"Because Atheism Is All About The Porn?"

[bloom]

As seen linked @ http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=504

Students Trade Bibles for Porn
By Matt O'Conner
Friday, December 2, 2005

SAN ANTONIO — A group of atheists at the University of Texas at San Antonio is putting a novel twist on the toys-for-guns programs run by many urban police departments. But instead of toys, they are handing out porn in exchange for bibles.
“We consider the bible to be a very negative force in the history of the world,” student Ryan Walker said. Walker is part of a student group that calls itself the Atheist Agenda.

Club members this week posted fliers promoting what they call the “Smut for Smut” campaign then set up a table in the student union to collect religious materials and pass out adult magazines such as Black Label and Playboy.

The group is not officially sanctioned by the university and has raised the ire of several religious organizations on campus.

“In my opinion, there are no atheists. There are fools,” Pastor Rick Hawkins of UTSA’s Family Praise Center said. “So, that would be foolish propaganda. I don't know one believer that would take his Bible and turn it in for pornography.”

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=11518

Do some people - atheists or not - see porn as the antithesis of the Bible? Or something that somehow represents atheists?

I think it's pretty weird - doing an exchange like this as if there is an association. It's no favor to atheists, IMO.

[Random_Australian]

1. Sounds like parody. The 'agenda' thing gives it away.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

66. I read about this about a year ago then

never heard anything else. Seems a bit..over the top.

If it is true, they aren't doing their cause any favors. But I don't much care for porn (from a feminist perspective) so I am not objective about it.

T-Grannie

[niyad]

2. sounds more like a reichwing ploy designed to make atheists look bad.

agitprop

[arwalden]

15. Yes... There Are Some "Atheists" Here At DU Who Do The Same Thing.

I'm glad to see that I'm not the only person in this thread who can easily spot such tactics. :hi:

[bloom]

17. see post 13

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x66500#66521

[Old and In the Way]

3. I agree.....dig a little deeper and you'll probably find some RW

religous/political operative involved with this. Pretty dumb, indeed.

[havocmom]

4. Parts of the bible ARE porn

in my book ;)

[Left Below]

5. Darwin says that "sex is the propellor of evolution"

Porn is the lube on that goode propellor.....

[The Magistrate]

6. Pastor Hawkins, Ma'am

Would probably be a more relaxed and happier individual if exposed to more pornography than Scripture. He seems very tense....

[bloom]

10. I don't see

pornography as nearly the good thing that others do. Not that I think that Pastor Hawkins has a clue.


I think this is more like it:


The End of Sex?
Pornography is changing the nature of physical affection

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?no=288787&rel_no=1

[noamnety]

14. I'm with you on this one

They've exchanged one misogynistic product for another. It's all the same to me.

[bloom]

18. "They've exchanged one misogynistic product for another."

Exactly.

Well said.

[Goblinmonger]

40. Don't you think

that could actually be THEIR point as well? Couldn't they have made that connection as well? The greatest satirists don't spell out what they are satirizing. That is what makes them great.

[bloom]

44. Sometimes people think that they are making

some profound connection - satirizing, etc. and what they end up doing is promoting exactly what it is they think they are making a joke of.

I think this esp. happens with sexist and racist things. People think they are mocking those things - they end up becoming sexist and/or racist themselves.

[Goblinmonger]

46. I know what you are saying

though I don't agree. Many people said that about All in the Family. To REALLY satirize something, you need to show it as it is. I will stick with AitF as the example. They had to show Archie as a racist. They couldn't half do it. Now there were racists that watched the show that thought he was great (just like there were some that didn't get Colbert right away). But you will probably never reach those. AitF did a great job of showing that Archie was dumb in other areas and then subtly making us transfer that to his bigotry. Just because Archie was such a good picture of a racist bigot doesn't mean that the producers of the show were actually racist.

[The Magistrate]

16. That Is A Pretty Foolish And Over-Blown Article, Ma'am

Hyper-ventilation about pornography being a twelve billion dollar industry in a country with an economy measured at eight or nine trillions reveals a lack of basic arithmetical understanding that bodes poorly for competent analysis.

Anyone who thinks every four minutes of television viewing on network television yields a view of a sexual act in any genuine pornographic sense needs perpetual lodging under a cold shower, for they clearly have but one thing on their minds and cannot shake it. Classing mere double entendre and the like as pornography is like classing hang-nails with heart attacks as medical emergencies.

Anyone who thinks women are more frequently coerced into unwanted sex today than previously really needs to sit down for a heart to heart with a woman who was single and young half a century or more ago. They will be amazed by the course of many a date recalled.

Surveys of pornography that breathlessly relate the incidence of "violence" and "degredation" without regard for the existence of sado-masochistic sexual orientation are deliberate distortion, and wholly discredit any who attempt the thing as persons who began their study with their conclusions intact already. Persons who do that are mere prosetylizing propagandists, not researchers. Survey pornography as a whole with a similar deliberate blindness, and you could just as easily claim it causes or foments homosexuality, because a tremendous proportion of the total imagery and narrative available focuses on homosexual acts.

[Xeric]

7. “In my opinion, there are no atheists. There are fools,”

Because it takes a really intelligent person to believe in virgin births, young earth creationism, an ark filled with every animal on the planet, walking on water, angels, demons, giants, etc. etc. etc.

[Sinti]

9. You don't have to believe in Giants, they believe in you

Cross them and they will squish you under their humongous and incredibly smelly feet. :P

The pastor is giving lectures on propaganda :spray: This has to be made up.

[charlie]

12. The Rev sounds like a double agent

There are no atheists (everybody's a believer). There are fools (believers are fools).

We're all fools. I'll drink to that. Inadvertent wisdom from the tight-belted reverend.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

68. His was a stupid quote

but keep in mind that not all believers in a higher power believe in all the things you named, either.

T-Grannie

[TreasonousBastard]

8. But, but, but.. I heard there are no atheists whackjobs!

[The Magistrate]

11. Where Did You Hear That, Sir?

While certainly both sides of the case could be argued, it is not difficult at all to make the case that the Bible has had a tremendous negative impact, and it is undeniable that it contains a great deal of bloody-minded folly in plain print.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. The case can be made for people who misuse any religious...

text causing great mischief. Religion then gets the blame for the evil that men do.

Fortunately for the atheist, there is no belief system to "guide" any evil he may do so atheism itself remains blameless.

So, as atheism, being no belief at all and therefore guiltless of error, is pure as the driven snow and is free to insult and slight the religious, as it so mightily complains about being so slighted itself, it manages to enter high dudgeon when (GASP!) someone dares to question it in its own language. Huge and ponderous threads about bigotry against almighty atheism by daring to mention that it might not be so pure after all.

Curious, it is, that atheists, who have no religion or theology, should spend so much time in a religion and theology forum.

Why is that?

[Goblinmonger]

26. Boy

you sure jumped on that screed by another DU user, didn't you? You may want to take more care picking your friends/idols.

[TreasonousBastard]

30. Eh? I'm missing something here-- I just said some stuff I...

haven't bothered to say in the past.

There was a screed?

[Goblinmonger]

32. Well

if I am wrong, then my apologies. But there is a pretty long discussion by one of my "buddies" on another thread that sounds exactlly like that. I thought you were on that thread, too. I'll have to look again.

[TreasonousBastard]

35. Whether or not I was in the thread is probably...

irrelevant, since I could easily have lurked there and seen what you're talking about, or posted in the thread without reading every message.

You do have my assurance, for what it's worth, that it is purely coincidental if it resembles some other screed as I don't remember seeing anything like it.

[Goblinmonger]

OK

My bad. I'll take you at your word.

[TreasonousBastard]

53. No problem-- I know some people make it personal here...

and it it's easy to see a gang-bang around every corner.

Me, I'll argue all day over ideas, but still share a beer when it's over.

[Goblinmonger]

56. Guiness?

or do you favor that horrible piss water we make here in the US?

[TreasonousBastard]

58. Guiness is fine, although sometimes I like to lighten it up...

a bit with a good dose of India Pale Ale.

(Ballantine or Hoboken will do in a pinch)

We do agree on Bud Light, do we?

I digress to an old story I remember about Billy Beer...

One of Carter's aides couldn't imagine why the stuff tasted so dreadful, so sent it off to the FDA for analysis.

The results came back a few days later with the note, "Please express our deepest sympathy for the President. We imagine how terrible it is to have a horse with diabetes."

[charlie]

61. I've got nothing but good things to say about Billy Beer

I once traded a single unopened can for the $289 difference I owed on a new electric guitar... a mere year after they quit making the stuff!

[bloom]

59. i'm a Guinness person myself.

:beer:

But I try to avoid drinking with "whackjobs" :P

[Goblinmonger]

60. If you think I'm a whackjob now,

you should see me with a couple of the dark ales in me :crazy:

[bloom]

36. There are some atheists

who are really into this "you are with us or against us" mentality.


They think I'm against them. Because I don't say that everything that all atheists ever do is rosy.


I don't know if he was talking about that or someone else that they have it in for. It's hard to know sometimes.


I thought what you said made a lot of sense.

[Goblinmonger]

39. I was not referring to you.

It is nobody who has posted on this thread. Yet.

[TreasonousBastard]

57. Haven't read completely through this or other threads, but...

while I've been taking some atheists to task for some things they've said, that attitude certainly isn't limited to atheists. Stalking's been an occasional problem here, and if someone's hounding him, that's out of bounds.

But, the attitude does seem to be the thing this week. The atheist-theist wars pop up around here every so often, and I'm thinking since it doesn't happen out there in the world too often, this probably isn't such a bad thing. There's things some people just have to say, and I guess this is the place to say them this week.

[The Magistrate]

38. It Is Not So Easy As That, Sir

Who is to say it is being mis-used, in any particular instance?

Many of the people you would likely feel mis-use religion are equally convinced in their own point of view that it is you who are mis-using it. Neither of you can appeal to an objective standard independent of your personal beliefs against which the question could be judged. Part of the problem, it seems to me, is the idea there is any reality at all to some pure ideal of "religion" that exists independently from what people do under the compelling belief they act in accordance with religious directives. That is certainly not a proveable proposition to which assent can be compelled by marshalling of evidence.

There are several basic grounds for the jaundiced eye some convinced atheists turn towards the defenders of religion in debate. Probably the deepest is the identification, widespread in society, that moral behavior is somehow bound up in religion, and that persons who do not subscribe to a religion therefore cannot manage moral behavior. A natural line of attack against this is to point out the tremendous degree of vicious behavior engaged in, not just by religious people, but contained in the precepts and directives of various religions, and both history and the religious texts themselves make this is very easy exercise, one that makes the cliche of shooting fish in a barrel seem a tricky business by comparison.

If one holds to the view that moral behavior is independent of any religious adherence, then persons who do not adhere to a religion may be moral or immoral, just as persons who do adhere to a religion may be. The difficulty arises when a religion contains in its precepts directions towards behavior a person who does not share that religion views as immoral. This difficulty can occur between persons of different religions as easily it can as between a person who adheres to a religion and a person who adheres to none. Simply not believing in a religion or in a diety, however, contains no directions for behavior: it does not direct a person to act in any particular way whatsoever. The actions of a person who does not subscribe to a religion cannot be laid off onto anything but that particular individual's decisions, inclinations, or temperament, in some particular circumstance: no one, and no other thing, can be held responsible for them. That is not quite true of a person who adheres to a religion that includes directives for behavior the believer regards as sacred instruction: a person who does this may decide to do good or ill not from personal inclination or temperatment operating in a particular circumstance, but from the conviction an action is required by the creed he or she is devoted to.

[TreasonousBastard]

52. But not so complicated as that...

one can easily point to Philip II as being religiously moved to bring the Inquisition, or to the Catholic Church for teaching that a fetus is a person with a soul. And one may reasonably argue with them, but cannot convince them they are in error.

However, except for perhaps Thuggee, I can't think of any significant religions that have violence and what would be considered by most to be "evil" or "immoral" acts essntial to their systems. Most religions seem to have ended up with ethics pretty much same as secular ethicists have, with little real variation-- don't steal, don't lie, don't kill, etc... If God didn't give us the Commandments, we would have had to make them up, or vice-versa.

We "of the Book" seem to have more than our share of militaristic passages in our scriptures, I'll admit, and when a Jewish settler murders a Palestinian, a Christian blows up an abortion clinic, or a Muslim blows up a restaurant in Tel Aviv, it does make the scriptures look bad when quoted as justification for these acts. However, these are all seen within their communities as aberant and abhorrent. On the other hand, religion is a personal issue for almost everyone, and after all the bluster and blather of loudmouthed preachers is over, most have no real interest in crusades, jihads, or other such things. These occur for political, not religious reasons, wiht religion as an excuse.

So, after almost matching you in word count, I am back to simply saying that religion is a convenient scapegoat for many of the world's evils, but atheism gets a free ride since it has no doctrines, teachings, or books directing one's actions.

This is not accusation against atheism or value judgement of the situation, simply musing over an an observation. The religious right long ago found its target-- not atheism but that nasty ol' "secular humanism" that it blames for all the world's evils. A replacement for religious ethics makes it the bogeyman.

Now, if we could simply stop blaming each other for all the world's evils and work together a little toward stopping a few of them...

[The Magistrate]

62. Not Close To Sufficient, Sir

The casual admisson of "more than our share of militaristic passages in our scriptures" does not come close to acknowledging the problem, or its serious depth. We are both familiar enough with the Scriptures to know the degree of abomination directed as holy law and divine command in them, and so it is not necessary to recount some tiny sampling to establish that point. But in that tradition, the problem runs to much profounder levels.

The pretence of exclusive truth, the claim of being the one and only way, is at the heart of the matter. To my view, either the making or believing of such a claim achieves a height of arrogance that cannot be characterized conveniently save by refering to it as the most deadly sin of spiritual pride conceiveable. From such a rotten core, no good can come.

From such a claim, certain things inevitably follow. One is that persons must be compelled to agreement with the claim, either for their own good, or for the collective good of a society that will surely be punished by the diety if adherence to the claim is not the norm. Another is an overweening conviction of superiority over those who do not acceed to the claim, and another is the sadistic enjoyment in imagination of the sufferings their disbelief will eventually subject them to. All the religions of that tradition display various mixtures of these ingredients in their expansive and dominant phases, and these displays are not abberations or lapses from the "true meaning" of the faith: they are logical and predictable consequences flowing naturally from the root proposition, that will naturally come to the minds of a great proportion of those who assent to the root proposition.

The only real defense against these items is not to take the root proposition very seriously. It is not a question of convincing King Phillip II he is in error about the necessity for the Inquisition, for if one takes the propostion at the root of the faith in dead earnest, he is not in error, but merely being reasonable and consistent and dutiful as a monarch seeking the best for his people and land; what is really necessary is to convince him that what he professes to believe is something he really should not take very seriously at all.

Indeed, a gradual culture inclination to take religious belief less seriously has been the distiguishing characteristic of the modern West, and is the root of the innovative society it has created, that has been able accordingly to assert cultural and political dominance over societies that did not make a similar adjustment over the last several centuries.

Individuals even in this supposedly Christian country do, in fact, generally adopt this strategy whole-heartedly. Just about everyone here, if queried whether or not they are Christian, will answer in the affirmative. But if asked in more detail, a majority of those will indicate they hold beliefs that could not be held by persons who take the root dogmas of that faith seriously. Many will say, for instance, that persons who do not believe in Christ as their Saviour will still find salvation, or that other religions are equally true as Christianity. This is not the groundwork for a charge of hypocrisy, but a recognition of good sense and reasonableness worthy of some salute.

[TreasonousBastard]

63. Quite sufficient, actually...

throughout history, all major civilizations had sophisticated religion integral to them. This in no way means that there was any causal relationship, but that somehow in a complex society we also manage to develop complex religions.

The key is not that a religion exists, or even what it is, but how much control the priests and shamans have over the actual running of the society. The most successful societies evolved a balance between "church and state." Aquinas set the path for Europe to flourish just as the Four Doctors doomed Arab civilization.

Until recently, there have been no successful secular societies. Europe and Japan, with a few others, are rapidly heading that way, and China, Russia, and the otrher Communistr countries were forced into it so they were special cases. But, although Europe is becoming secularized, over 5,000 years of pagan, Roman, and Christian gods are hard to shake off.

Setting up the hard ends of Christian theology as a strawman won't work. Many, if not most, Christians, even in the US, are universalists at heart simply because over the years we've worked so closely with other churches and other faiths that we just don't bother with discussing our "theological differences." All those deep beliefs and fightin' words just don't mean a thing when it gets down to cases and stopping wars or feeding the hungry. Or just being a good neighbor. There's a lot of talk about churches splitting over things like gay marriage, but I betcha can't find three people who know about joint communion between churches.

So, you might be interested in picking a fight, and you might think we are interested in picking a fight, but we're not. So you can fight all you want, but you're shadow boxing.

Now, again, what about forgetting all this silliness and just getting down to fixing the real problems?

[The Magistrate]

64. Do You Really Think So, Sir?

It does not seem to me that there is no causal relation between the development of complex societies and the development of complex religions. In all instances of this conjoined development, the religion was an essential prop of the state, and in coloring the entire fabric of society, enforced state authority and sanctified state and social practice. In all the original forms of complex human society, the man at the apex was the representative of the divine, if not its actual embodiment on earth. His chief duty was the ritual manipulation of and intercession with the divine, and it was upon his successful execution of this that all was conceived to depend, not just good harvests and good fortune, but in many cases even the very order of the cosmos. The utility of such a system of belief for exercising absolute control of a society is self-evident, and it would be deliberately perverse to claim that it came into being without reference to the great utility it had for a ruler.

Far from developing a balance between "church and state", human societies prior to the dawn of the modern era never recognized the concept of any such division at all, or even the seperation of religion from the ordinary activities of daily life and society. State and life were religion; there was nothing else. Societies in this form were dominant for all but a few centuries of human history, and as some of them not only achieved unquestioned political dominance over regional or even continental expanses, but lasted as coherent wholes for spans measured in millenia, it can hardly be argued the form was not successful, and that societies shaped to it were failures.

The origin of the idea "church and state" were seperate items lies in some peculiar facts of the history of Christianity. Christianity is one of the very few examples in history of a religion that arose and reached wide-spread fervency without an accompanying state structure exerting political power from its commencement. It is also perhaps the only example of a religion that achieved a political overthrow of an existing society's combination of state and religion from within, rather than by conquest from the outside. Further, it originated as a splinter of a religion that was currently held in political thrall by a foreign power whose religious beliefs it did not accede to, and which refrained from forcing its religious system in more than token ways on this particular province of its imperium. Beginning without state power at their disposal, and frequently viewed with some disfavor by the state and generally with great disfavor by the mass of the populace, Christian leaders naturally came to a view both that their church was something different than the state, and that their church was superior to the state as an item of allegiance for their followers. When they did come to political power, they expected the state to obey them, and for rulers to turn the state to the enforcement of their dogmas. The highly debateable nature, and hence highly fractured state, of higher level Christian dogmas, however, ensured that there was always considerable dispute as to just what constituted Christian belief, and the original pattern was available to dissenters from prevailing views to steel them in defiances and evasions necessary to maintain their own view of the question, whatever the currently prevailing creed might be. Christianity has never been a wholly unified system of belief, though all Christian belief has shared certain root beliefs, and this is as true of the medieval period as of any other: the idea Medieval Europe was unified in one Holy and Roman and Catholic Church dissolves into mist in close examination of the times.

What brought about the final stages of the rise of the modern West was the realization of European monarchs that making killing questions of these differences of belief was simply too expensive and too dangerous to their power to continue. Churchmen resisted bitterly, on both sides of the Reformation and Counter-Reformation but had no means available to compell a popular or firmly established monarch willing to ignore them, and had to settle for the imposition of various forms of second-class citizenship on dissenters, rather than the former case of state coercion to compell adherence to local orthodoxy as before. As the toleration of a degree of heterodoxy brought no evident disasterous consequences to society, the new habit persisted and strengthened, and even the various discriminations assumed vestigal character or disappeared completely.

The claim of erecting a strawman is pretty shopworn, and carries scant weight with me. Most persons who call themselves Christians in our country today would not be recognized as Christians by any ordinarily devout Christian a couple of centuries ago, and are not viewed as Christians by the modern heirs of those beliefs. They display about the same relation to Christian dogma that an educated Roman of the second century of the current era displayed towards the Olympian pantheon. This is a good thing, in my view, but it is not in any real sense Christianity. The name is clung to because of a social habit of associating good with being religious and associating being religious with being a Christian. Those elements of scripture which fit well with their ideas of what is good are exalted, and those that contradict those ideas are discarded. Fundamentalists, of course, do something similar, though they employ a somewhat different grid. But they are much closer to the root teaching of the original faith in many respects.

[trotsky]

65. How many times is this crap thrown around:

Curious, it is, that atheists, who have no religion or theology, should spend so much time in a religion and theology forum.

Why is that curious? Theology is just "the study of religious faith, practice, and experience" - can't atheists have opinions on that?

Religion plays a huge role in American society, whether you are religious or not - can't atheists have opinions on that?

I'm sick of this snide, condescending attitude that atheists should have no reason to be in this forum. Hell, that snide, condescending attitude is one of the reasons I am in this forum - to point it out and squash it.

[TreasonousBastard]

71. I have no problem with the discussion of theology...

with anyone in order to increase understanding between the various communities of belief or nonbelief. That is the great advantage of forums like this, and there is no question we need to talk more.

I do, however, have a problem with the snide, condescending attitude that theists just haven't seen the light of pure reason yet, or are the source of the world's problems. Most of us theists are not here to preach, and I doubt few of us like to be preached to, either.

(And don't bother to say the attitude doesn't exist.)

[trotsky]

72. Oh, so there's no snide, condescending attitude displayed by theists?

That atheists are costing the party votes, or are "arrogant" in their disbelief, or that their lack of belief is somehow a belief system or religion of its own, yada yada yada?

Deal with it, TB. The main reason this forum is here is to take all religious arguments and flamewars OUT of GD. So you really can't be surprised at what ends up here. And it's far from just being the mean old atheists who are to blame.

[TreasonousBastard]

73. OK, you complain about asshole theists, and I'll...

complain about asshole atheists.

Just don't try to arguse that asshole atheists don't exist. We are well aware of our own nutcase wing, and you should be of yours, too. Denying it just makes you look foolish.

Yes, there is that snide condescending attiutude that we're just a bunch of simpletons who need an imaginary sky being to tell us what to do because we're too stupid the think for ourselves. Deny it all you want, but you're pissing in the wind.

And stop bringing up that article-- I still cannot be convinced that it was about all atheists no matter how many times I hear the whining. It was about assholes, and unless you admit all atheists are assholes, it was not about all atheists.

[trotsky]

74. I am not aware of ever denying that there have been, and are...

asshole atheists. So where you're getting this "deny it all you want" line, I'm really not sure.

I'm sorry that the words some atheists use upset you. Try taking it up with them. I generally try to do that with the asshole theists, focusing my efforts on the religious bigots.

And I can bring up that article as much as I want. Plenty of people said it's not about "all" atheists, yet the funny thing is, neither the author nor any of her defenders on DU can actually point to one of these real "whackjob" atheists, or identify just how they are being allowed to speak for the progressive movement or the Democratic party, OR point out just how they're scaring people away.

You started this subthread by whining about why atheists post in this forum. I'd say you've demonstrated pretty well exactly why they do.

[Orrex]

91. Speaking as one of those asshole atheists...

I will say that theists seem to require a different standard of evidence for metaphysical matters than they do for the mundane world, accepting testimony about wildly improbable events as long as those events occurred in the distant past and/or support the theists' notion of faith. But if similar testimony were the sole evidence for a current and similarly improbable event, I doubt that most theists would honestly be willing to accept that testimony, especially if it conflicted with their faith.

If you disagree, consider this: I know of five hundred people who witnessed a guy transmuting iron to gold with only the touch of his bare hand. I have no other evidence to support this claim, nor can you speak with any of these five hundred. Do you believe me? Why or why not?

And do you believe that hundreds of people saw the Jesus alive after his death? Why or why not?

If some atheists are perceived as arrogant, perhaps the perception stems from their frustration at people eagerly willing to reason selectively and only when convenient.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Another asshole atheist here,

we don't deny anything, unlike the people who claim that the sanitized and repeatedly revised article now found on raw story was the molehill that we took issue with.

And any "liberals", on DU or anywhere else, who support targeting and purging unpopular minorities from the Democratic party really need to reevaluate why they believe they're liberals.

Because it's quite apparent that raw story's editors, as well as the people who are defending and applauding their efforts to attack and smear the very people they targeted by publishing that editorial, aren't bothered much by ethical concerns or liberal values.


Bigots on the left are as despicable as their right wing counterparts.


And for the record, trotsky didn't bring up the article, YOU did.


Just like you brought up the sniveling old favorite "I don't know why the atheists think they have a right to post in this forum."


This isn't a church, it's an internet forum created for discussing religion and related topics on a political website.

If you can't handle opposing viewpoints, why not find an echo chamber?

'cuz the uppity atheist assholes aren't going anywhere.

[CarbonDate]

86. Because....

...you people won't leave us the fuck alone in real life.

Any other questions?

[bloom]

13. The "Atheist Agenda" has a website:

http://www.atheistagenda.org/porno-for-bibles/

Who We Are
Submitted by Atheist Agenda on Mon, 12/19/2005 - 9:53pm.
The Atheist Agenda is a student organization at the University of Texas at San Antonio. Our members reject supernatural explanations such as ‘god’, ‘angels’, ‘the devil’ for phenomena that can be explained through the use of the scientific method. As a result, we do not believe in souls, witchcraft, magic, reincarnation, or karmic justice.

Our members have arrived these (dis)beliefs through applying logic and the scientific method to observations. Our diversity comes in the paths we used to arrive at these conclusions about the universe. Our group includes a large number of scientists and engineers as well as members who have used their natural intelligence to “figure things out!”

Self-identified atheism is a merit badge of mental rigor and courage. It is difficult to disagree (and disagree vocally) against overwhelming societal pressure. We applaud those who are willing to stand up to their parents, friends, teachers, religious fanatics, and political leaders. Atheists risk ostracism, careers, friends, and even their safety on a daily basis because we have found that a belief in the supernatural is a detriment to society.

Our purpose is to bring the rational word to the ignorant masses. We battle the fictional character that is god as it influences everyone’s life through government mandates, schools, and science. Religion is a tool used to control the masses to their detriment. Our fight is with those leaders who use religion for their own benefit and aggrandizement. Our weapons are science and knowledge, ridicule and obnoxiousness.

[The Magistrate]

22. What Is There To Quarrel With In That, Ma'am?

[bloom]

25. I didn't say there was a problem

with their statement.

I merely provided it because some people were wondering whether these people were really atheists.

Of course anyone could post what sounds like what atheists would say. Fakery doesn't seem to be what they are about.

[Goblinmonger]

27. I hope others found the irony of this little gem

"Of course anyone could post what sounds like what atheists would say." :rofl:

Somebody?

[bloom]

29. You never quit do you

You must subscribe to this part of their creed:

"Our weapons are ...ridicule and obnoxiousness." Even against atheists.


I thought you took a pledge against saying you weren't going to tell others what they believed.

I guess your pledge doesn't mean too much, eh?

[Goblinmonger]

31. I have asked you on several occassions

why you refer to atheists in the third person. You have never answered that question. Don't you think it is a little strange that you do that? If you can provide a good explanation, I'm good to go and will never say another word.

[bloom]

34. I don't see myself as part of a group that thinks

"Our weapons are... ridicule and obnoxiousness"


I don't identify with anti-religionists. I don't identify with you. I'm not a joiner.

I believe what I believe. If you want to say that I'm not an atheist because I believe we are connected in a physics kind of way - then that's your problem. If I want to refer to atheists in the 3rd person - I will. Sometimes I may do it when it's clear to me that I don't agree with the atheists in question.

And I may not always answer your posts - because I don't always read them. And sometimes I just don't feel like arguing with people who are going to try to turn every thing I say inside out and backwards, anyway. And look for reasons to insult me - as you have made clear that you do.

[Goblinmonger]

37. But that is after the fact

You just posted this today. You say things like "why do atheists do X when they." It isn't in instances when you are saying "why would SOME atheists do X (where X = something you are saying is bad). They are making a bad name for the rest of US." I see you using the word THEY far more often than the word US. That is what my reaction is to. I have no problem with you saying there is some connection on a physics level. I don't know that I understand it, but it doesn't seem like something god related to me. I'm also not concerned about you reading every one of my posts. I just feel that you try to distance yourself from atheists FAR more than you try to connect yourself with them. That is where I get skeptical. I hope this didn't come across as rude; I am seriously trying to let you know what I am thinking and understand where you are coming from.

[bloom]

41. There are quite a few atheists

around here who have been trying to feel insulted and assume my threads are insults when I think I am just posting interesting questions.

Most of them I ignore - but when there is a vigilante group of atheists against me (as I have been told in pms - and that you are on it - and it's obvious from some of my threads) - it's not like I'm figuring that any of them are expecting to connect with anything I'm saying anyway. So why should I care about what they think?

They are not "we".


I feel like I have more in common with atheists who are not violently anti-all-religion.

[Goblinmonger]

45. OK

Though "vigilante"? What exactly would the punishment be?

I have never PMd you. Ever. Every time I have a problem with something you have posted, I have responded directly to you. You express your displeasure with that, but that is what I have done consistantly.

I would not say I am violently anti-all-religion. I attend a UU fellowship. My son believes in god and prays every night. I take people on when they say something I disagree with, but that does not mean I am against all religion.

[Name removed]

48. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Magistrate]

42. No, Ma'am, They Do Not

They are young, of course....

"The various religious superstitions of the Roman Empire were regarded by the people as equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the ruler as equally useful."

[Inland]

75. The pastor called them fools, they call the religious ignorant

And I'm sure that the pastor has something just as self congratulatory for himself and his own, as the atheists who awarded themselves a "merit badge".

I'm not sure why anyone would bother to quarrel with either one, since it's simply the same dead end, hooray for the home team shit we see every day from fundamentalists and militants and intolerants of all types.

A plague on both their houses. Moving on.

[The Magistrate]

77. Foolishness And Ignorance, Sir, Are Different Items

The pastor calls people foolish because they do not find convincing a narrative that holds him enthralled.

It is a demontrated fact that persons with a greater measure of education are less likely to express attachment to religious beliefs.

[Inland]

78. Lack of Education and Ignorance are certainly different.

Frankly, the way the insults were alike was not in the insult itself, but in that one team dismisses the other with assumptions and insults. It's two groups fighting while engaging in self flattery. That one chooses ignorance while another chooses foolishness as the putdown of choice isn't relevant. To anything. Well, except that St. Paul asks people to be fools for Christ, so the pastor could have picked something without that reference. I won't speculate.

A plague on both their houses. Moving on.

[The Magistrate]

80. There Is A Certain Correlation, Sir

Between lack of education and ignorance.

[bloom]

81. That doesn't prevent plenty of physicists and other scientists

from being religious.

[The Magistrate]

83. No, Sir, It Does Not

It is a question of group averages, which will not by any means predict every individual case. People who smoke are more likely to die young than people who do not, but there are people who do not smoke who die younger, and some who smoke who live to a great age.

[bloom]

89. If one were to make generalizations

based on the group of physicists from the University my son attends - at recent dinner where the subject came up - Catholics were by far the most represented group. 6 Catholics, one Jew, and one non-specified liberal Christian.

But I don't think their religion interferes with their science because they don't see them as in competition.

I'm sure that that doesn't make sense to everybody - but plenty of people manage to keep them separate.

I think a lot of people adapt their idea of "God" to fit what they know. Maybe some people reserve space in their mind for things that really don't make sense at all.

I've been reading some Freud since it's his 150th birth anniversary - and when you think about the unconscious part of your mind - it could think just about anything. So I think people work with what is in their examined, scientific, rational, conscious mind - and then they just allow their unconscious to do it's thing too - they just don't let those ideas interfere with their work.

Though I guess the physicists did have a big debate about it over dinner. So they must recognize that there is a conflict. Or at least some think that some religious ideas go "too far" beyond the world of reasonableness.

[The Magistrate]

92. Depending On How One Concieves Religion, Ma'am

There is no necessary conflict between science and religion.

[Inland]

84. And yet, the tactic used shows that the correlation

doesn't always hold true. Not all tuition paid leads to wisdom.

I suppose that there's lots of reasons to ignore the sophoric stunt, but doing so under a presumption of greater wisdom because the students had frosh chem under their belt wouldn't have occurred to me. Maybe once they have their BA.....

[The Magistrate]

85. It Depends On The Purpose, Sir

As the saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity....

[Silent3]

47. Our chief weapon is science...

...science and knowledge...knowledge and science....
Our two weapons are science and knowledge... and ruthless ridicule....
Our three weapons are science, knowledge, and ruthless ridicule...
and an almost fanatical devotion to the Porn....
Our four... no...
Amongst our weapons... Amongst our weaponry...
are such elements as science, knowledge...

I'll come in again...

[The Magistrate]

49. Well Done, Sir!

"Dinsdale...."

[charlie]

19. I believe you missed it

Do some people - atheists or not - see porn as the antithesis of the Bible?

Porn wasn't offered as the antithesis of the Bible, porn and the Bible were deemed to be of a kind. Like they said, smut for smut.

Or something that somehow represents atheists?

Just because the article author foolishly called the Austin event "pro-porn" doesn't mean that it was. If they handed out comic books, would comic books "represent" atheists?

[bloom]

23. They might be saying "Smut for smut"

- but it sounds like they are saying that this smut (porn) represents atheists like the Bible (smut) represents Christians. At least that's what it ends up looking like to me.


I don't think the association is helpful.

[charlie]

28. If you're gonna call it smut

it's perversely sensible to offer smut in exchange. And no, they didn't say porn "represents" atheism, and they've had plenty of chances to say so if that's what they meant. The presence of porn in this prank is amping your suspicions.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. atheists or not - see porn as the antithesis of the Bible?

exactly porn, but tell me, exactly how many wives did the bible indicate certain men needed??? Yeah, I'm twisting this, but they put people in jail for this sort of thing.

[Evoman]

21. The Bible is porn.

Why would anyone trade in a bible for porn? Why not just go home and watch your porn on tv. So much porn is consumed in the U.S. that its not only atheists who are watching it.

I dunno...I think these atheists are suspect. I mean...who calls themselves obnoxious. Its ridiculous.

[bloom]

33. "Our weapons are... ridicule and obnoxiousness"

I don't get why someone would be proud of that either. Atheist or not. Do they see that as part of the anti-religion thing as well?


Are there people here that think the same way? I can't figure it out.

[charlie]

43. They're college students

It's a typical college prank -- cheeky, impolitic, and sophomoric. If they'd asked me I'd tell them to dial it down and try something else, but they didn't, and wouldn't listen anyway. You've never heard of these kinds of stunts at colleges before?

[bloom]

50. No - I don't really keep up with college student stunts.

Unless I see accounts of them on feminist blogs. :)

[charlie]

51. You know of the National Lampoon though, right?

It was born of a college rag. Irreverence and obnoxiousness was its stock in trade and served it well for many years before it was rendered irrelevant by the mainstreaming of its type of offensive comedy. Nowadays, college humor is even more piquant, sometimes cruel.

[bloom]

54. I suppose cruel "humor" will be mainstreamed next.

How nice. :eyes:

[trotsky]

67. Bingo.

That's exactly it. College stunt. Probably "real" atheists, just trying to have some fun. I agree with Evoman's statement above - the bible is pornographic too. Not only sexual but violent. These guys are trying to make a statement and get some attention. Stupid, but eh, whatcha gonna do.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

70. LOL

I have a dear friend whose daughter goes to college in town. She came to eat dinner with us one night and mentioned she was an atheist. And a vegan. Well, we had beef stew that night (she hadn't told me about the veganism) and she ate it happily. Then she told me with a grin, "And I'm not really an atheist, either. But all the hot guys are vegans and atheists, so...."

See, some things never change.

One of these days I hope she'll actually do some thinking about what she really believes, but I guess the hormones have to subside first.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

69. It appears to me that it is all about goals

if your goal is to "win" a fight (and these are very young individuals), then ridicule and obnoxiousnsess would be weapons of choice. Let's face it. They are often the default state for some folks in college. (my husband is a prof so I know whereof I speak!) But if your goal is dialogue and understanding, working together despite differences (which is what I do believe our goal here on DU is) then ridicule and obnoxiouxness is counterproductive. (although certainly not unheard of!)

T-Grannie

PS This is the heaviest thread I have ever read. I am totally outclassed...I bow to your brains.

[Dorian Gray]

76. Nope...

You DEFINITELY aren't outclassed, T-Grannie. Honestly, I love reading your posts and your bare-boned honesty in all discussions.

[GreenArrow]

102. nevermind

.

[moobu2]

55. Damn and I dont even have a Bible to turn in either

[Strong Atheist]

88. Lol! Agreed! nt.

[EricTheRed]

79. Disgusting...

Not because of the whole giving-up-your-bible thing; I'm definitely in favor of that. But this sort of thing gives atheists a bad name. They aren't hedonists who sit around flipping through porn magazines all day. The only reason this unseemly lifestyle is attatched to atheism is this sort of stunt.

[bloom]

82. It probably doesn't hurt to remember

that people of various persuasions can be ridiculous and it's often the extremely ridiculous who get the most press.


Welcome to DU!! :hi:

[greyl]

87. The commentary you link to is dumb.

The headline statement "Because Atheism Is All About The Porn?" is a clear strawman.

Note that the blog has a problem with the word "mammatus".

[bloom]

90. I don't think the Feminist Law Professors are "dumb".

That's pretty silly. Anything to try to discredit someone else's opinion, though. :eyes:


The comment they posted in regards to the atheist porn exchange:

"And what better way to honor the First Amendment than with commercial photographs of naked women, right? Because anyone who doesn’t love porn must be a right wing religious fundamentalist reactionary."

--------

But I would encourage people to see for themselves. Maybe it's just a different POV from what you're used to. And if they take issue with one of the multitude of labels that some men were responsible for - so what?

http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/

[greyl]

93. That's great. The commentary is dumb

and full of smartalexis strawwomen like what you just quoted.
To be clear, when I said "the commentary you linked to was dumb", I was referring to the commentary about the college students who are trying to make a point about the paternalistic pornography that is in the Bible. I'm sure the individual who made the blog entry is sentient, and may even have an above average IQ, however, their commentary on the issue is dumb. It's well suited for the vacuous opening arguments of a Rita Cosby show.

I wouldn't discourage people from checking out the link either.
www.feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/

[beam me up scottie]

95. Precisely.

Speaking as a feminist and full time whackjob atheist, with friends like these, who needs Pat Robertson?

[beam me up scottie]

96. kick

Hey, everybody else is kicking old threads tonight.

[bluesbassman]

97. Is it a full moon? n/t

[beam me up scottie]

98. Could be.

[bluesbassman]

99. Yech!

Reminds me of my ex. Lol.

[beam me up scottie]

100. It's from the British film

Dog Soldiers.

I love werewolf movies.


My ex, unfortunately, was no where near as fun. :)

[cosmik debris]

101. Sex-Free Bible Spurs Controversy

“It is beyond question that the Holy Bible, in unedited form, is simply not appropriate for children,” observed Montrose in testimony to the Board. The unabridged Bible is loaded with passages describing in detail such disgusting topics as premature ejaculation (Leviticus 15:2-15; 22:3-5), wet dreams (Leviticus 15:16-18, 32), voyeurism (Leviticus 18:6-20); damaged testicles (Leviticus 21:20; Deuteronomy 23:1); people taking a dump in the middle of camp (Deuteronomy 23:12-14); hemorrhoids (1 Samuel 5:9; 6:4-5), people urinating on a wall (1 Samuel 25:22; 26:34; 1 Kings 14:10; 16:11; 21:22; 2 Kings 9:8), people eating their own feces and drinking their urine (2 Kings 18:27; Isaiah 36:12; Ezekiel 4:12, 15), menstruation (just about all of Leviticus), etc., etc., etc. And those are just from a few books I reviewed this morning. Some of these topics are too prurient even for an S&M club. In fact, many parts of the Good Book are so tawdry that the Bible would be the first book hurled into the flames at our weekly book burnings - were it not inspired by God, of course.”

http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0602/sexfreebible.html

And don't forget the Bible Sex Quiz
http://www.landoverbaptist.org/news0201/biblesex.html