Dan Barker, atheist author, speaker, activist, and musician visits forum

Started by Former Believer, June 19, 2012, 10:49:07 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Maggie the Opinionated

Then it is hopeless for you, isn't it? We, at least, won't chop your head off.

Airyaman

Nope, it should be better. Democracies are "mob rules". Therefore, I, as a minority, can still have a voice. That is why Christians should stop complaining about atheists declaring there is no god. If you keep you religion to yourself, we'd never have to oppose your beliefs, would we?
Please take a moment to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta, and Sweden.

Maggie the Opinionated

Quote from: Airyaman on June 25, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Nope, it should be better. Democracies are "mob rules". Therefore, I, as a minority, can still have a voice. That is why Christians should stop complaining about atheists declaring there is no god. If you keep you religion to yourself, we'd never have to oppose your beliefs, would we?
We are not going to keep our religion to ourselves. Why would you even suppose such a thing possible? Honestly, atheists lack both common sense and a modicum of understanding of reality. Sheesh.

Airyaman

^^ Then do not expect us to keep our non-belief to ourselves. It too is part of who we are. And pass it on to davdi.

Quote from: davdi on June 24, 2012, 07:05:25 PM...The major difference between you, Airy, and someone who believes in fairies is that they aren't aggressively saying that God does not exist.  That is something that i take on (the real definition of) faith, that you should have been able to define for yourself, Airy.
Please take a moment to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks in Bowling Green, Atlanta, and Sweden.

Shawna

Quote from: Airyaman on June 25, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Nope, it should be better. Democracies are "mob rules". Therefore, I, as a minority, can still have a voice. That is why Christians should stop complaining about atheists declaring there is no god. If you keep you religion to yourself, we'd never have to oppose your beliefs, would we?

This is what I love about America.  We have legislated Freedom of Conscience into our foundation.  At our best, we are allowed to hold dissenting views from each other, and we are allowed to discuss them with each other and even try to sway people's opinions to our own and make our ideas into laws.  Then, our Supreme Court, which was formed in order to be the defender of the minority, gets to look at the law and decide whether it treats minorities with fairness.  So cool!   ||twirlflower||

In my opinion, this is how the whole world should work.

And I am leaning towards believing in fairies, myself.  I may start lobbying that we take fairies' homes into consideration whenever we decide to cut down a tree.......
"I think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end."
--Origen

Happy Evolute

Quote from: Shawna on June 25, 2012, 04:23:49 PM
At our best, we are allowed to hold dissenting views from each other, and we are allowed to discuss them with each other and even try to sway people's opinions to our own and make our ideas into laws. 

This seems to me to be a feature of all English speaking countries. Is it the language itself that demands freedom of expression? Or is the impression simply an artifact of the fact that I am an English speaker, so simply don't understand other languages?

Quote
In my opinion, this is how the whole world should work.

New world order ... but how do we make it happen unless we can persuade the rest of the world? And how can we persuade them if we can't talk freely?

Quote
And I am leaning towards believing in fairies, myself.  I may start lobbying that we take fairies' homes into consideration whenever we decide to cut down a tree.......

||Kerly||
An axiom is a proposition that defeats its opponents by the fact that they have to accept it and use it in the process of any attempt to deny it. - Ayn Rand

Shawna

Quote from: Happy Evolute on June 25, 2012, 05:48:52 PM
Quote from: Shawna on June 25, 2012, 04:23:49 PM
At our best, we are allowed to hold dissenting views from each other, and we are allowed to discuss them with each other and even try to sway people's opinions to our own and make our ideas into laws. 

This seems to me to be a feature of all English speaking countries. Is it the language itself that demands freedom of expression? Or is the impression simply an artifact of the fact that I am an English speaker, so simply don't understand other languages?

Um.  Not entirely, no.  At least not as I understand it.  Freedom of Conscience is a foundation of the U.S. legal system, whereas in the U.K., as I understand it, it is merely a nice thing to allow to happen as long as it doesn't inconvenience anyone or cause undue irritation.

But I could be mistaken.  By the way, you missed quoting the essential second sentence, about how the Supreme Court ensures that the views of the minority are not thoughtlessly squashed by the majority.
"I think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end."
--Origen

Argyle

I think there is at some point an optimal level of representation, I am still undecided as to whether we have too much representation (bloated government) or too little actual representation (a government which is so small as to condense power into too few hands).

It really is a conundrum, and I'm quite certain that the proper approach (a scientific investigation into optimal representation ratios and cost/benefit analysis) is antithetical to the political mechanism...

but I think we are getting rather far off topic aren't we all?
||whistling||
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

kevin

dare to know.

Argyle

Dan you there? I hope we have not scared you off with our usual tirades.  ||unsure||
Cheers!
-Argyle

Never let yourself be diverted by what you wish to believe, but look only and surely at what are the facts,

Pastafarian

Quote from: davdi on June 23, 2012, 11:13:23 PM
Quote from: Airyaman on June 23, 2012, 05:53:28 PM
I've still not understood how not believing in something that has no evidence to support it can be considered "faith". I don't have "faith" that fairies, unicorns, bigfoot, or honest politicians don't exist.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith:

noun
[mass noun]
complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
this restores one?s faith in politicians

Despite the evidence to the contrary you persist in a fallacious definition of faith.

Origin:
Middle English: from Old French feid, from Latin fides

This from the Latin:

fidelis : faithful, loyal, true
fidelitas : fidelity, loyalty, homage.
fidens : confident, without fear, courageous.
fides : trust, confidence, reliance, belief, faith.
fides : promise, assurance, word of honor, engagement.
fiducia : confidence, trust, assurance.

Of the 21 words used to describe the latin from which we got the word faith, only two apply to religion.

This is just another example of the lengths that atheists will go to in making fun.  And they don't even know the truth, and they don't know that the truth is not with them.

Davdi, I was honestly surprised by either the stupidity or the naively of this post, coming from you.
Words are our servants, not our masters.
You say only 2 of those definitions apply to religion... Well those are the two that define religion, that set it at odds with reality.

You need the evidence if you want to claim that YOUR Faith is the based-on-evidence type!
It may be that ministers really think that their prayers do good and it may be that frogs imagine that their croaking brings spring.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Which Way?" (1884)

Pastafarian

Quote from: davdi on June 24, 2012, 07:05:25 PM

Nothing is as simple as you atheists have been lied to about by your leaders.

Chuckle.
Are you freaking serious?
It may be that ministers really think that their prayers do good and it may be that frogs imagine that their croaking brings spring.
-- Robert Green Ingersoll, "Which Way?" (1884)

Dexter

Quote from: Maggie the Opinionated on June 25, 2012, 02:46:56 PM
Muslim countries are not democracies.

The world's 4 largest Muslim countries are all democracies. In fact only Egypt and Iran in the top 8 are not democracies yet.
"Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road"
― T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

Maggie the Opinionated

You cannot be serious. You just can't be. In what sense of the word can Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh be considered "democracies." India, yes. But how are Christians treated in any pedominantly Muslim country? Just ask the Iraqi Christians about that. Oops, no you can't. They have all been murdered. Well maybe you can ask Asia Bibi, mother of 5, and on death row for the last 3 years in Pakistan for "blasphemy".

Democracy for some, but not for all, is not democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

Dexter

Quote from: Maggie the Opinionated on June 27, 2012, 12:46:57 PM
You cannot be serious. You just can't be. In what sense of the word can Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh be considered "democracies." India, yes. But how are Christians treated in any pedominantly Muslim country? Just ask the Iraqi Christians about that. Oops, no you can't. They have all been murdered. Well maybe you can ask Asia Bibi, mother of 5, and on death row for the last 3 years in Pakistan for "blasphemy".

Democracy for some, but not for all, is not democracy in any meaningful sense of the word.

If your requirement for a democracy is an absence of religious bigotry, then I don't know of any democracies.
"Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road"
― T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

Maggie the Opinionated

Dexter, what planet do you inhabit? We are talking about being imprisoned on trumped up charges of blasphemy. We are talking about being murdered at mass. We are talking about not having your head cut off by the Muslim majority. I know lots of democracies where that doesn't happen. I am sorry to hear that Australia is not a democracy.

Dexter

Quote from: Maggie the Opinionated on June 27, 2012, 12:57:03 PM
Dexter, what planet do you inhabit? We(You) are talking about being imprisoned on trumped up charges of blasphemy. We(You) are talking about being murdered at mass. WeYou are talking about not having your head cut off by the Muslim majority. I know lots of democracies where that doesn't happen. I am sorry to hear that Australia is not a democracy.
+1 Maggie 2411

You don't need to be in a country that has a Muslim majority to have your head cut off. You made a statement that Muslim Countries are not democracies. You have not denied this or admitted error, yet you now claim that India, the worlds 2nd biggest Muslim country IS a democracy. Is Turkey a Democracy? Have you told the Indonesian people that when they vote their vote is worthless?

Edit: India is the 3rd largest Muslim Country.
"Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road"
― T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

Maggie the Opinionated

I don't care what they call their form of government. I care about the safety and freedom of all citizens to live unmolested by the majority.

Dexter

Quote from: Maggie the Opinionated on June 27, 2012, 01:13:27 PM
I don't care what they call their form of government. I care about the safety and freedom of all citizens to live unmolested by the majority.

If you don't care what they (or how they are internationally regarded) call their form of Government, why did you claim that
QuoteMuslim countries are not democracies.
, if it has no relevance?
"Here is no water but only rock
Rock and no water and the sandy road"
― T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land

JustMyron

Quote from: Maggie the Opinionated on June 27, 2012, 01:13:27 PM
I don't care what they call their form of government. I care about the safety and freedom of all citizens to live unmolested by the majority.

Democracy is a form of government, and it does not inherently protect minorities from the majority. If what you are asserting is that Muslim-majority countries are not "countries where minority religions are protected", you should say that, rather than "democracies". Less confusing.

Shawna

Quote from: JustMyron on June 27, 2012, 01:23:59 PM
Quote from: Maggie the Opinionated on June 27, 2012, 01:13:27 PM
I don't care what they call their form of government. I care about the safety and freedom of all citizens to live unmolested by the majority.

Democracy is a form of government, and it does not inherently protect minorities from the majority. If what you are asserting is that Muslim-majority countries are not "countries where minority religions are protected", you should say that, rather than "democracies". Less confusing.

Very few countries, including democracies, protect the rights of minority religions (and that includes for legal purposes nontheism, since we are talkinbg about the right to beliefve whatever a person wants about God).  We have a hard time with that in the U.S., too, although I personally think we do a better job than most.  Look at what France has done to Islamic women over the wearing of hijab and face covering veils......  In this country, Muslims are still beaten up and harassed because they are Muslim, but at least it's against the law.

My favorite part of the Federal Government.... the Supreme Court......   the place where minorities get to plead their case, and sometimes win, to the horror of the madding crowd.

EDIT to take out the word "hijab" which is not named in the law and which doesn't usually cover the face.

EDITEDIT to put the hijab back in, on second thought, because the law still also forbids women and girls from wearing hijab in public school (and would also incidentally forbid me from wearing my headcovering as well).
"I think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may recall all His creatures to one end."
--Origen

JudoChop

Earth to members, Dan snuck out a week ago. Probably while you were polishing your duelling pistols.
Abdullah: You got me wrong, I'm not the Eel, I'm the one trying to prove to you that Eels are not Atheists.

Steveox


We are the silent majority

Steveox

Dan,,,What you think about,,What happens when you die? Do you turn into a ghost and roam around the planet until youre ready to be reborn or what?

We are the silent majority

Gnu Ordure

Quote from: JudoChop on June 29, 2012, 11:46:53 AM
Earth to members, Dan snuck out a week ago. Probably while you were polishing your duelling pistols.
Good point.

Dan was invited here to answer our questions, not to listen to his audience argue amongst themselves. That is of no interest to him, particularly as he has little idea of where we all stand, philosophically speaking.



I would suggest that it would be more polite to our guest if all our posts in this section were directed only to him or her.

We could set up a parallel thread in the Speaker Commentary Section for discussion between ourselves...

Former Believer

My initial impression in speaking to Dan is that he isn't opposed to rigorous debate.  I'll reach out to him again on Monday and see if he is planning on posting any more.  It's possible that he simply has been busy with other things.  Perhaps I should have done a better job letting know forum members what his status was.  It's a fine line between giving prominent speakers like Dan the time to make posts in a manner that suits there schedule and keeping forum members appropriately informed.  As I say, I'll reach out to Dan and see if he will be interacting any more.
Don't sacrifice your mind at the altar of belief

Steveox

This is Moobys fault!! He put me inb the corner when Dan Barker came. I wasnt allowed to ask Dan anything... Damn Commie 

We are the silent majority

Lillium

Quote from: Mooby the Golden Sock on June 23, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Quote from: GamerGirl on June 23, 2012, 04:02:42 AM
I can't bring a box, which I have never looked at the inside, into the room and announce: "There is a duck in this box!"  and have someone say, "Prove it!" and then say, "Prove that there is not a duck in this box!!"

No.  I would have to open the box to prove that there was a duck in the box.  It would be silly for me to think that you would believe there is a duck in the box simply because I've told you there is not any evidence that there is not a duck in the box.

Same applies to god.  Believers have the burden of proof.  Not disbelievers.
Allow me to reimagine this using real world demographics.

Suppose there is a box in a room we are unable to open.  After examining the box (lifting, shaking, etc.), 85% of people conclude there is something in the box, 2-4% conclude there is nothing in the box, and the rest are not quite sure.

Let's say that this question is one of potentially high consequence (what if it's a ticking bomb?), so the box believers begin to advance theories.  Thousands of theories are advanced, with about half of the population believing fairly similar theories, except not being able to agree on the fine details.  Of course, there are also a few really silly theories out there.

Now, some of the nonbelievers might say, "Any single one of your theories has no evidence, so we must conclude there is something in the box," or "None of you can agree on what's in the box--there are thousands of theories--so most likely there's nothing in the box," or "You just want there to be something in the box." 

But, of course, that's really silly reasoning.  Not knowing what's in the box does not change the fact that the box itself had properties (weight, rattling sound) that were different enough from an empty box that it convinced 85% of people that the box was not empty to begin with.  Is it really logical to conclude that the gap in our knowledge affects the reality of the box's contents?

Unless the interior of the box is a vacuum, the box at the very least has air in it.  Your scenario reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat for some reason.  But I see your point and how it relates to religion. 

But the only "box" that we can observe that could have a god in it would be the universe.  You'd have to search the box far and wide to actually find him/her/it.
Meow?

none

Quote from: GamerGirl on September 16, 2012, 05:00:12 AM
Quote from: Mooby the Golden Sock on June 23, 2012, 02:56:44 PM
Quote from: GamerGirl on June 23, 2012, 04:02:42 AM
I can't bring a box, which I have never looked at the inside, into the room and announce: "There is a duck in this box!"  and have someone say, "Prove it!" and then say, "Prove that there is not a duck in this box!!"

No.  I would have to open the box to prove that there was a duck in the box.  It would be silly for me to think that you would believe there is a duck in the box simply because I've told you there is not any evidence that there is not a duck in the box.

Same applies to god.  Believers have the burden of proof.  Not disbelievers.
Allow me to reimagine this using real world demographics.

Suppose there is a box in a room we are unable to open.  After examining the box (lifting, shaking, etc.), 85% of people conclude there is something in the box, 2-4% conclude there is nothing in the box, and the rest are not quite sure.

Let's say that this question is one of potentially high consequence (what if it's a ticking bomb?), so the box believers begin to advance theories.  Thousands of theories are advanced, with about half of the population believing fairly similar theories, except not being able to agree on the fine details.  Of course, there are also a few really silly theories out there.

Now, some of the nonbelievers might say, "Any single one of your theories has no evidence, so we must conclude there is something in the box," or "None of you can agree on what's in the box--there are thousands of theories--so most likely there's nothing in the box," or "You just want there to be something in the box." 

But, of course, that's really silly reasoning.  Not knowing what's in the box does not change the fact that the box itself had properties (weight, rattling sound) that were different enough from an empty box that it convinced 85% of people that the box was not empty to begin with.  Is it really logical to conclude that the gap in our knowledge affects the reality of the box's contents?

Unless the interior of the box is a vacuum, the box at the very least has air in it.  Your scenario reminds me of Schrodinger's Cat for some reason.  But I see your point and how it relates to religion. 

But the only "box" that we can observe that could have a god in it would be the universe.  You'd have to search the box far and wide to actually find him/her/it.
can I plus +1
how long after I type amen do I get the money?
I'm lost, if you see me you are lost also
If Jesus believed in himself he wouldn't have been Jewish.