's expression of religious faith after a tennis match should be respected, or frowned upon?

This has nothing to do with Michael Chang at the moment :lol: As I said before, there's nothing wrong with what he did. Especially as both Agassi and Chang come from a society that enshrines freedom of speech and freedom of religion as core values.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 03:37 PM
Claims require no proof from the JolanGagoist whatsoever. It is up to the opposition to consult google and discover why the JolanGagoist's claim is true.

Only if you're actually interested in the facts are you supposed to go and help yourself, otherwise you can keep on your verbal diaohrrea as usual, not that it really bothers anyone, not any longer.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 03:37 PM
You can't compare belief in God to belief in the Easter Bunny. The key difference is evidence. The Easter Bunny came about in German folk stories of the 1600s and no one has ever seriously bothered looking for evidence as to its "existence" seeing as it is agreed it was a made up character just the same as Harry Potter or Mickey Mouse. On the other hand, people have been creating proofs, presenting evidence and arguing vehemently over the existence of God since time immemorial - its a debate that remains unresolved. Whether you agree with it or not, there is more accepted "evidence" concerning the existence of God, as opposed to basically zero concerning the existence of the Easter Bunny.



You say there is more accepted evidence for the existence of God, but can you think of any examples? Beyond The Bible (and I do not consider that as evidence), there is absolutely no evidence that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

I'm open to having my mind changed if you can point me towards accepted evidence that aids the argument that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

Doomach777
11-10-2009, 03:58 PM
But the reason for this Marxist idea of religion wasn't based on atheism. It was based on the fact that religion was used to exploit the working classes.



Yea right. It was based on atheism, casue atheism is the main principle of communism!
Die all communists! They have done so much bad things in Croatia. Killing innocent ppl and so..

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:00 PM
Yea right. It was based on atheism, casue atheism is the main principle of communism!
Die all communists! They have done so much bad things in Croatia. Killing innocent ppl and so..

And I thought JolanGago's posts were going to be the pinnacle of stupidity in this thread.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 04:03 PM
And I thought JolanGago's posts were going to be the pinnacle of stupidity in this thread.

No such pinnacle in this thread, every peak flooded and covered by your verbal diaohrrea.

Doomach777
11-10-2009, 04:04 PM
And I thought JolanGago's posts were going to be the pinnacle of stupidity in this thread.

Have I said something wrong ?

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:06 PM
No such pinnacle in this thread, every peak flooded and covered by your verbal diaohrrea.

The earth is flat, JG.

I have no evidence to support that claim. Go on google and find proof that I'm right.

Cheers.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:08 PM
Have I said something wrong ?

Many things. Your irrational hatred of atheists is one example.

JolánGagó
11-10-2009, 04:09 PM
The earth is flat, JG.

I have no evidence to support that claim. Go on google and find proof that I'm right.

Cheers.

Exactly.

I thought you'd never get the point, glad was wrong.

Doomach777
11-10-2009, 04:13 PM
No more posting for me here..
No one is hating Atheist. I just said if they have some respect toCatholics whey wouldnt celebrate Cristhian holidays.

Snoo Foo
11-10-2009, 04:14 PM
Catholics should be happy if atheists want to celebrate their holidays, maybe some of it will rub off on these atheists and they'll see how cool god really is :yeah:

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:15 PM
Of course it is. No one is denying that. That does not change the fact that there is a difference and that one does not neccesarily follow the other. In fact, in most cases anti-theism is not the result of one's atheism. Most atheists are raised in a religious background. It's hard to hate something that your family believes in.

I don't think we disagree, except for your last sentence. It's all too easy to hate something your family believes in. Depends on how you feel about your family.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:16 PM
The thing is though, most people see Dawkins and Hitchens as atheists.

Many friends have started calling themselves "secular humanists" to differentiate themselves from the likes of Dawkins and Hitchens, which imho seems a better term than just "atheist". If you just define atheism as not believing in a god, then anti-theism can be defined as atheism just as much as "secular humanism" can be defined as atheism.

Yes, they are clearly different kinds of atheism.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:18 PM
I don't think we disagree, except for your last sentence. It's all too easy to hate something your family believes in. Depends on how you feel about your family.

I suppose it does. Then again, that sort of hatred isn't motivated by the belief itself. It's more related to your family.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:19 PM
Catholics should be happy if atheists want to celebrate their holidays, maybe some of it will rub off on these atheists and they'll see how cool god really is :yeah:

You're cute as hell.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:20 PM
True as well, but the motivation of the Khmer Rouge wasn't because they were offended by the idea of believing in a god. It was out of mere self-interest. From the Constitution of Democratic Kampuchea:

That's the way Marxist regimes talk. They always try to make out the movements they are oppressing are a reactionary threat to the glorious society they are building, as satirised by Orwell in Animal Farm: "You disagree? But if we don't do it, Jones will come back. And you don't want Jones back, do you?" All regimes are motivated partly by belief & partly by power. That includes theocratic regimes. Inasmuch as the Khmer Rouge had sincere atheistic or let us say anti-theistic beliefs, those beliefs were a motive for religious persecution.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:22 PM
I was saying that being an Athiest in obviously more important than matters like not believing in a bunny. And because of that, it is more controversial and can be considered a belief on the basis that it goes againts another widely held belief.

In practice, this is true, but only because some people insist on taking some religions seriously.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:23 PM
Nihilistic ideals? I'm certainly a nihilist, too. I don't think one logically subscribe to the theory of evolution and be anything other than a nihilist. Probably opening up a can of worms with that one.

You can't literally be a nihilist, as you presumably believe in science and by extension reason. Literal nihilism is impossible.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:25 PM
You can't literally be a nihilist, as you presumably believe in science and by extension reason. Literal nihilism is impossible.

What I mean is that I'm an existential nihilist.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:27 PM
But the reason for this Marxist idea of religion wasn't based on atheism. It was based on the fact that religion was used to exploit the working classes.

Marxism always mixes up description & prescription. If religion is *merely* a tool for "exploiting" the working classes, then clearly the implication is that it is a BAD THING with no autonomous content worth taking seriously.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:28 PM
I'm open to having my mind changed if you can point me towards accepted evidence that aids the argument that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

There are philosophical arguments advanced by some of the most formidable intellects in history. You & I may not be convinced by these arguments, but they cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:31 PM
I suppose it does. Then again, that sort of hatred isn't motivated by the belief itself. It's more related to your family.

Or it may just be that not getting on with your family means that particular barrier to belief-inspired hatred of others is removed.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:35 PM
There are philosophical arguments advanced by some of the most formidable intellects in history. You & I may not be convinced by these arguments, but they cannot be dismissed out of hand.

I don't just dismiss arguments. Rational argument is about the only thing that can persuade me of anything.

There are many arguments for the existence of a deity, but none that I find convincing. There are certainly none that can be deemed "accepted evidence". Most arguments centre around a deity stripped of the the specific qualities the various religions attribute to their God. I don't think there is a single credible argument for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 04:46 PM
I don't just dismiss arguments. Rational argument is about the only thing that can persuade me of anything.

There are many arguments for the existence of a deity, but none that I find convincing. There are certainly none that can be deemed "accepted evidence". Most arguments centre around a deity stripped of the the specific qualities the various religions attribute to their God. I don't think there is a single credible argument for the existence of the Judeo-Christian God.

"Accepted evidence" is the wrong term. "Respected body of argument" is more accurate. You're right that the "God of the Philosophers" is rather different from the Judaeo-Christian (or Islamic) God, but in fact a God who is just very powerful, very knowledgeable, and had better be worshipped, is less logically problematic than one who is omnipotent, omniscient, & supremely benevolent. The trouble is that the ontological argument (God exists by definition) requires him to be perfect, & the cosmological argument (there must be a first cause) collapses into the ontological (because there can be a first cause only if it exists by definition). So you're left with the argument from design. Which I doubt you would call credible.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 04:53 PM
"Accepted evidence" is the wrong term. "Respected body of argument" is more accurate. You're right that the "God of the Philosophers" is rather different from the Judaeo-Christian (or Islamic) God, but in fact a God who is just very powerful, very knowledgeable, and had better be worshipped, is less logically problematic than one who is omnipotent, omniscient, & supremely benevolent. The trouble is that the ontological argument (God exists by definition) requires him to be perfect, & the cosmological argument (there must be a first cause) collapses into the ontological (because there can be a first cause only if it exists by definition). So you're left with the argument from design. Which I doubt you would call credible.

The argument a lot of people seem to be impressed by is the anthropic principle. I don't find that particularly persuasive either. I find the multiverse theory much more compelling as a counter argument.

Winston's Human
11-10-2009, 05:02 PM
Yeah, Chang was a real rebel, making his Christian beliefs known in a country that is overwhelmingly Christian. Fucking bad to the bone.

I never claimed that Chang was a rebel -- only that he is a man comfortable in who he is and what he believes.

I can see how this would have bothered someone as phony to the core as Agassi apparently was in those days.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 05:12 PM
The argument a lot of people seem to be impressed by is the anthropic principle. I don't find that particularly persuasive either. I find the multiverse theory much more compelling as a counter argument.

Agreed. The probability argument relies on a fallacy anyway. Just because A makes B probable, doesn't mean that B makes A probable. Just because (leaving aside our many imperfections) an all-powerful God would make our existence probable, doesn't mean our existence makes an all-powerful God probable. After all, if the lottery is rigged in my favour, I shall probably win; but if I win the lottery tomorrow, that doesn't mean it was probably rigged.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 05:18 PM
Agreed. The probability argument relies on a fallacy anyway. Just because A makes B probable, doesn't mean that B makes A probable. Just because (leaving aside our many imperfections) an all-powerful God would make our existence probable, doesn't mean our existence makes an all-powerful God probable. After all, if the lottery is rigged in my favour, I shall probably win; but if I win the lottery tomorrow, that doesn't mean it was probably rigged.

If you were a chick, I'd be aroused right now.

quentinak
11-10-2009, 06:07 PM
But the reason for this Marxist idea of religion wasn't based on atheism. It was based on the fact that religion was used to exploit the working classes. Lenin himself said:



So really the motivation was to remove the shackles of religion from the people.



This has nothing to do with Michael Chang at the moment :lol: As I said before, there's nothing wrong with what he did. Especially as both Agassi and Chang come from a society that enshrines freedom of speech and freedom of religion as core values.

The fact remains, then, that since they are anti-capitalists, and religions are allegedly buttresses for capitalism/classism, all religions are bad and should be eradicated. That makes them anti-religion as well. Anti-religionism (just made that term up) is basically a form of anti-theism. Their disdain for religion had a part in allowing for systematic removal of religion, ie. millions of people to be imprisoned, tortured, killed, etc.

I am not saying anti-theism always leads to this conclusion. I'm just saying that it could in the wrong hands, just like how any religion can lead to violence in the wrong hands. Blanket black-and-white beliefs such as "religions lead to violence" stem out of ignorance, intolerance, or from negative and traumatic personal experiences with religion.

I agree in regard to Chang. It's his American religious subculture, as Duong mentioned, that values free religious expression, even though it can be in-your-face and a little annoy at times.

Sophocles
11-10-2009, 08:02 PM
If you were a chick, I'd be aroused right now.

Steady on.

Clydey
11-10-2009, 09:19 PM
Steady on.

I call it as I see it. :shrug:

buddyholly
11-11-2009, 01:39 AM
Oh yes of course I can, in fact i do say a lot of crimes in those countries were committed explicitly in the name of atheism, as they were in fact. Please inform yourself better before issuing sweeping statements like above. I suggest you may first try Spanish Civil War for a starter, our fellow poster GlennM can give you leads.

Far too many posts in this thread for me to read. I am interested in where I can read about Spanish Civil War crimes being committed in the name of atheism. Any pointers?

JolánGagó
11-11-2009, 08:28 AM
Far too many posts in this thread for me to read. I am interested in where I can read about Spanish Civil War crimes being committed in the name of atheism. Any pointers?

En ninguna época de la historia de Europa, y posiblemente del mundo, se ha manifestado un odio tan apasionado contra la religión y cuanto con ella se encuentra relacionado.
Hugh Thomas, La República Espańola y la Guerra Civil, pg. 257, ISBN 84-7530-847-X

sanshisan
11-11-2009, 01:49 PM
It is fascinating to see the demographics of openly Christian players on court - what countries they are from. The vast majority seem to be from formerly Communist countries. The very same people who were taught for 50+ years that God does not exist, that religion is the opiate of the people, are the MOST religious. But then they always have been the most religious.

Very Very few openly Christian tennis players from W. Europe,the US, Canada, or Australia, etc. By open Christians I mean the ones who wear crosses and or cross themselves after a match. Michael Chang was in the extreme minority of American tennis players and simply pointing to the sky is not openly Christian. DrugAgassi had the nerve to criticize Chang for that in his book?? Good grief how petty and hypocritical can you get? Serena and Venus are Christians but they never wear crosses, never cross themselves on court to identify themselves as such.

quentinak
11-11-2009, 02:42 PM
Serena and Venus are Christians but they never wear crosses, never cross themselves on court to identify themselves as such.

Serena and Venus are Jehovah's Witnesses. They think crosses have pagan origins and don't believe in using them in any way.

I remember 2 times after winning a tournament where Serena said, "I thank my God Jehovah." She never does it consistently. Go figure.

RedFury
11-11-2009, 02:45 PM
I'd like to thank God for this thread.

Quite welcomed, son.

Anything else, please deposit US S10,000.00 @IAMASUCKER.com

Bless you child.

RedFury
11-11-2009, 02:49 PM
There are philosophical arguments advanced by some of the most formidable intellects in history. You & I may not be convinced by these arguments, but they cannot be dismissed out of hand.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. None proffered in the past 10,000 years and counting.

Thus the most we can allow for is a non-intervening creator -- as per Deism -- which in effect, is the same as no god at all.

Having said that, whatever floats your boat...as long as it doesn't rock mine.

sanshisan
11-11-2009, 03:02 PM
We've all heard of THE FORCE?

May the FORCE be with you!

abraxas21
02-23-2011, 12:43 AM
not at all

nothing wrong with showing your beliefs

thrust
02-23-2011, 03:56 AM
There is also a full chapter in the book that discusses how much he hated Becker's shorts. He thought it was very distracting and disrespectful to his opponents.

What do you guys think?

http://hisfashioneye.buy.co.uk/files/2008/10/boris-becker-mandj98-wikipedia.jpg

Probably Andre was so sexually excited by Boris's legs, etc. that it distracted him from his tennis. Before the Sampras era, men wore shorts like Becker did in this picture. Agassi is a pathetic crybaby, always with an excuse for major losses. I am not a very religious person but if a player thanks God for a victory, what is the problem? It is not a statement of God preferring them, just thaning Him for their victory.

jmf07
02-23-2011, 04:00 AM
Nothing wrong with Chang thanking the Gooch for his win.

njnetswill
02-23-2011, 04:14 AM
It is fascinating to see the demographics of openly Christian players on court - what countries they are from. The vast majority seem to be from formerly Communist countries. The very same people who were taught for 50+ years that God does not exist, that religion is the opiate of the people, are the MOST religious. But then they always have been the most religious.

Very Very few openly Christian tennis players from W. Europe,the US, Canada, or Australia, etc. By open Christians I mean the ones who wear crosses and or cross themselves after a match. Michael Chang was in the extreme minority of American tennis players and simply pointing to the sky is not openly Christian. DrugAgassi had the nerve to criticize Chang for that in his book?? Good grief how petty and hypocritical can you get? Serena and Venus are Christians but they never wear crosses, never cross themselves on court to identify themselves as such.

Religiosity goes down with the overall affluence of a country. The USA is a general exception to this rule, but the tennis powerhouses of California and Florida are relatively secular compared to other regions. It doesn't surprise me that players from the ex-communist states, which tend to be poorer than USA/Canada/W Europe/Australia, are more religious.