Christian racism...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2013, 07:30 AM
RE: Christian racism...
Hey, Death.

Quote:If I have to manipulate people and use their emotion against them in
order to plant that seed of doubt in their mind, then that is exactly
what I will do. If you think that makes me a bad person, then so be it,
the ends justifies the means, end of story.

What it makes you, by definition, is a demagogue.

Is that really what you want to be?

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Ghost's post
16-03-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Christian racism...
Wait. What just happened? Death, yes, it does, in fact, make you a bad person to knowingly and willingly manipulate anyone for any reason. End of story.

Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries, and your theology out of my biology.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." --Dr. House
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 09:12 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 08:46 AM)darthbreezy Wrote:  Wait. What just happened? Death, yes, it does, in fact, make you a bad person to knowingly and willingly manipulate anyone for any reason. End of story.
Oh really? Then I suppose lawyers and politicians are bad people hmm?

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 09:27 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 01:53 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Your act of rape would not be beneficial to anyone. Especially if you consider the possible set of consequences that would go along with it, whether they be lawful or not. Again I'll cite that opinion doesn't always reflect opinion. For example, most schools don't allow people to wear t-shirts of questionable content, despite what the principle or school board may believe. These are policies that are set in order to prevent incidence.

There's a reason why rock music sells better than the sound of a babbling brook... Being passionate doesn't always mean being belligerent. Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and even Dr. King understood that. That's why each of these men chose words that drove home a point without yelling and screaming.

The ends justifying the means is perfectly reasonable, as long as the ends is in itself reasonable. Some people might argue that Hitler was trying to create a better Germany, but if that's the case, he would never have invaded Poland, France, and Egypt. Therefore his excuse to commit a genocide is a means to a false end, since the end was never about creating a better Germany, but domination and suppression of the people of the world... just like religion.
My act would be beneficial to me. But I assume that if only one person benefits, you're against the "ends justify the means" methodology. Which leads me to a question... what exactly is the number of people who must benefit from an act of harm in order that you consider it just? Is it twelve, or twenty three? Five hundred sixteen? How do you arrive at that number and is there any limit to the amount of harm done in the act? For instance, if I can feed ten children by killing a fat man and taking his groceries is that just? Or can I only rob him? Does it have to be thirty children fed to justify the murder while only ten children fed only warrants armed robbery?

As Hitler goes, his idea of a better Germany meant a bigger Germany with no Jews and the only way that could be accomplished was by acquiring more land and eradicating the Jewish poplulation. Thus, his ends justified his means. Perhaps not to you and I but to be sure, to him and the majority of Germans at the time. And it wasn't just his end that was flawed (false isn't applicable here), it was the means. After all, there's nothing wrong with wanting a better Germany. It was the means by which they attempted to reach that created the larger problem.


Please understand, I'm not trying to badger you or say you're wrong in your idea that religion is being used for nefarious purposes. Like I said before, I'm firmly in that camp, more so than a lot of atheists. But the notion that any means justifies the end is simply an untenable position and, it makes atheists seem like the angry, misanthropic lot that many believers stereotype us as. That's not a place we want to be. We're far better off reaching our end by showing believers that atheists are rational, moral and compassionate human beings whose interest in life is the exact same as theirs. Or, at least, the same as their stated interests of bettering humanity, doing good, et al.

In the end, our means should be education and demonstration. We should educate people that they don't need to believe in ghosts and we should live our lives as a positive example of how we're asking them to live. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be passionate or assertive, but there's a fine line between passion and belligerence, assertion and aggression. I like the mantra Starcrash brought up... two wrongs don't make a right. That's kind of a corny saying but it is none the less true. If I did rape your wife, you coming and raping mine would do nothing to help yours. On the contrary, it would no doubt cause her considerable more stress and heartache and, it would likely get you divorced.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 09:32 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 09:12 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 08:46 AM)darthbreezy Wrote:  Wait. What just happened? Death, yes, it does, in fact, make you a bad person to knowingly and willingly manipulate anyone for any reason. End of story.

Oh really? Then I suppose lawyers and politicians are bad people hmm?

Regardless of one's profession, willfull manipulation does not make a person good. Of course, picking out two notoriously dishonest professions isn't really a good way to defend personal manipulative behaviors, either. If you want to be manipulative, nobody can really stop you.

Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries, and your theology out of my biology.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." --Dr. House
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 02:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 02:07 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  You mean the way they have stereotyped atheist as people who just want to piss in everyone's cereal? Why am I supposed to play by a different set of rules? Why do I have to play their game? Sure, I don't think ALL Christians are racist, but then again I did clarify a few posts later that I'm talking about "Christians" (using the air quotes). I don't care if people think I'm a prick as long as I'm being sincere. If the "Christians" can badger on and make assumptions and stereotype people they see as a threat, then so can I... it's called equality. I'm not going to walk into a gun fight with a knife.

Because two wrongs don't make a right. We don't live by a double-standard; if it's wrong when Christians do it, then it's wrong when we do it. But I can't help but notice that in order to justify stereotyping all Christians, you again had to blame all Christians ("the way they have stereotyped atheists").

You're being irrational. You know that you're doing wrong, because you'd see it as wrong if a Christian did it to you (as you've even pointed out and "ranted about" in the above paragraph). You're not "walking into a gun fight with a knife", but rather starting a gun fight because you assumed that all of your opponents are also armed with guns. If you'd look at them as individuals, you'd notice when you're the one being overly aggressive.
Right and wrong are irrelevant in a war of ideas. It's not wrong for a (and I'll say again) "Christian" ministry leader to play upon the insecurity people have and promote their brand of thinking in order to sell them their beliefs. Just like it's not wrong for a lawyer to portray a murderer as a threat to society. Therefore if I have to play devil's advocate and launch an emotional battering ram in order to break the wall of ignorance, then I am justified in doing so.

As for being "overly aggressive" as you put it, watch this and tell me if I'm being overly aggressive or just returning shot for shot...




Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 08:46 AM)darthbreezy Wrote:  Wait. What just happened? Death, yes, it does, in fact, make you a bad person to knowingly and willingly manipulate anyone for any reason. End of story.
Wait. If that were true, then every happily married man would be a bad person....

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 09:55 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 09:35 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 08:46 AM)darthbreezy Wrote:  Wait. What just happened? Death, yes, it does, in fact, make you a bad person to knowingly and willingly manipulate anyone for any reason. End of story.

Wait. If that were true, then every happily married man would be a bad person....

I'm interested to hear why, but for Death, I'm thinking more in terms of motives where ends justify means. There's a difference between not telling your wife she looks like she's gained some weight to avoid hurt feelings and arguments, and being a troll.

Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries, and your theology out of my biology.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." --Dr. House
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 10:03 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 09:35 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 02:22 AM)Starcrash Wrote:  Because two wrongs don't make a right. We don't live by a double-standard; if it's wrong when Christians do it, then it's wrong when we do it. But I can't help but notice that in order to justify stereotyping all Christians, you again had to blame all Christians ("the way they have stereotyped atheists").



You're being irrational. You know that you're doing wrong, because you'd see it as wrong if a Christian did it to you (as you've even pointed out and "ranted about" in the above paragraph). You're not "walking into a gun fight with a knife", but rather starting a gun fight because you assumed that all of your opponents are also armed with guns. If you'd look at them as individuals, you'd notice when you're the one being overly aggressive.

Right and wrong are irrelevant in a war of ideas.
I disagree. They're abundantly important. Based on your signature, I guarantee we have differing political opinions and have a different idea of right and wrong on that battlefield. Are you saying you wouldn't argue a political idea based on your belief that you were right, or that I wouldn't argue mine believing I'm also right? If so, then why do we even have political tensions?

Keep your rosaries out of my ovaries, and your theology out of my biology.
"If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people." --Dr. House
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2013, 10:14 AM
RE: Christian racism...
(16-03-2013 09:27 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  
(16-03-2013 01:53 AM)DeathsNotoriousAngel Wrote:  Your act of rape would not be beneficial to anyone. Especially if you consider the possible set of consequences that would go along with it, whether they be lawful or not. Again I'll cite that opinion doesn't always reflect opinion. For example, most schools don't allow people to wear t-shirts of questionable content, despite what the principle or school board may believe. These are policies that are set in order to prevent incidence.

There's a reason why rock music sells better than the sound of a babbling brook... Being passionate doesn't always mean being belligerent. Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and even Dr. King understood that. That's why each of these men chose words that drove home a point without yelling and screaming.

The ends justifying the means is perfectly reasonable, as long as the ends is in itself reasonable. Some people might argue that Hitler was trying to create a better Germany, but if that's the case, he would never have invaded Poland, France, and Egypt. Therefore his excuse to commit a genocide is a means to a false end, since the end was never about creating a better Germany, but domination and suppression of the people of the world... just like religion.
My act would be beneficial to me. But I assume that if only one person benefits, you're against the "ends justify the means" methodology. Which leads me to a question... what exactly is the number of people who must benefit from an act of harm in order that you consider it just? Is it twelve, or twenty three? Five hundred sixteen? How do you arrive at that number and is there any limit to the amount of harm done in the act? For instance, if I can feed ten children by killing a fat man and taking his groceries is that just? Or can I only rob him? Does it have to be thirty children fed to justify the murder while only ten children fed only warrants armed robbery?

As Hitler goes, his idea of a better Germany meant a bigger Germany with no Jews and the only way that could be accomplished was by acquiring more land and eradicating the Jewish poplulation. Thus, his ends justified his means. Perhaps not to you and I but to be sure, to him and the majority of Germans at the time. And it wasn't just his end that was flawed (false isn't applicable here), it was the means. After all, there's nothing wrong with wanting a better Germany. It was the means by which they attempted to reach that created the larger problem.


Please understand, I'm not trying to badger you or say you're wrong in your idea that religion is being used for nefarious purposes. Like I said before, I'm firmly in that camp, more so than a lot of atheists. But the notion that any means justifies the end is simply an untenable position and, it makes atheists seem like the angry, misanthropic lot that many believers stereotype us as. That's not a place we want to be. We're far better off reaching our end by showing believers that atheists are rational, moral and compassionate human beings whose interest in life is the exact same as theirs. Or, at least, the same as their stated interests of bettering humanity, doing good, et al.

In the end, our means should be education and demonstration. We should educate people that they don't need to believe in ghosts and we should live our lives as a positive example of how we're asking them to live. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be passionate or assertive, but there's a fine line between passion and belligerence, assertion and aggression. I like the mantra Starcrash brought up... two wrongs don't make a right. That's kind of a corny saying but it is none the less true. If I did rape your wife, you coming and raping mine would do nothing to help yours. On the contrary, it would no doubt cause her considerable more stress and heartache and, it would likely get you divorced.
Let's start with Hitler. Events suggest that he had no intention of creating a bigger and better Germany. He sent scientist to southeast Asia to study eugenics. He made a pact with Stalin for peace, then immediately broke it when he thought Stalin's guard was down. Then in the end when he was losing, Hitler ordered the entire infrastructure of Germany destroyed, thereby destroying any semblance of what was left of Germany. He didn't care about Germany, only his own quest for world domination.

If I thought that we could attain our goal by simply giving rational and logical arguments for non-belief than I wouldn't even bother with my method. However, I note that most people either don't care or don't want to care. All I am simply doing is touching the emotional side of their personality in order to get their attention long enough to lay out the facts. It's like setting up a campaign. Someone who wants to be the President will never simply get up and say "I'm gonna do this and here's why", rather they will say "I'm gonna do this, here's why, and here's why you should support it".

Also, by my logic, the ends needs to lead to progression. Your need for sex which led to your act of rape or my need for vengeance which leads to my act of systematically hunting down and murdering your family for doing so doesn't lead to progression of society in any way, shape, or form. However, on a more practical note, if a community decided to raise taxes by 2% in order to fund a program that helps the homeless get their lives back on track is mutually beneficial. Sure some people may not want to pay that extra 2%, but if it takes people and makes them productive members of society, then that is when the ends has justified the means.

There is nothing wrong with being angry and expressing your anger in the face of society. It's how we rallied enough people behind our cause in order to fight for our independence. Like I said previously, I'm not talking about violence or persecution. However, if you stand there on a soap box on one side of a park and talk calm and rationally and I were to stand on one on the other side and speak to people's emotional intelligence, which one of us is going to have the bigger audience. I'm really not seeing the problem, we can't all be Dawkins, some of us have to be Hitchens...

Obama promised you change. Reach in your pocket, feel those coins? There's your change...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: