kuonphobos's forum posts

#1 Edited by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

The writer of the article is too crass to be respected but they certainly have a point IMO. There are plenty of really good actors of color and ethnicity to be had and the point how the good guys are white and the "others" are not is very well taken. But truthfully this is just another example of Hollywood cronyism and how it capitalizes upon "it" actors. What's the deal with these biblical epics anyway? Someone made a little coin and now all the pimps and whores (figurative) are flocking in to get a sot at the red meat.


Special Pleading fallacy... it's what inevitably happens when you try to argue for the existence of a god, gods, or the supernatural.

-It's impossible to create something from nothing... except for God who can do it!

-Everything must have been created in order to exist! What about God, who created God? God doenst need a creator!

-Why is your religion right and everyone else's wrong? Because it's the one true religion!

See how that goes? You cant argue when the other side only deals in logical fallacies as the basis for their arguments.

I am curious. When I attempt to break the argument down to the fundamental dichotomy between the competing views of reality of materialism/empiricism and a supernatural view, in your opinion is this also a special pleading fallacy? When I question the reasons one needs to validate the truth of the materialist/empirical view in a way which doesn't appeal to a materialist/empirical presupposition?

All the examples you gave above (which I quoted) clearly fall back upon a materialist/empirical view of reality right? My question once again is why does materialism/empiricism have to be accepted as truth? Why is it given privilege of place as a de facto presupposition?

#2 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

You would think after all these years of debating over whether or not the claims about GOD being real are true or false... that one of these so called Deities would have heard all of the back and forth and just said "Fack It" and actually came down and reveal himself to Mankind as a whole... once and for all. BUT NO, we gotta go through the motions...

"I know Jesus is real because the Bible tells me so and I can feel him in my heart"

"N!gga that aint Jesus... that's the early stages of Congestive Heart Failure"

KS that wouldn't work either brother because let's say a deity came down tonight and gave us all a fine speech. That would be well and fine and stuff for a few years but two thousand years from now we would all essentially be in the same place saying something along the lines of all our current technology which recorded the event is no longer viable within the scientific community and no one is living who bore eyewitness testimony and we wouldn't have believed their testimony anyhow considering how obviously biased someone would have to be to believe such blatant violations of the scientific method, etc. We would simply be right here all over again.

#3 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio


#4 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@hecktate said:

@kuonphobos: I hate when people say "that's just idealism" to such simple propositions. We could easily do away with the laws preventing atheists from holding office, or with anti-sodomy laws so that those few cases where they are enforced don't happen. That's not idealism, these laws are blatantly unconstitutional, but the problem (which you've just elegantly displayed for us) is that people don't care.

As for whether these things are prejudiced, a simple dictionary will give you the answer to that. They are laws biased against certain groups of people. They are the very definition of prejudiced laws. And as for the survey statistics, if you would refuse to vote for an otherwise qualified candidate who shares your views except he/she happens to be atheist: you're prejudiced. Plain and simple. There is no "IMO" here, this is a simple question of "are people blatantly treating atheists differently than they would other denominations" and the answer is yes.

Yes, changing a culture is hard, but as you started out saying, that change is already happening. Why not further it by removing outdated laws (which serve no purpose if they're not enforced anyway) and further educating people about the people they live with? If those survey results had shown that 55% of Americans wouldn't vote for a person simply because he's black or homosexual, would you call it idealism to try to change that? Ideals are something you work towards, and there are always people who will tell you it's not worth it. I understand that we're not going to be a perfect utopia, but having more than half of our nation be so stupid and openly prejudiced in this matter is atrocious. This is absolutely something worth working towards, and we can start by repealing these laws.

You made mention of a time machine, but we can simply have these laws repealed because unlike religious nonsense, our laws aren't set in stone. We change and adapt them to fit the society we live in, and if our society would stop sitting back and saying "who cares, that's idealism" we could make progress so much faster. If you care, urge your lawmakers to stop using public funds for religious displays, or to remove outdated religious legislation if you live in one off those states.

Idealism isn't a bad thing. Why wouldn't you aspire to build the best society you can imagine? Why stop at what's easily attainable when you can work to make things so much better?

I'm sorry you take such issue with my use of the term 'idealism". But I was using it in the overall context of this thread. In other words neither Christians nor atheists in the USA are experiencing persecution. To lament the current state of legal precedents as an "uphill battle" is whiny because every group has to face the same "uphill battle" to create change in the direction that they desire. That is the nature of change...it is hard...it is always an 'uphill battle". So when one desires change they have to roll up their sleeves and wade into the fray. Whining, simpering, mealy-mouthed, milquetoast cry-baby antics and rhetoric and neither admirable nor effective.

As far as your thoughts on prejudice I am afraid that you are confusing prejudice (the way mealy-mouthed social justice whiners mean it) and the idea of disagreement or variant opinion. Certainly there are those who oppose progressives from some twisted prejudice but (IMO and experience) the overwhelming majority oppose progressive ideas from a fundamental source of disagreement and variant belief/opinion. So the question becomes whether or not there is room in the public forum for differing opinions and beliefs to be exchanged or have we now entered an era when whiny progressives need to run to "Big Brother" and claim racism, prejudice, hate crime, etc for each time someone simply disagrees with them?

I know what sort of country this used to be and I know what sort I hope it remains but the pessimist in me says we have so completely diluted our collective backbone that we are past a point of no return.

#5 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

creepy big eyes

#6 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio
#7 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@hecktate said:

@kuonphobos: Many Christians cry persecution when you tell them they can't teach the Bible as history or science in public schools, or that they can't set up religious displays on public grounds. Right around November every year if you turn to Fox News you'll find an onslaught of stories about how schools not allowing christmas trees is part of the "liberal secular takeover." I've been accused of persecuting people's beliefs just by telling them that the Shroud of Turin is a fake, which is demonstrably true thanks to radiocarbon dating, and I've even had the same complaints made against me for telling people how preposterous the stories of Noah's Ark or Genesis are.

If you're not the type of person to do this, it means you're better than those who do, but this kind of thing does happen all the time. There is a large culture of science denial in our country, and it's mostly fueled by religious zealotry. And when these science deniers find that they have no way of proving their claims, they fall back on that persecution argument.

That there are Christian's who behave as you say is not in dispute. That they are the rule or even in the majority is. There are many, many folks who you would more than likely label as "science deniers" who grasp the distinction between disagreement and persecution. And in my experience within the Christian world (which I can only surmise is broader than yours) these persons are the vast majority AND the rule.

#8 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@hecktate said:

@kuonphobos said:

-Regarding some of the statements about atheists ability to serve in the public sector as evidence of persecution, I think this is not a real argument for much the same reasons as I gave above. These laws are remnants of the past and like the hundreds of really stupid laws on the books they would never be seriously pursued or enforced. My thought is that atheists should stop this unbecoming whining and just run for office. After all the times they are a'changin....

This brings up an interesting point. Sure these things may be a remnant of the past, but so are anti-sodomy laws which are still on the books in 12 US states after more than a decade since the supreme court ruled them unconstitutional. Last year in Baton Rogue several gay men were arrested for having consensual gay sex with no money changing hands, so the fact that most of the country views enforcing these laws as despicable doesn't hold weight against the laws still on the book. The fact of the matter is that we shouldn't have to fight these uphill battles against outdated laws that were put in place to favor certain religious beliefs against others. We live in a country that is not supposed to have these laws in the first place.

To further run with this point, let's look at something that came up during the last presidential election. Rick Santorum, who was briefly the front-runner for the Republican Party, released a statement saying "I don't believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute. The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square." Around this same time (November, 2012) this study was published, showing that nearly 40% of Americans would refuse to vote for someone who is openly atheist because they don't think atheists agree with their "vision of American society." In a previous study, 55% of people polled said they would not vote for the atheist candidate even if he was well-qualified and their party's representative.

Currently there is only 1 member of congress who is considered atheist (although when headlines to this effect started coming out she had to issue a statement saying the label of "atheist" doesn't really apply to her, ie. she want's to remain electable) despite our 15-25% (depending on which surveys you look at) atheist population.

So, these laws preventing atheists from running in certain states are unconstitutional and outdated, but they still reflect our country's prejudices against atheists, and when we're talking about 55% of the population who won't elect a good candidate who represents them on all but this one issue, prejudice is absolutely the right word.

I see your point. But I feel my original point holds because although you can cite some local examples where outdated laws get enforced from time to time, overall throughout the nation the times and culture are changing which supports my point of what is perceived as persecution (by either Christians or Atheists) is simply cultural shift.

To say "we shouldn't have to fight these uphill battles" seems like precious idealism. Unless you have access to a time machine (and I'm not sure that would do any good anyway) the laws are there. Deal with it. Use the culture shift to change them.

Again..gotta work to change the culture. It is simple disagreement on a presuppositional level which IMO isn't prejudice and certainly is not persecution.

#9 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@hecktate: basically this, any type of question that can cause doubt immediately makes them believe you are attacking them rather than questioning thier faith.

Way off topic I know...but this is quite a generalization and assumption...sometimes I feel compelled to offer a variant opinion.

I don't consider someone holding a differing opinion or belief from mine equivalent to them persecuting me. Not many of the Christians I know would either.

#10 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio


Look...your remarks on this thread can only lead me to draw one of two conclusions:

Either you are a troll who currently feels like acting like an overly eager homophobe in order to "rustle some jimmies"


you are a homophobe

Let me offer you a little encouragement:

You know what I see when I see Sir Ian McKellen celebrating in a Gay Pride parade? I see a man who is free. Free of the terrible burden of having to hold back his own truth about himself. I see a man who is happy beyond happy and place of happiness I could only hope to find one day. I see a man peacefully expressing his Constitutional right of public assembly and free speech. I see a man harming not a single soul around him either physically, emotionally or psychologically.

I wasn't "laughing it up"....I was sarcastically shaking my head at your inhumanity....

please...if you are on a troll baiting - flame baiting lark...just stop....only a juvenile mind would find it funny....

if you are serious...then there simply just are no words......