Satanists plan statue to stand alongside Ten Commandments in Oklahoma

[Dinwar]

Now there's an interesting concept: something which might happen is evidenced by stories of things which did not happen.
No, just no.

Except for the fact that the story DID happen. The fact that it's not online is not evidence that it didn't happen. Again, you're free to disbeleive the story; I honestly don't care (though I find it very strange that people assume I'm lying for no reason other than "You can't provide a link"). The fact that tsig acknowledged that this is the stereotypical behavior is proof enough of the risks of this sort of thing. PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE ATHEISTS. They look for reasons to make us look bad. That means we need to be very careful to not give them excuses. This is a basic concept that I honestly cannot believe that adults proposing political action can possibly argue against it.

Apparently the concept of facts that exist outside the internet confuses folks around here to the point where it shuts down a conversation, even when it's only marginally related to it. If that's the state of intellectualism in this conversation, I'll bow out.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I meant someone neutral. There's no reason to actively attack the theists, only to provoke them. Obviously the folks putting up the Ten Commandments will view any other display as an attack. But if all you do is put up a piller with some of Allah's less-obnoxious commandments, it'll get the point across without directly attacking the Christians.

Why should it be neutral? If Christians can accept that their religion is to be represented, then they cannot legitimately object if a religion hostile to theirs is also represented.

 

[kerikiwi]

Except for the fact that the story DID happen. The fact that it's not online is not evidence that it didn't happen. Again, you're free to disbeleive the story; I honestly don't care (though I find it very strange that people assume I'm lying for no reason other than "You can't provide a link"). The fact that tsig acknowledged that this is the stereotypical behavior is proof enough of the risks of this sort of thing. PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE ATHEISTS. They look for reasons to make us look bad. That means we need to be very careful to not give them excuses. This is a basic concept that I honestly cannot believe that adults proposing political action can possibly argue against it.

Apparently the concept of facts that exist outside the internet confuses folks around here to the point where it shuts down a conversation, even when it's only marginally related to it. If that's the state of intellectualism in this conversation, I'll bow out.

it's nothing to do with whether the story is online, or whether I believe it, or whether it is true.

I was pointing out your fallacious argument: that it wouldn't matter if the story was untrue, because it proved your point about what might happen.

 

[tsig]

Except for the fact that the story DID happen. The fact that it's not online is not evidence that it didn't happen. Again, you're free to disbeleive the story; I honestly don't care (though I find it very strange that people assume I'm lying for no reason other than "You can't provide a link"). The fact that tsig acknowledged that this is the stereotypical behavior is proof enough of the risks of this sort of thing. PEOPLE DO NOT LIKE ATHEISTS. They look for reasons to make us look bad. That means we need to be very careful to not give them excuses. This is a basic concept that I honestly cannot believe that adults proposing political action can possibly argue against it.

Apparently the concept of facts that exist outside the internet confuses folks around here to the point where it shuts down a conversation, even when it's only marginally related to it. If that's the state of intellectualism in this conversation, I'll bow out.

I said it was your stereotype. Just because you paint all atheists with a broad black brush doesn't mean I do.

If people are going to NOT LIKE us anyway why pussyfoot around pandering to their illusions?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Good grief, Dinwar is as atheistic as anyone else I've ever met here. His only point was that when atheists act like jerks (which everyone does) it makes it that much harder for everyone else. It gives ignorant believers more ammunition to attack atheists, whether deserved or not.

I actually don't care if his story is true, because I've seen atheists act this way my self, and his point is valid.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

I said it was your stereotype. Just because you paint all atheists with a broad black brush doesn't mean I do.

If people are going to NOT LIKE us anyway why pussyfoot around pandering to their illusions?

He obviously doesn't paint all atheists with the same brush, since he is one and was singling out a very particular type; indeed, a minority amongst atheists, I would say.

I agree, we shouldn't pander to religious baloney. However, attacking Christians the way they attack atheists just means that nobody on any side will make any rational headway.

ETA: That said, I don't think the OP is an example of this, necessarily, and I personally think it's funny.

 

[Piscivore]

From my link earlier in the thread:





http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/unmasking-lucien-greaves-aka-doug-mesner-leader-of-the-satanic-temple

That's pretty much my relationship to Eris.

 

[I Ratant]

Yes, it would illustrate that you were lying when you told the story.

.
Here's another story....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/santa-monica-nativity-scene_n_1595031.html

 

[catsmate]

Good grief, Dinwar is as atheistic as anyone else I've ever met here. His only point was that when atheists act like jerks (which everyone does) it makes it that much harder for everyone else. It gives ignorant believers more ammunition to attack atheists, whether deserved or not.

I actually don't care if his story is true, because I've seen atheists act this way my self, and his point is valid.

This.

 

[tsig]

This.

So atheists get a pass at fact checking as long as the story illustrates a point?

 

[TheGoldcountry]

So atheists get a pass at fact checking as long as the story illustrates a point?

Not at all. Arguments that rely on falsehoods should always be called out and given a critical eye.

My point was that even if I didn't believe his story (which I do), his argument didn't rely on the anecdote, and was still, imo, valid.

 

[tsig]

Not at all. Arguments that rely on falsehoods should always be called out and given a critical eye.

My point was that even if I didn't believe his story (which I do), his argument didn't rely on the anecdote, and was still, imo, valid.

Then I'm sure you can articulate his argument here because it looked like to me that it was "Atheists are angry and wish to destroy tradition and here's my story to prove my point".

Here's another story.
On one of the forums I used to post at there was a poster who could win any argument by making up a personal anecdote that perfectly illustrated his point. He never could back up any of his stories though.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

Then I'm sure you can articulate his argument here because it looked like to me that it was "Atheists are angry and wish to destroy tradition and here's my story to prove my point".

In all honesty, I didn't get that at all, especially considering that Dinwar has long been known here as an atheist. In my view, his main point was that a minority of atheists (or any group, for that matter) often become the "face" of a group through public actions. Sometimes, fairly or not, their actions color the public perception of the group as a whole, and frustrate the attempts of other members of the group to have any kind of rational discussion with those in the opposition.

If you wish to disregard his anecdotal story, fine, but that still leaves a valid argument worthy of discussion on the table. I would rather discuss this with you than go back and forth over the veracity of a story that I think is secondary to the main issue.

 

[tsig]

In all honesty, I didn't get that at all, especially considering that Dinwar has long been known here as an atheist. In my view, his main point was that a minority of atheists (or any group, for that matter) often become the "face" of a group through public actions. Sometimes, fairly or not, their actions color the public perception of the group as a whole, and frustrate the attempts of other members of the group to have any kind of rational discussion with those in the opposition.
If you wish to disregard his anecdotal story, fine, but that still leaves a valid argument worthy of discussion on the table. I would rather discuss this with you than go back and forth over the veracity of a story that I think is secondary to the main issue.

If those other members wish to change the public perception then they should engage in public action.

I have never yet had a pass intercepted while sitting on my couch watching the game.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

If those other members wish to change the public perception then they should engage in public action.I have never yet had a pass intercepted while sitting on my couch watching the game.

Hmm, sounds familiar.

The other thing is, in order to gain traction you need to present some sort of coherent concept. Atheism that only exists in opposition to Christianity (and that's how it'll be viewed, like it or not) is going to fall flat. It will be seen as an attack on Christianity (which it would be, in all honesty), and therefore turn the public against you. What you need is to provide some positive secular view. It's a courthouse, so I'd suggest a copy of the Code of Hamurabi, or perhaps the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Or perhaps a tasteful statue with some of the more interesting laws of nature. An empty pedistool would present atheism as either nhilistic or nothing more than anti-Christianity, which is self-defeating.

I agree with what you wrote, highlighted above. That doesn't negate the fact that simply attacking Christianity (or any other religion) accomplishes nothing. If that's all anyone wants to do, fine, enjoy yourself. But don't be surprised when the religious people talk about angry atheists when that is indeed what they see, and have good examples to point to. That kind of behavior is destructive for anyone who actually wants to have some kind of discussion, and should be discouraged, IMO.

 

[tsig]

Hmm, sounds familiar.



I agree with what you wrote, highlighted above. That doesn't negate the fact that simply attacking Christianity (or any other religion) accomplishes nothing. If that's all anyone wants to do, fine, enjoy yourself. But don't be surprised when the religious people talk about angry atheists when that is indeed what they see, and have good examples to point to. That kind of behavior is destructive for anyone who actually wants to have some kind of discussion, and should be discouraged, IMO.

For most religious anything except "I believe" is considered an attack.

You and Dinwar seem quite content to science other atheists lest they seem too strident.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

The other thing is, in order to gain traction you need to present some sort of coherent concept. Atheism that only exists in opposition to Christianity (and that's how it'll be viewed, like it or not) is going to fall flat. It will be seen as an attack on Christianity (which it would be, in all honesty), and therefore turn the public against you. What you need is to provide some positive secular view. It's a courthouse, so I'd suggest a copy of the Code of Hamurabi, or perhaps the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Or perhaps a tasteful statue with some of the more interesting laws of nature. An empty pedistool would present atheism as either nhilistic or nothing more than anti-Christianity, which is self-defeating.

Except this is an attack on Christianity ('s dominant position in culture) and it is in opposition to Christianity ('s forcing itself into secular ground). Defanging the motion by putting up some blandly tasteful secular piece would defeat the purpose of putting up something Christians really really don't want to be there, but can't contest it because it's using their own logic.

Hence the fig leaf of Satanism. Or Pastafarianism. Or some other parody religion that counteracts solemn scripture with absurdist comedy, in a manner which makes it clear that both feed from the same trough.

Yeah, it'll piss people off. They're making this gesture with what I assume is the best of intentions, never even considering someone might object, and it's getting flung back in their face. It'll turn the tide of public opinion against atheism, assuming that's what the local media decides to push. But it'll do so by making them aware atheism exists, and is a real thing, that their real neighbors subscribe to. That, believe it or not, is progress.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

For most religious anything except "I believe" is considered an attack.

You and Dinwar seem quite content to science other atheists lest they seem too strident.

Actually, I was content to discuss the topic without resorting to ad homs and broad generalizations.

You seem to favor a different approach.

 

[tsig]

Actually, I was content to discuss the topic without resorting to ad homs and broad generalizations.

You seem to favor a different approach.

Yes, that's what makes this forum great, different folks with different strokes.

ETA: Another disappears in high dudgeon.

 

[geni]

Maybe if every religion in the world puts up a monument there, it will be so crowded with absurd visions of "God" that people won't actually be able to get into the Courthouse.

Kind of appropriate really, if that happened...

On the other hand properly managed it could turn into quite a nice sculpture park.