Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

SilverMK2 wrote:I would like to clarify that when I said "Fundamentalist atheists are as bad (though in my view worse) than fundamentalists of any religion." I was meaning in terms of those people who are a case of "do what I say, not what I do" - the people who complain about people not washing and then down themselves in aftershave, people who talk about the evils of smoking and then go out and get hammered on booze, etc, not in terms of horrific physical acts against people, places, nations etc.

Cool. Probably should have made that a bit clearer, but this is the internet! No hard feelings.



p.s My last post was (slightly) tongue-in-cheek. Slightly.

Kilkrazy wrote:What about Humanism?

No thanks, I prefer beef.

And I'm not quite sure what your comment was in relation to. An Atheist does not a Humanist (is that the right word? ) make. There are plenty of non-religious (in the tradiational sense) beliefs which promote various "be good to one another/the earth/etc" ideas which do not have a higher power. However, you do not have to identify yourself with any of these movements in order to be a good person.

sebster wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Where do you get that idea? The Public Oder Act already covers this however there is a world of difference between yelling and 'made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others' . Read the article, he was arrested over content not method.

He was standing on a step ladder yelling his views. The final trigger was the coversation with the women, but the context of what he was doing shouldn't be ignored.

Manchu wrote:It still seems that the hateful part is standing on a ladder and yelling. So, as Orlanth said, the man could have just as well been yelling nursery rhymes, right? The Public Order Act therefore prohibits standing on ladders and yelling at people?

Here is the link to the original article again:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/7668448/Christian-preacher-arrested-for-saying-homosexuality-is-a-sin.html

Take a good long read, try and find ANYTHING that gives ANY impression that the man was yelling shouting or otherwise being obnoxiously loud.

Let me repeat the words used to describe his speech:
overheard him reciting a number of “sins” referred to in the Bible
while delivering a sermon from the top of a stepladder
he made the remark in a voice loud enough to be overheard by others

Now to account for invoking the Public Order Act you have to get very loud threatening or abusive. Delivering a serrmon is none of the above unless the preacher is arrested on content.


How read this passage from the article:

Mr McAlpine was handing out leaflets explaining the Ten Commandments or offering a “ticket to heaven” with a church colleague on April 20, when a woman came up and engaged him in a debate about his faith.
During the exchange, he says he quietly listed homosexuality among a number of sins referred to in 1 Corinthians, including blasphemy, fornication, adultery and drunkenness.
After the woman walked away, she was approached by a PCSO who spoke with her briefly and then walked over to Mr McAlpine and told him a complaint had been made, and that he could be arrested for using racist or homophobic language.

So McAlpine was preaching the Gospel, someone came up to him asked him difficult questions on his faith and then denounced him as a bigot to the police for answering them. I have had that happen to me from time to time, but it never involved the police.

"You a Christian, so do you beleive this..." [pointing to various verses.]
"Yes I do"
"That all the evidence we need to condemn you."

The more I look at this the more I see a set up and a double helping of PC nonsense used as the beatstick. The questioner is asking the questions to look for claims to be offended, can't you see something wrong with that. How can you complain about being offended if you actively look for an offense to begin with.

Nurglitch wrote:
Secondly, those political limits are considerably more concerned with content: we might not wish people under our power ever have the opportunity to send or receive pornography involving children, as much as organize the use and sale of radio frequencies, or disseminate information about ongoing legal proceedings.

Those are not limits in the same sense as physical limits. By comparison, they are restrictions and nothing more. A physical law cannot be broken if it is correct. An economic law cannot be broken if it is correct. A political law, if such a thing were to exist, could not be broken if it were correct. However, I cannot conceive of even a single political law (that can be proven by data), given nothing more than the available evidence of history. Therefore, given that which is available, it is nonsensical to compare a political restriction to a physical one. One day, it may no longer be, but for now it is.

Nurglitch wrote:
Such an attempt to be 'sensible' as you describe is then wrong-headed in principle as well as in practice because we have to go back and make all the ad hoc tweaks to such a compromise as should shoe-horn such sensible compromise into the realities of physical, economical, political, and personal powers.

That doesn't make sensibility wrong-headed. It essentially defines what sensibility is.

Nurglitch wrote:
More realistically one would recognize that acknowledging the tyranny of politics, as well as those of physics and economics, should be done by those seeking to develop principles about what additional limits should be set on our powers of speech.

The tyranny of politics, as you use the phrase here, is not the same as equating all political systems with tyranny. All you've said here is that politics, as a science, or rule, has an absolute hold over itself.

Nurglitch wrote:
Appeal to tyranny as setting those limits too low, even as a rhetorical move, begs the question (in the colloquial and technical senses) as to the nature and rightness of those limits, as though one had not already admitted to tyranny and was merely bargaining on the price.

Invalid argument for reasons of terminological confusion.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:What about Humanism?

No thanks, I prefer beef.

And I'm not quite sure what your comment was in relation to. An Atheist does not a Humanist (is that the right word? ) make. There are plenty of non-religious (in the tradiational sense) beliefs which promote various "be good to one another/the earth/etc" ideas which do not have a higher power. However, you do not have to identify yourself with any of these movements in order to be a good person.

Humanism is an atheistic system of belief. You can be atheist without being Humanist, but you can't be Humanist without being atheist, or at least agnostic.

Humanism is an outgrowth of Christianity, and there are, or were, Christian humanists.

Albatross wrote:

When has an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist committed a heinous crime such as 9/11 or the London Bombings in the name of their beliefs? When? Seriously, I'll wait.

Imprisoned or burned at the stake for being xtian, eh? My how times have changed. Well, look at Israeli politics too for another good example. "waaah waah poor us, give lots of fighter planes so we can be the bullies for once." Religions in general should have no place in a legal or governmental system, but they still do. If they get hauled off for their nutbaggery then at least a sad chapter of human history is one step closer to being finished.

My 'holy Robot zapgun in the sky' that causes lightning is no difference than someone else's 'holy ghost who makes good causes exist because of wine and crackers' except that one is a personal delusion and the other is a recognized institution.

That may well be, however the British Humanist Association today says it is an association of atheists and agnostics.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/home

As I understand it, the point of Humanism is to create a system of ethics which does not require the underpinnings of religion.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Incidentally, making a member of a group, organisation or family feel uncomfortable about their beliefs constitutes a criminal threat. We're all part of some sort of family... and a lot of people have cases here.

What country has that nonsense?

Mine, that rainy place near Europe, most of yours and interestingly, not Canada. Is Texas its own country yet?

That is NOT the law in the US. if you think so, you are woefully misinformed of the law and that thing we call the First Amendment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orlanth wrote:

Albatross wrote:

When has an Atheist/Agnostic/Secularist committed a heinous crime such as 9/11 or the London Bombings in the name of their beliefs? When? Seriously, I'll wait.

Wait, you forgot one:

This is ridiculous. He shouldn't be arrested for saying that. Saying something that could be interpeted as a hate crime, but isn't, should not get him arrested.
I agree it is sin in God's eyes, but he still loves them and wants them to repent.

People often get arrested incorrectly.

Perhaps we should wait for the result of the court case before we make our judgement about whether it was a Public Order Offence.

But usury and idolatry are just fine, thank God!

So Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao were driven to do the things they did because they were Atheists? Really?

Wow. Wrong.

In fact scratch that, let's keep your reasoning in mind when we examine the actions of Catholic priests who abuse children, shall we? Shall we?

Or shall we stop being foolish instead, and focus on the facts?

Kilkrazy wrote:People often get arrested incorrectly.

Perhaps we should wait for the result of the court case before we make our judgement about whether it was a Public Order Offence.

Thats not how it ghappens inn the UK. The CPS probably wont prosecute, looking at the case at hand he defendant was baited ansd in Uk law you cannot convict on baited evidence. Lawyers know this and thus the cPS will not run with it.

However that is not good news. You see since Blair took over there has been a change in status of persons of whome charges are dropped. They dont get the charge scrubbed they just get an NFA stamp on it, No Further Action. This is very different from not guilty and it is taken into account on police files further comtact with the police and is brought up in vetting for certain companies and positions. an alleged offence with an NFA stamp is a socaial death sentence and there is little or nothing you can do about it unless you are big enough to force the police to comply with the law and destroy all evidence, including the NFA status.

I know some people this has happened to, both cases have nothing to do with religion and both are career enders simply because employers see 'potential convict' when they vet for any job worth sticking with and look no further at that candidate.

Welcome to New Britain.

salamander man wrote:This is ridiculous. He shouldn't be arrested for saying that. Saying something that could be interpeted as a hate crime, but isn't, should not get him arrested.

So, someone who appears to be breaking the law should not be detained until such time as it can be determined whether they were breaking the law or not? If it looked like someone was attempting to break into a house or a car and a policeman saw them, you can bet there would be no complaint if they nabbed them. Free speach etc is slightly more difficult to determine, but if someone was sailing close to the wind, it might be wise to ask them to move on, or take them into custody, especially if there had been complaints from the public.

And he appeared to be breaking the law? If I say I don't like baseball is that a hate crime against baseball players?

Orlanth wrote:Welcome to New Britain.

It makes me sad that things like that happen, it is only set to get worse though. I can't remember if it got stopped, but they were trying to push through laws to force ISP's to give out detailed information as to what people are doing online if the police asked in a nice voice. You can bet your ass that won't be abused at all... just like they don't abuse terrorism laws and pretty much any other law in order to get your details, DNA, inside leg measurement, etc, entered into their databases.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

salamander man wrote:And he appeared to be breaking the law? If I say I don't like baseball is that a hate crime?

People have already posted why what he was saying could be constituted a crime in the UK, check back on previous pages

Orlanth, i spend all this time tolerating your spurious claims so as not to cause offense, and then you post the old ridiculous Hitler pics...

You are deliberately misleading people.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler all rejected Darwin as a matter of public record, but none more obviously than Hitler. Hitler was on your side of the fence, not mine, and im sick of you saying it. I defy you to find any evidence that Hitler even once mentioned that Darwinism was possibly more likely than Divine Creation. Hitler was Roman Catholic, he had a devout upbringing, he mentioned God regularly, he had "God is with us" Marked on the belt buckles of the SS.

Read Mein Kampf, see how many times he mentions "our almighty creator"

Almost everything you say it either a outright lie or is flat out wrong, but you dont expect anyone to mention it because you Religious types play the victim if we do. If your religion was so true, then it wouldnt matter what i said about it.

Its truth would shine through, it would be undimmed by anything the likes of me said about it. It could take any criticism.

But it cant.

Its ultra defensive, its ultra prickly, its about as substantial as a merangue.

Evolution is a proven fact, there is more evidence for it than gravity. Christian zealots have spent 200 years desperately trying to refute it, all we have gotten is more and more evidence. Not one single aspect of modern Science supports creationism. Biology, Paleontology, Geology, it all laughs in the face of your absurd pseudo-science.

Now im fine with you believing in anything you want, but not lying in front of impressionable people via a forum in order to try and whip up some more converts to get a better score card off your vengeful jelous God on judgement day.

There is no evidence at all for your flood, your 6000 year old creation, your dinosaur riding cavemen, it is all utterly utterly ridiculous, and it is past time to call you out on it.

Is baseball a physical trait that used to be regarded as so monstrously evil thing that people used to be (and still are) killed for playing it?

I was waiting for someone to correct the misrepresentation of Hitler's faith. Do you know the Pope lead a prayer for him on his birthday every year of the war until his death?

Them vs. Us only works when one side gets wiped out, which is something I never look forward to. Give peace a melon-fething chance, please people.

Hey, can you do that thing with your neck when you do the whole "We seek peaceful co-existence"?

Albatross wrote:So Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao were driven to do the things they did because they were Atheists? Really?

Wow. Wrong.

In fact scratch that, let's keep your reasoning in mind when we examine the actions of Catholic priests who abuse children, shall we? Shall we?

Or shall we stop being foolish instead, and focus on the facts?

Albatross should I even bother trying to correct you, but I will answer for the benefit of those others who still want to listen.

Atheism was a major component of Communism and Nazism. It says so in their own texts, over and over again. Furthermore their attitude of distain for religion extended into brutal violence. Even if we temporarily exclude the Holocaust of Jews as a race action and political one (which is not entirely true or fair) this would not account for the terrible persecutions of religions within the Communist blok and Third Reich.

Mao started with 'religion is poison' and since taking over Tibet China has done much to oppress the religion based there. The source I heard said that 2000 temples have been destroyed since the take over, and that is not just limited to buildings but congregations and priests too.

However let us focus on current persecutions rather than historical ones, ans they are more topical.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3993857.stm

Even today persecution of the Christian church in particular is very strong in China, there is an official state church. In those churches one cannot say for example that Jesus has the answers to life because in China communism has the answers. I have met Chinese exiles who were imprisoned and tortured for their faith, and the root of this persecution was very clearly ATHEIST COMMUNISM, the Chinese make no little to disguise this, though they do disguise the abuses themselves. Some of them including the man who came to our church to tell us about the suffering in China went back, so as to preach the gospel to his people. I have since heard of his rearrest and do not want to think about what he has had to endure. Frankly the denialists ought to grow up and show a little more respect, even if you do not believe in our faith, you should respect the fact that many are going out at great risk to themselves to preach the Gospel they believe in, what gain do they expect, honour, power and money? No chance, these men are hunted, but they go all the same because they believe that preaching Jesus to their own people is worth their own lives.. They are worth far more attention than a few kiddie fiddler priests in an entirely different denomination that Albatross would like to make the focus example of churchmen today.



The pink triangle is used today as a memory of the persecution of homosexuals, because they like the Jews and others shared the suffereing of the holocaust. They are not wrong in doing that. However something I should add, take a look at this identification guide to concentration and extermination camp inmates of the Third Reich.



The triangles denoted the offense, an inverse triangle indicated the person was Jewish. If the person was kniown to be just Jewish without anything else they would get either one or two triangles, normally just the one. This is made out to be a yellow Star of David in many films on the Holocaust, but it goes deeper, the fact is that Jews shared their suffering with others. look at who the Nazis targeted, red for political opponents, normally communists, but some others poltical groups also, pink for homosexuals. various types for immigrants and ethnic minorities and 'race defilers' and purple....

Sometimes Bibelforsher is translated as meaning Jehovahs Witnesses, which would be bad enough if it were true, but it actually refered to all non-mainstream Christian groups and Christian activists of any denomination. Had I lived within Germany or its conquered territories at the time I would certainly have qualified, in fact Pentecostalism started in Germany with the Von Bulows just after the Napoleonic war and Pentecostals were amongst the first to be rounded up and summarily murdered in Germany, those and the mentally ill were targeted before the Final Solution was decreed in the Waldensee conference of December 1941.

I know am not the only reader of this thread who would have got a purple triangle if caught. What is our crime? Why kill Europes Pentecostals and Evangelicals? Any guesses, are we united in a politcal doctrine (no we are not) are we of one tribe or race (no we are not) or are we a religion persecuted because of what we believe, which is anathema to atheistic fanaticism.

Do we not see echos of such hatred even here, with people talking of tolerance and equality and respect for all, except Christians. We understand what is happening, tt is a new chapter in an age old struggle of faith, the powers and principalities are never too far away.

mattyrm wrote:Orlanth, i spend all this time tolerating your spurious claims so as not to cause offense, and then you post the old ridiculous Hitler pics...

You are deliberately misleading people.

Stalin, Mao and Hitler all rejected Darwin as a matter of public record, but none more obviously than Hitler. Hitler was on your side of the fence, not mine, and im sick of you saying it. I defy you to find any evidence that Hitler even once mentioned that Darwinism was possibly more likely than Divine Creation. Hitler was Roman Catholic, he had a devout upbringing, he mentioned God regularly, he had "God is with us" Marked on the belt buckles of the SS.

Read Mein Kampf, see how many times he mentions "our almighty creator"

Almost everything you say it either a outright lie or is flat out wrong, but you dont expect anyone to mention it because you Religious types play the victim if we do. If your religion was so true, then it wouldnt matter what i said about it.

Its truth would shine through, it would be undimmed by anything the likes of me said about it. It could take any criticism.

But it cant.

Its ultra defensive, its ultra prickly, its about as substantial as a merangue.

Evolution is a proven fact, there is more evidence for it than gravity. Christian zealots have spent 200 years desperately trying to refute it, all we have gotten is more and more evidence. Not one single aspect of modern Science supports creationism. Biology, Paleontology, Geology, it all laughs in the face of your absurd pseudo-science.

Now im fine with you believing in anything you want, but not lying in front of impressionable people via a forum in order to try and whip up some more converts to get a better score card off your vengeful jelous God on judgement day.

There is no evidence at all for your flood, your 6000 year old creation, your dinosaur riding cavemen, it is all utterly utterly ridiculous, and it is past time to call you out on it.

Explain intermidiate links. Even Darwin in his book said: Geological research, though it has added numerous species to existing and extinct genera, and has made the intervals between some few groups less wide than they otherwise would have been, yet has done scarcely anything in breaking the distinction between species, by connecting them together by numerous, fine, intermediate varieties; and this not having been affected, is probably the gravest and most obvious of all the many objections which can be raised against my views. (The Origin of Species, 6th ed, 1962, Collier Books, NY, p.462.)

Notice what he said. Evolution says that one species eventually led to another. Thus, there should be "fine, intermediate varieties" of fossils in between species. But there isn't.

If you look through history you can dig up dirt on any group of people (Christians, atheists, gays, kings, Italians, entrepreneurs, politicians, etc.). There's no point in going over that because both sides have fuel. People suck. We can, at the very least, agree that people must do their best to overcome their weaknesses and live together. Arguing minutia will lead nowhere. Intelligent debate without personal, emotional stock will.

3 things.

1: SilverMk2 is an example of someone that can make reasoned self controlled arguments. I recomend that the athiests and agnostics study his posts to learn how to have a reasonable mature discussion.

2: This thread is a testament to the fact that athiests are some of the most hypocritcal people in the world. It reminds me of the old joke where the preacher had a conversation with a bartender...

Preacher: Why don't you go to Church?
Bartender: Too many Hypocrites!!
Preacher: And there aren't any hypocrites in a bar?


3: That 1986 law that was passed in the UK is SCARY. I mean Red China SCARY.


GG

Pot, meet Kettle.

I seem to remember a while back you getting rather upset and accusing me of being a nazi, because I am non-religious and because I used the word indoctrination to describe forcing religion on children long before they are capable of deciding for themselves.

that was quite a self controlled, and well thought out arguement.

Wait what? This became a creationism debate?
GAH!

Orlanth: Was Hitler religious?

As to the rest of your statements, I don't know how or why you feel so oppressed and threatened. You should try living in Ireland for a while, where the church has far more influence in laws and policy and has for decades. You might see then that these struggles aren't about faith versus atheism, but just idiots versus people who are different to them, and it goes in all directions.

Once again the Irish are responsible for saving civilization...