Okay, I missed your edit. You did address my main point. However, there's also a "lack" of evidence that there should be gay rights. That's opinion-based, entirely. I don't disagree with it, but there's not really evidence.
You're missing the point when it comes to jobs here. How many people pretend to like their boss?
They're not paid to pretend they like their boss, they're paid to respect them and do what they say. Clear difference.
This whole thing is ridiculous. The man is homeless and has a family to feed. Suck it the fuck up and put one mark through some other marks on a piece of fucking poster board and take the money.
He has a child and a wife and he said that he wouldn't take a million dollars for marking though a FUCKING WORD. That is a mental problem. Seriously.
Also, one other thing, it wouldn't be wrong if the guy did take the money and crossed "God" out, that's his choice. The fact is, his choice shouldn't be criticized either way, because it's his choice.
This isn't about it being "his" choice, this is about a lack of intelligence and common sense.
He likely does have a mental problem. Most homeless do. Anyway, I wouldn't call a belief in a god a mental problem any more than I'd call a belief in string theory a mental problem: neither have shown to be provable (being able to falsify string theory would require a collider with 10^14 times the power of the LHC--good fucking luck), both have various branches of belief, and both have their zealots. However, religion BECOMES a mental disorder when it overrides reason, just like anything else.
Whatever. I think there is no agreement to be reached here, so I'm done.
You can't just walk away from arguments based on a belief that two parties will never agree. That's a great way to lose a lot of friends and stunt your personal growth while staying completely closed-minded.
However, there's also a "lack" of evidence that there should be gay rights. That's opinion-based, entirely. I don't disagree with it, but there's not really evidence.
The pervasive poor treatment of gay people in society isn't enough evidence for you? In any case, it's enough to say that there is no evidence for why gays, as fellow human beings, should be treated any differently. There's more to be said, and I'd be happy to discuss further, but the issue is most decidedly not simply a matter of opinion.
You're missing the point when it comes to jobs here. How many people pretend to like their boss?
They're not paid to pretend they like their boss, they're paid to respect them and do what they say. Clear difference.
In effect, many people are paid to pretend they like their boss, because doing otherwise could cost them money. The point is that being fully open about what you believe in the workplace can cost you your job.
Whatever. I think there is no agreement to be reached here, so I'm done.
You can't just walk away from arguments based on a belief that two parties will never agree. That's a great way to lose a lot of friends and stunt your personal growth while staying completely closed-minded.
I'm inclined to disagree. Knowing when arguing will get you nowhere has saved me from ruining lots of friendships with my less-religiously-inclined friends (linkigi wanna chime in here, pl0x?), and it hasn't stunted me to simply know that sometimes two people simply disagree on some fundamental issue, and that neither party should begrudge the other for that. I realize people on this forum disagree with that stance 100%, but oh well.
Yeah, we should give up on Middle East peace talks. Those won't go anywhere anytime soon.
I'm not saying both sides have to go on hating each other. Rather, two sides of an argument should know when to realize that both sides just have different opinions, and that's okay. It's not always about convincing the other side that you're right, sometimes you just have to say "Oh well," and move on.
I'm not saying both sides have to go on hating each other. Rather, two sides of an argument should know when to realize that both sides will not change their opinion no matter what, and that's okay. You will not always be able to convince the other side that you're right, sometimes you just have to say "Oh well," and move on.
I don't think that's the case. For example, saying "Oh Well" to people who deny the validity of evolution is a victory for anti-intellectuals. I will never acknowledge that as an "opinion," but rather as a deny of a basic truth, and I will fight tooth-and-nail until the majority of the population recognizes those idiots as the scum of the earth.
Sometimes, people are legitimately in the wrong, like when they believe that not accepting one million dollars to save their son in exchange for scratching out god is okay. It is the duty of all men and women possessed of logic and reason to lead these people out of their self-imposed immaturity. Saying "oh well" to something like that abandons them to their fate, and does them a great disservice.
The homeless dude is stupid, likely insane for not accepting the $20, when both needs the money, and could just as easily replace the sign.
At the same time, the person doing the video is a total asshole, and regardless of my generally anti-religious beliefs, that was a dick move on his part. Charity vs. making a point that won't get you or this guy anywhere, and makes you seem like a self-righteous prick. If it bugs you so much, just don't give him any money.
There are a couple of points I'd make in favour of the homeless man in the video. Firstly, since the camera was not under his control, he was in danger of being misrepresented. However, I'd still say it was entirely possible for the guy to make clear that he was just crossing off a word on a sign, and could just as easily make another sign.
Secondly, he did in fact get the $20 in the end, but I think due to the atheist being a jerk it seemed likely that they would not end up with the $20 if they refused, so the refusal was still a poor decision on the information the homeless family had.
I hate jerky athiests. They do nothing for the cause. You want to succeed at teaching atheism? Use Christian evangelical techniques, but replace "Jesus" with "reason." Be kind to covert. If you mock people, you drive them off.
I disagree. Sometimes mockery is helpful, if not essential. Also, evangelical techniques quite often use a whole lot of stick in addition to the "Jesus" carrot. In any case, the fact is that atheism is on the rise in the U.S.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." The quote was brought to my attention by a recent guest post on Pharyngula by Iris Vander Pluym, titled In Defense of Mockery. (original source here)
It would have been better if the same point as in the video could've been made without being a jerk, but I'm not sure how this would be done. Jerk or no, it's a point worth making.
I disagree. Sometimes mockery is helpful, if not essential. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." This was the topic of a recent guest post on Pharyngula, which used the same quote: In Defense of Mockery
HeShe makes a good point, and I tend to agree. However, the difference is that, with politics you can go, "You idiot, here's the proof," whereas in religion you say, "You idiot, there's no sky man, you have no proof," to which the believer responds, "Shut the fuck up, you have no proof that there is not."
Ridicule does indeed work. However, people are damnably stubborn about religion, and mocking them for it isn't a good way to change their minds; in my experience, it makes the stubborn more stubborn, and makes the already confused miserable. You need to start with calm arguments and the backing of great thinkers without resorting to epithets such as the Great Jub Jub in the Sky or the Magical Unicorn King.
I used to be pretty religious, and no longer am. However, jokes at my expense for believing in a god never helped me move towards wherever I'm at now. Being presented with calm, well-reasoned arguments did.
I do agree that that video isn't likely to change a devout Christian's mind. I'd say it's more about showing much more moderate people how religion can play a role in bad decision-making.
I did say it was a guest post, but sorry for not giving enough detail; see my edit. EDIT: Ah, I guess you were referring to Jefferson.
Both. I kind of glossed over the author's name while reading. I corrected the pronoun.
Also, to whoever would point it out: I say "wherever I'm at now" because I'm unsure of where I fall on the sliding scale of Deism-Apatheism-Atheism. However, the same points I made apply.
You must consider that a lot of people consider any kind of criticism of religion to be a jerk move. Some amount of being a jerk is necessary to have any discourse on the issue in the first place.
Also, people are different. This guy says mockery is what got through to him.
I do agree that that video isn't likely to change a devout Christian's mind. I'd say it's more about showing much more moderate people how religion can play a role in bad decision-making.
To bring up what I was trying to say earlier that some people seemed to have problems with, I think my real point is that not taking the $20 isn't a bad decision. Sure, he's homeless, but $20 isn't going to magically solve his problems. I can understand the thing about a million dollars, but I also think its a moot point, since that will never happen. These people are a bit crazy and extreme, and the whole million dollars thing is just babbling, really. The fact is, the guy offering the man $20 was just sort of insulting and rude, and the man didn't want his money. Will he get money from somewhere else? Probably not. But I don't think rejecting it here is that bad of a decision, because he made it on the rational grounds of that he didn't want to be told by someone else to change his lifestyle (Crossing out "God" off the poster when God clearly means a lot to him) for a simple monetary reward. Money doesn't mean everything, even to a homeless person.
On the topic of tactics, I wonder what kind of discussion would be best with Axel to get around him simply shutting down and saying "it's just a matter of opinion".
But I don't think rejecting it here is that bad of a decision, because he made it on the rational grounds of that he didn't want to be told by someone else to change his lifestyle (Crossing out "God" off the poster when God clearly means a lot to him) for a simple monetary reward. Money doesn't mean everything, even to a homeless person.
Really? Money for a homeless family of three is the difference between life and death. Denis Diderot once said, "It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God." The same principle applies here. When it is the choice between life and death, faith hardly matters. The Jewish people dictate that commandments and kosher can be broken to save one's life, and certainly the kind, loving, and forgiving God of Christianity would forgive this family for a momentary lapse in judgement in order to avoid starvation. Objectively, the man and his wife made the wrong decision.
I do agree that that video isn't likely to change a devout Christian's mind. I'd say it's more about showing much more moderate people how religion can play a role in bad decision-making.
To bring up what I was trying to say earlier that some people seemed to have problems with, I think my real point is that not taking the $20 isn't a bad decision. Sure, he's homeless, but $20 isn't going to magically solve his problems. I can understand the thing about a million dollars, but I also think its a moot point, since that will never happen. These people are a bit crazy and extreme, and the whole million dollars thing is just babbling, really. The fact is, the guy offering the man $20 was just sort of insulting and rude, and the man didn't want his money. Will he get money from somewhere else? Probably not. But I don't think rejecting it here is that bad of a decision, because he made it on the rational grounds of that he didn't want to be told by someone else to change his lifestyle (Crossing out "God" off the poster when God clearly means a lot to him) for a simple monetary reward. Money doesn't mean everything, even to a homeless person.
I agree that the million dollar comment doesn't really mean much, being a hypothetical situation.
With the $20, however, money is money no matter who it comes from, even if they're being a jerk. Sure, the decision was rational in the sense that if the guy values crossing "God" off a poster at more than $20 then he shouldn't accept the deal, but the point is that it is irrational to value crossing a word off a poster so highly in the first place. Also, in line with WindUpBird's point, $20 is worth a lot more to a homeless family than it likely is to anyone in this forum.
The guy in the video is being a dick. If someone offered my 20 dollars and in exchange I had to validate their dickishness, I probably wouldn't take it. And this isn't because 20 dollars doesn't mean much to me.
Axel is completely correct in this. Crossing "God" off the sign is designed to be insulting. If he does it, he looks mercenary in front of the camera, and the message of the video will be one thing. If he doesn't take the money, he is called irrational. He's in a complete no-win situation, and in that case trying not to play the game of the antagonist is probably the best path to take.
Yeah the guy is an asshole. I looked at his channel and its not just in this video. And while those people did seem like your average religious nuts, and I probably would have taken the cash depending on the circumstances, I think he kind of blew it out of proportion. His point was fine but he didn't go about it very well. The whole "I wouldn't do it for a million dollars" quote is probably an exaggeration. I doubt they really wouldn't take a million dollars to cross it off. They were just using that to make a point. Yes, religion can lead to a lack in rational thought, but if you're such a dick that you sound like the evangelists do then you're not really any better. Whether you're right or wrong you can be a dick no matter what.
Comments
However, there's also a "lack" of evidence that there should be gay rights. That's opinion-based, entirely. I don't disagree with it, but there's not really evidence. They're not paid to pretend they like their boss, they're paid to respect them and do what they say. Clear difference.
He has a child and a wife and he said that he wouldn't take a million dollars for marking though a FUCKING WORD. That is a mental problem. Seriously.
This isn't about it being "his" choice, this is about a lack of intelligence and common sense.
Sometimes, people are legitimately in the wrong, like when they believe that not accepting one million dollars to save their son in exchange for scratching out god is okay. It is the duty of all men and women possessed of logic and reason to lead these people out of their self-imposed immaturity. Saying "oh well" to something like that abandons them to their fate, and does them a great disservice.
The homeless dude is stupid, likely insane for not accepting the $20, when both needs the money, and could just as easily replace the sign.
At the same time, the person doing the video is a total asshole, and regardless of my generally anti-religious beliefs, that was a dick move on his part. Charity vs. making a point that won't get you or this guy anywhere, and makes you seem like a self-righteous prick. If it bugs you so much, just don't give him any money.
Secondly, he did in fact get the $20 in the end, but I think due to the atheist being a jerk it seemed likely that they would not end up with the $20 if they refused, so the refusal was still a poor decision on the information the homeless family had.
To quote Thomas Jefferson, "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
The quote was brought to my attention by a recent guest post on Pharyngula by Iris Vander Pluym, titled In Defense of Mockery. (original source here)
It would have been better if the same point as in the video could've been made without being a jerk, but I'm not sure how this would be done. Jerk or no, it's a point worth making.
Ridicule does indeed work. However, people are damnably stubborn about religion, and mocking them for it isn't a good way to change their minds; in my experience, it makes the stubborn more stubborn, and makes the already confused miserable. You need to start with calm arguments and the backing of great thinkers without resorting to epithets such as the Great Jub Jub in the Sky or the Magical Unicorn King.
I used to be pretty religious, and no longer am. However, jokes at my expense for believing in a god never helped me move towards wherever I'm at now. Being presented with calm, well-reasoned arguments did.
EDIT: Ah, I guess you were referring to Jefferson.
Also, to whoever would point it out: I say "wherever I'm at now" because I'm unsure of where I fall on the sliding scale of Deism-Apatheism-Atheism. However, the same points I made apply.
Also, people are different. This guy says mockery is what got through to him.
Yep.
With the $20, however, money is money no matter who it comes from, even if they're being a jerk. Sure, the decision was rational in the sense that if the guy values crossing "God" off a poster at more than $20 then he shouldn't accept the deal, but the point is that it is irrational to value crossing a word off a poster so highly in the first place. Also, in line with WindUpBird's point, $20 is worth a lot more to a homeless family than it likely is to anyone in this forum.
Axel is completely correct in this. Crossing "God" off the sign is designed to be insulting. If he does it, he looks mercenary in front of the camera, and the message of the video will be one thing. If he doesn't take the money, he is called irrational. He's in a complete no-win situation, and in that case trying not to play the game of the antagonist is probably the best path to take.