Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Cybermat47

Atheists are idiots. I don't mean to offend anyone, so that makes it alright

You compare apples with oranges.

If I go and tell people: "Creationists are idiots, no offense", and leave it to that - then it is an offense.

If I go and say "creationists claim this and that, it has been proven wrong by this and that so many times, and still they repeat it, making themselves look like dogmatic fools", then this is something different.

And yes, of course people have the right to be held responsible for what they say (or believe in). So if you defend something that does not stand the test of reasonable analysis by scientific methods, just repating it endlessly nevertheless, then this makes oyu look like a parrot, and if you give reasons as aerguments that so very very very often have already been proven wrong, then this allows conclusions on your intellectual state of mind. - And then it may be justifiable to shportcut the long drama and avoid the endless useless propaganda march, and just tell somebody: "You believe that? Idiot. Leave me alone."

Because the problem at the root of the problem is: try to make an idiot aware of what an idiot he is!

No respect where no respect is due. Inflationary distributing respect, devalues it. That is my view on it all. Creationists, believers and all the like have to earn people's respect instead of demanding to get a free ride for nothing. Until they understand that, its better if them and people not wanting to share their believes, stay separate, everybody for himself. So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

So: keep thy religion for thyself. Do not dare to bother others with it, or force it into the public, the education system, the state legislation, and so on. Keep it to thyself. Then it is your belief. If you become loud about it, it becomes propaganda. If you go public about it, it becomes politics. And be not fooled: creationism is about religion, about nothing else.

This is at least the second time in a week you have said this.

I say bullcrap.

The German Constitution
Article 4 (Freedom of faith, of conscience and of creed)
(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience, and freedom of creed religious or ideological, are inviolable.
(2) The undisturbed practice of religion is guaranteed.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Fundamental freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Seems pretty clear to me. You can say what you want. Anybody else can say what they want.

[Skybird]

Its you talking bullcrap - XXL size. Freedom of religion necessarily also means freedom from religion for those not interested. Else it would be religious dictatorship that enforces religion even on people not wanting to have something to do with it.

Your freedom ends where you start damaging mine. So do your religion, if you want that, but in a way that others must not be bothered by it. Keep your religion to thyself.

You just illustrated the bigotry that religious people time and again show: a heavy bias to claim freedom for religion, but not caring for the right of others to be free from religion.

BTW, all three countries have a wider legal context that limits your freedoms. If you claim your religion's freedom is to rip the heart out of other people and sacrifice it to your deity, you will nevertheless get locked in a psychiatry for lunacy, or thrown into jail for murder. Religion does give you immunity from the simple fact that your freedoms end where you start to damage the freedom of others.

I also have a right to play my TV or radio. But if I pump up the volume too much, sooner or later relationships with neighbours detoriate, and sooner or later the police will appear on my doorstep.

You ARE free to be religious. Like you are free to walk around fully naked - in the privacy of your own private sphere where nobody must see your nakedness. I you walk naked in the public city center, you will get into trouble soon.

[Safe-Keeper]

You can say what you want. Anybody else can say what they want.

...and considering Skybird said nothing to the contrary...

have you ever actually read Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?

I also recommend the documentary version, "The Root of all evil?" (the TV producers chose the name, not Dawkins). It was on Google Video last time I checked.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

...and considering Skybird said nothing to the contrary...

You are kidding aren't you?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Its you talking bullcrap - XXL size. Freedom of relgion necessarily also means freedom from religion for those not inerested. Else we are talking about religious dictatorship that enforces religion even on people not wanting to have something to do with it.

Nonsense. Freedom of speech and expression is just that. If you or any one else does not like it, walk away, close the door, or hit the off button.

Your freedom ends where you start damaging mine. So do your religion, if you want that, in a way that others must not be bothered by it. Keep your religion to thyself.

See above quotes from the law makers.

You just illustrated the bigotry that religious people time and again show: a heavy bias to claim freedom for religion, but not caring for the right of to others to be free from religion.

You know that is kinda funny coming from a guy who thinks nothing of giving his opinion time and time again. Do you enjoy a special status?

If you claim your religion's freedom is to rip the heart out of other people and sacrifice it to your deity, you will nevertheless get locked in a psychiatry for lunacy, or thrown into jail for murder.

Don't be ridiculous.

You ARE free to be religious.

You are free to be an Atheist. What would you say if I told you to be quiet about it? Keep it to your self be cause it bothers me. Freedom of expression is a tricky concept isn't it?

[frau kaleun]

I think if you are going to compare "freedom of religion" with "freedom of speech" there's an important point to consider.

We may have freedom of speech and be free to express our opinions and say what we like, but we don't have freedom from the consequences of exercising that freedom. If we say something that someone else finds offensive, they are going to be offended. Claiming "freedom of speech" doesn't change that fact. If we say something other people think is stupid, or misguided, or claim that something is fact without evidence to back it up, we can expect some people to exercise their own freedom of speech and call us out on that.

Same goes for freedom of religion IMO. Sure we are free to believe what we believe, but we are not free to express it openly in the presence of others without risking the possibility that they will disagree and say so, or think we're foolish or deluded and say so, or ask for some kind of proof that's more substantial than "because God/scripture/my pastor says so." Those are the consequences of expressing one's beliefs in the company of those whose 100% agreement with those beliefs hasn't already been confirmed.

Having the freedom to do, say, or believe something doesn't exempt you from the consequences of exercising that freedom. And that's where I see a problem sometimes - and not just in the area of expressing one's religious beliefs, but other things as well. "But I have freedom of speech! I have freedom of religion! I have freedom to express my religious beliefs!" Well, sure, but other people have just as much freedom to disagree and say so. The fact that it's someone's cherished religious beliefs that are being disagreed with, or held to a scientific standard if being put forward as "science," doesn't change that.

Just my two cents anyway.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

I think if you are going to compare "freedom of religion" with "freedom of speech" there's an important point to consider.

We may have freedom of speech and be free to express our opinions and say what we like, but we don't have freedom from the consequences of exercising that freedom.
Same goes for freedom of religion IMO. Sure we are free to believe what we believe, but we are not free to express it openly in the presence of others without risking the possibility that they will disagree and say so, or think we're foolish or deluded and say so, or ask for some kind of proof that's more substantial than "because God/scripture/my pastor says so."

Having the freedom to do, say, or believe something doesn't exempt you from the consequences of exercising that freedom.

I would whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. Completely. It is the risk of freedom of expression and to think other wise would be foolish.

But would you have it any other way? I would rather be free to say what I wish than be forbidden from saying it.

[Platapus]

Well written Frau Kaluen.

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by u crank

I would whole heartedly agree with what you are saying. Completely. It is the risk of freedom of expression and to think other wise would be foolish.

But would you have it any other way? I would rather be free to say what I wish than be forbidden from saying it.

I'm not saying that I would have it any other way, I'm simply saying that when "non-believers" talk about not wanting special exemptions for religious speech, this is often the kind of thing they're talking about: people who not only want the freedom to express their religious beliefs, but the freedom to be exempt from an open expression of disagreement with those beliefs, or from the fairly predictable consequences of stating something as a universal truth that simply cannot be backed up by anything other than "because I believe it."

Someone (may have been you) mentioned how it would feel for an atheist to not have the freedom to say out loud in public that he is an atheist. Well, probably it would feel lousy, and for much of western history it could have had very dire consequences indeed and in some places still does -but as Skybird already noted most atheists don't make a point of publicly announcing their disbelief on a regular basis, in the average social interaction it typically only happens in response to someone else bringing the subject up for discussion. Many times in my own experience it does not happen at all even in those circumstances, because depending on the company the non-believer may well decide that it's just not worth the trouble it would cause if they didn't keep their mouths shut. If they do not keep their mouths shut, however, they can't be singled out as the cause of the trouble just for taking part in the discussion.

In the realm of science it's even trickier, because science has definable standards. "I believe in God" vs. "I don't believe in God" is one thing and everyone may agree to disagree and part friends. But "I believe the Bible and have the science to back it up" is another thing entirely, if they can't back it up according to the standards that apply to scientific investigation they are not exempt from criticism because religious belief is also involved. But for some of those people, attacking the 'science' is treated as an attack on their religion - which it very well may be, but IMO by putting their religion on the same battlefield with questionable science to stand against a common foe they pretty much asked for it. You know what I'm sayin'? It's like suddenly shoving a toddler onto the front lines of a raging conflict and then screaming "Baby killer!" at your enemy when the kid takes a bullet.

The thing is - most atheists and agnostics have no need or desire to proclaim their doubt and disbelief without provocation because they have no interest in converting anyone else to it, as long as religious belief disguised as science or law or something else of a secular nature is not being forced on them by others. In contrast to that, for many religious people - and in the US, at least, for many Christians in particular - proselytizing for their beliefs is so built into the system as something that must be done that doing it is sometimes confused with just having those beliefs.

And that's the problem. If someone wants to believe every last word of the Bible is literal truth, hey, whatever. When they want to PROVE that it is with questionable science as a justification for teaching it in science class and someone finds that objectionable on scientific grounds, when they want to stop me on the street to share their faith and I refuse to stop what I'm doing and listen to their testimony, when they want to proclaim that their beliefs are universal truths and other people state their disagreement or ask for verifiable evidence that this is so - they are not "victims" of anything. But some of them want to be treated as such.

I'm NOT saying that this is going on in this thread, because to be honest I haven't read every page and every post. I'm just saying that this is what I see in my own experience.

[Skybird]

U Crank, I think you will have a great time if you become a Muslim and move to Saudi Arabia or Iran. There they have the kind of religious freedom that you propose.

And btw, I AM silent about "my atheism" as long as I do not run into another debate on religion claiming special right and freedom for itself - at the cost of those not wanting to have anything to do with it. that in a thread on religion you have opinions pro and against,m should not surprise you. If this were a thread on cuisine and cooking recipes, you would get these instead.

I am also not making a fuss about me breathing air. Only when I run into somebody trying to hold my nose and mouth shut and threatening to hinder me breathing freely, I become aggressive. Very.

Your freedom ends where you start to consume mine. Your belief must not be of anybody's concern, you have no right to demand that others have to accept limitations so that you can do what you want. The medieval has had religion unchained, controlling state politics and cultural life. It was hell. They call it the dark age not only due to the lack of candles. We must not want religious dictatorships again. Where there is religion reigning, there is the end of free speech, free opinion, freedom in general.

Frau Kaleun also is right on the mark with her notes.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Skybird

U Crank, I think you will have a great time if you were Muslim living in Saudi Arabia or Iran. There they have the kind of religious freedom that you propose.

And just would that be? I don't think I have suggested any 'kind of religious freedom'. Can you be more specific?

Your freedom ends where you start to consume mine.

I would never do that.

Your belief must not be of anybody's concern, you have no right to demand that others have to accept limitations so that you can do what you want.

I have never done that.

We must not want religious dictatorships again.

Do you know of any Democratic nations that are in danger of becoming one? Yours maybe? Mine isn't.

Where there is religion reigning, there is the end of free speech, free opinion, freedom in general.

No doubt, but where there is "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general" there is almost always freedom of religion. Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by u crank

Religion in itself is not the end of "free speech, free opinion, freedom in general."

You just advocated for the first steps towards it, and spend a whole posting to deny that. All what you implied and posted, says "religious people's practice first and unlimited, all others have to live with it and have to step back where they fell affected".

That is religious tyranny, plain and simple. Of course you will continue to claim the opposite you are meaning/saying/thinking, I know I know. But you contradict yourself.

I'm not caring for the parties you tthrow in your household. But when the noise becomes such that me and nweighbvours cannot sleep, cannot live our own life without needing to realise your party day in day out, cannot play pour own TVs and radios without simultaneously participating in your show, then I come over and kick you around until you stop messing up our lives becasue you want to have party "your style".

It may be your house. Your house and property has borders beyond which you have no right to annoy people. I do not care for the colour on the walls in other people's houses, nor do I usually care for what the believe in, or not, and why, as long as they do not damage other humans (including their children). But when people run around and tell everybody day in day out that the colour of their walls is so wonderful and why one does not do it like them, too, and that public buildings should be painted like that, too, then it starts to become a problem for everybody else.

Keep thy religion to thyself. There it must not concern anybody else, there you can believe as often and strong and long as you want, nobody will care. And that is how it should be, and that is how you are free and the others as well. Where your religion claims it must be aggressively spread and offensively preached, it becomes an aggressor and invader. And that is where tolerance ends and the boots start kicking religious butts - in self-defense. We must not want our freedom from religion sacrificed for your religion. Build a club house, have a chart at the entrance inviting people to come in and check you out, if that is what you want. That'S the non-invasive, civil, polite way to do it. Walking from door to door in start preaching and missionising, already illustrates the basic aggressive attitude behind that religion that wants to claim more and more for itself. First the privacy of others. Than laws and rights. Then others freedoms. Then the school'S curriculum. Finally the policy of the state.

I'm even willing to call to arms to prevent that happening once again, if needed.