tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post810532034281690342..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Dear Ms. DavisAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-90677295299990653342008-04-15T10:28:00.000-06:002008-04-15T10:28:00.000-06:00LOL. Just keep on diggin' yourself deeper, buddy....LOL. Just keep on diggin' yourself deeper, buddy.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-90783518080901970052008-04-15T09:30:00.000-06:002008-04-15T09:30:00.000-06:00Martino - I know, you're right. I'll end this afte...Martino - I know, you're right. I'll end this after one final thought.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>I'm talking about individuals within atheism, who commit specific actions. In all of my comments, I've been careful not to paint atheists as a whole with a broad brush.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Right, you have no problem with atheists who sit quietly at the back of the bus and don't make a fuss. From your previous comments it's apparent that the only atheists you have a problem with are those who stand up for their rights. Once that happens, out come the lies and slander. I'm sure you'd be comfortable with the people who didn't mind blacks, jews, and women as long as they didn't get "uppity" and start demanding the equality you pay lip-service to. You'd probably be quite comfortable with the people who didn't mind gays, as long as they stayed closeted and children weren't allowed to know they existed.<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>PS: Would it also be "bigotry" to add a God Bless at the end?<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Not if you mean it, no. But alas, you don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-57497407142956892932008-04-15T06:10:00.000-06:002008-04-15T06:10:00.000-06:00Sorry guys, your hyperventilating just doesn't int...Sorry guys, your hyperventilating just doesn't intimidate me. It always amuses me when people unable to refute reasonable arguments settle for declaring their superiority self-evident & debating further a waste of time.<BR/><BR/>Best wishes in your future debates, though I humbly suggest you stick to the shallow end of the intellectual pool for a while.<BR/><BR/>PS: Would it also be "bigotry" to add a God Bless at the end?Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88481385831421713362008-04-15T05:53:00.000-06:002008-04-15T05:53:00.000-06:00Calvin and EneaszHaving now heard Davis's diatribe...Calvin and Eneasz<BR/><BR/>Having now heard Davis's diatribe, as a publicly elected official operating in her official capacity that it is brutally clear that she was expressing ignorant bigotry.<BR/><BR/>Anyone who supports a fair and just USA enough to be vocal about irregardless of their religious belief would condemn her and demand that either she either resign or makes a <B>full</B> apology - which she has not done yet, she makes Mel Gibson look like a saint in comparison. <BR/><BR/>It is difficult to conclude other than that anyone who supports her is themselves a bigot. Calvin is clearly such a bigot, especially since he has amply displayed his own bigotry in this forum. <BR/><BR/>Eneasz you are wasting your time dealing with such a closed-minded ignorant, dangerous and hateful person such as Calvin.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63853411268016454072008-04-14T18:05:00.000-06:002008-04-14T18:05:00.000-06:00This is your idea of substance?!Wow. I honestly d...This is your idea of substance?!<BR/><BR/>Wow. I honestly didn't realize you were THIS irrational.<BR/><BR/>I'm talking about individuals within atheism, who commit specific actions. In all of my comments, I've been careful not to paint atheists as a whole with a broad brush.<BR/><BR/>But if you want to cling to a hive mentality that "you're with us all, or against us all," then you're sadly beyond the realm of serious discourse.<BR/><BR/>You're free to lead a life hating people if you wish. See how far it gets you.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58492480293978405632008-04-14T17:32:00.000-06:002008-04-14T17:32:00.000-06:00When a white supremacist says "Niggers are sub-hum...When a white supremacist says "Niggers are sub-human animals who can't do anything but destroy, both the whites and the blacks are better off when the whites care for and own them as cattle." there is NO responsibility on the part of the black american to provide any evidence or argument to the contrary, aside from saying "You are a filthy racist, it's disgusting that people like you still exist." The fact that the white supremacist even said what he did is all the argument that is needed.<BR/><BR/>I trust you see how this applies to your "arguments" as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-58002937122791831292008-04-14T16:17:00.000-06:002008-04-14T16:17:00.000-06:00Eneasz, your ability to sputter about how much you...Eneasz, your ability to sputter about how much you hate what I say is amusing, but until you back it up with argument, it's meaningless.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-39555056223760979702008-04-14T15:08:00.000-06:002008-04-14T15:08:00.000-06:00Lack of comprehension is it? I comprehend it full...Lack of comprehension is it? I comprehend it fully.<BR/><BR/>Here you demonstrate complete acceptance of lies spread by those who promote hatred of atheists. None of these statements are at all representative of what atheists are trying to do:<BR/><I><BR/>people like Sherman, who want the public sphere wiped totally clean of all vestiges of religion, do “believe in destroying”<BR/><BR/>they believe in destroying a significant part of our heritage.<BR/><BR/>maybe they can make a substantive argument for why America’s religious heritage should be uprooted and destroyed, but they ought to be honest enough to acknowledge that’s what they’re doing<BR/><BR/>Equality and sensitivity to differences doesn’t mean one is entitled to complete isolation from things one rejects<BR/><BR/>We’re condemning those with a vendetta against the religious part of our national heritage<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Here you simply deny reality to justify your bigotry:<BR/><I><BR/>Davis' apology didn't tie atheists to school shootings at all.<BR/><BR/>there’s still no reason to believe that being confronted by an opponent on any other hot-button issue—say, gun control—wouldn’t have set her off with an equal loss of control.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Here you help futher spread the lies that atheists are evil and immoral and would destroy the nation if not for the righteousness of the Christians. These lies make me particularly sick:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>by purging America of her Judeo-Christian roots, secular activists risk removing a powerful check on mankind’s darker impulses<BR/><BR/>yes, they are “dangerous.”<BR/><BR/>Where’s my evidence for calling cultural secularization dangerous? It’s an observation that has been almost universally recognized throughout human history<BR/><BR/>the absence of Judeo-Christian values—notably the sanctity of every human life—leaves a vacuum in which any number of less noble ideas can take hold<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>And here you again demonstrate you are also a bigot and don’t have any of the moral insights you claim your Judeo-Christian “values” give you:<BR/><I><BR/>children should be aware varying philosophies exist, including obsessive hatred of religion<BR/><BR/>Americans are right to be angry at overreaching attempts to secularize the nation, and to be angry at the crusaders <BR/><BR/>Yeah, the only part of Davis’ comments I object to is where she suggests atheists have no right to the democratic process<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>Of course this identifies part of the problem:<BR/><BR/><I><BR/>I suggest taking a look at Dinesh D’Souza<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>I would only suggest looking at him to tell others they should treat him as they would a convicted felon. D’Souza has as much respect for honesty and integrity as Richard Nixon did.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-82957666230356193192008-04-14T14:03:00.000-06:002008-04-14T14:03:00.000-06:00RE: Martino,Where’s my evidence for calling cultur...RE: Martino,<BR/><BR/>Where’s my evidence for calling cultural secularization dangerous? It’s an observation that has been almost universally recognized throughout human history, from Polybius of Rome to the Founding Fathers to de Tocqueville, just to name a few. <BR/><BR/>And the line that “No atheist in the name of atheism has killed someone, yet, many specific religionists have killed in the name of their religion” is nothing more than a straw man. Our argument is not that anyone kills “in the name of atheism,” but that the absence of Judeo-Christian values—notably the sanctity of every human life—leaves a vacuum in which any number of less noble ideas can take hold. If you can open your mind long enough to do so, I suggest taking a look at Dinesh D’Souza’s “What’s So Great about Christianity”—it offers plenty of history to back up my claim. <BR/><BR/>“What makes you think that this is at all clear, if your point is even valid, to anyone who came across this news item, and has no knowledge of Rob Sherman except that he is an atheist, could otherwise possibly conclude?” I’m sorry; I assumed y’all were better than passing judgment without getting all the facts. I won’t make that mistake again.<BR/><BR/>What’s wrong with objecting to “God Bless America?” The absence of a rational basis to be offended by it. The song’s reference to God is totally benign, which is itself a vitally-relevant reference to America’s heritage—entirely appropriate for public venues. Equality and sensitivity to differences doesn’t mean one is entitled to complete isolation from things one rejects. If I, as a non-black, claimed to be offended every time I saw an element of African culture, I don’t think anyone would mistake it for anything other than bigotry. What’s the difference? <BR/><BR/>“…if the best you can do is say he is against the singing of ‘God bless America’ in school that is hardly the basis for making any of the assertions you have just made.” As far as I’m concerned, that bit of fanaticism is more than enough of a barometer into his perverted conceptions of justice. Even so, in that quote I was talking about radical secular activists in general, and even granting you that there exist bigoted Christians in America, cases of atheist bigotry, atheists wanting to destroy, are abundant as well (plenty of them are collected in another book you might want to check out, “Persecution” by David Limbaugh).<BR/><BR/>“This is a highly bigoted statement and you should be ashamed of making it. I would not be surprised that a few anti-atheists who say this but you are implying that this applies to most atheist and this is bigotry since I and most other atheists would disagree. Dare I say this is also an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Look at your favorite sacred book for numerous examples of wanting to destroy atheism and non-believers.” Umm, what the heck are you talking about? I don’t even know what your objection here is. I’ll restate my original point: maybe they can make a substantive argument for why America’s religious heritage should be uprooted and destroyed, but they ought to be honest enough to acknowledge that’s what they’re doing.<BR/><BR/>Yeah, the only part of Davis’ comments I object to is where she suggests atheists have no right to the democratic process.<BR/><BR/>“Who are these mythical atheists you are complaining about? Where are the buildings blow up with planes, trains and buses blown up by suicide bombers killing innocent women and children, doctors being assassinated because they are providing medical treatments and so on.” Again, quit with the straw men. We’re not accusing atheists of being violent. We’re condemning those with a vendetta against the religious part of our national heritage.<BR/><BR/>“She made an inference to school shootings and atheists in her apology.” Umm…yeah. The shooting was why she was angry; the atheist was who she was apologizing to…“And secondly she has said she was only reflecting the views of her church.” In relation to what? The initial comments, or school shootings? <BR/><BR/>“It looks like you want a bigoted USA, most atheists do not.” Man, Fyfe has you guys well fed on anger and victimology, doesn’t he? “A Christian dislikes what certain atheists are doing, and thinks it’s OK to harshly criticize the ones doing it! Oppression must be around the corner!”<BR/><BR/>RE: Eneasz,<BR/><BR/>Sorry, I have a policy of not wasting time with people whose rebuttals display a total lack of comprehension as to what I wrote the first time around.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-88266999302077719742008-04-14T13:08:00.000-06:002008-04-14T13:08:00.000-06:00I would like to submit Calvin as a shining - truel...I would like to submit Calvin as a shining - truely and absolutely STELLAR - example of the results of the "atheism = all that is evil" campaign that has been waged in America for decades now. Re-read his last post. He believes (altho won't admit it in so many words) that atheists are evil and dangerous, and America must be defended from them. That a man trying to stand up for his rights and the prinicples of a fair society is instead a crusader for this evil. And that because of this Rep Davis was justified because she was basically speaking the truth, just with a bit more emotion than is polite.<BR/><BR/>THIS is why we must act.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-67098273158011444642008-04-14T03:53:00.000-06:002008-04-14T03:53:00.000-06:00Hi Calvinthe broader point—that by purging America...Hi Calvin<BR/><BR/><I>the broader point—that by purging America of her Judeo-Christian roots, secular activists risk removing a powerful check on mankind’s darker impulses—is correct.</I><BR/>This is a deeply morally dubious claim you are making, where is your evidence and argument to support such a claim?<BR/><BR/><I>That’s not to say the average American who happens to reject God deserves scorn, far from it. But it does mean Americans are right to be angry at overreaching attempts to secularize the nation, and to be angry at the crusaders (if you’ll pardon the term) perpetrating them. Because yes, they are “dangerous.”</I><BR/>Where is your evidence that this is dangerous. No atheist in the name of atheism has killed someone, yet, many specific religionists have killed in the name of their religion. So who is really dangerous? Where is your evidence for this claim without it it looks like you are encouraging immoral bigotry, but I hope not.<BR/><BR/><I>“It is dangerous for children to even know your philosophy exists.” Judging by Davis’ original comments, it seems pretty clear to me that she wasn’t simply talking about the philosophy that God doesn’t exist, but rather the crusader brand of atheist mentality that Sherman certainly adopted.</I><BR/>What makes you think that this is at all clear, if your point is even valid, to anyone who came across this news item, and has no knowledge of Rob Sherman except that he is an atheist, could otherwise possibly conclude?<BR/><BR/><I>After all, this is a guy who gets up in arms over the very presence of the song “God Bless America” in a public school. </I><BR/>What is wrong with that?<BR/><BR/><I>Children should be aware varying philosophies exist, including obsessive hatred of religion, but not until they are capable of critical analysis.</I><BR/>So this is an argument not to sing "God bless America" in school then, isn't it? :-)<BR/><BR/><I>It seems clear to me that people like Sherman, who want the public sphere wiped totally clean of all vestiges of religion, do “believe in destroying” something—not people or buildings, but they believe in destroying a significant part of our heritage.</I><BR/>I cannot speak for Rob Sherman, but if the best you can do is say he is against the singing of "God bless America" in school that is hardly the basis for making any of the assertions you have just made.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><I>Maybe they can make the case that the religious part should be destroyed, but at least call it what it actually is.</I><BR/>This is a highly bigoted statement and you should be ashamed of making it. I would not be surprised that a few anti-atheists who say this but you are implying that this applies to most atheist and this is bigotry since I and most other atheists would disagree. Dare I say this is also an example of the pot calling the kettle black. Look at your favorite sacred book for numerous examples of wanting to destroy atheism and non-believers.<BR/><BR/><I>Is this harsh, ugly criticism of certain atheists? </I><BR/>Glad you now qualified this. I would also criticize such atheists I just have never come across any with such views.<BR/><BR/><I>Sure. Can it reasonably be attributed to Davis? Yes.</I><BR/>Oh so her apology was irrelevant. She in fact quite correct to say what she said to Sherman in your opinion?<BR/><BR/><BR/><I>But none of it rises to the level of claiming radical atheists WANT violence to happen, and more importantly, it is NOT directed towards atheists in general.</I><BR/>OK so I take back my point about bigotry above, maybe if you can answer this. Who are these mythical atheists you are complaining about? Where are the buildings blow up with planes, trains and buses blown up by suicide bombers killing innocent women and children, doctors being assassinated because they are providing medical treatments and so on. Until you can answer this it still looks like bigotry to me. <BR/><BR/><BR/><I>True, saying “you have no right to even be here” was inexcusable. </I><BR/>On this we agree<BR/><BR/><I>But there’s still no reason to believe that being confronted by an opponent on any other hot-button issue—say, gun control—wouldn’t have set her off with an equal loss of control.</I><BR/>Yes there is plenty of reason. She made an inference to school shootings and atheists in her apology. And secondly she has said she was only reflecting the views of her church. This was not a proper apology but an admission of guilt, that many others such as you refuse to condemn and are by so doing endorsing such bigotry, as is reflected in your statements here. It looks like you want a bigoted USA, most atheists do not.Martin Freedmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952072422175870627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-79547244897633349672008-04-13T16:39:00.000-06:002008-04-13T16:39:00.000-06:00Oh, I’m well aware of such statements. And even i...Oh, I’m well aware of such statements. And even if they miss the mark (which, admittedly, they do in the specific shooting instances I recall), the broader point—that by purging America of her Judeo-Christian roots, secular activists risk removing a powerful check on mankind’s darker impulses—is correct. That’s not to say the average American who happens to reject God deserves scorn, far from it. But it does mean Americans are right to be angry at overreaching attempts to secularize the nation, and to be angry at the crusaders (if you’ll pardon the term) perpetrating them. Because yes, they are “dangerous.”<BR/><BR/>“It is dangerous for children to even know your philosophy exists.” Judging by Davis’ original comments, it seems pretty clear to me that she wasn’t simply talking about the philosophy that God doesn’t exist, but rather the crusader brand of atheist mentality that Sherman certainly adopted. After all, this is a guy who gets up in arms over the very presence of the song “God Bless America” in a public school. Children should be aware varying philosophies exist, including obsessive hatred of religion, but not until they are capable of critical analysis. <BR/><BR/>It seems clear to me that people like Sherman, who want the public sphere wiped totally clean of all vestiges of religion, do “believe in destroying” something—not people or buildings, but they believe in destroying a significant part of our heritage. Maybe they can make the case that the religious part should be destroyed, but at least call it what it actually is.<BR/><BR/>Is this harsh, ugly criticism of certain atheists? Sure. Can it reasonably be attributed to Davis? Yes. But none of it rises to the level of claiming radical atheists WANT violence to happen, and more importantly, it is NOT directed towards atheists in general. <BR/><BR/>True, saying “you have no right to even be here” was inexcusable. But there’s still no reason to believe that being confronted by an opponent on any other hot-button issue—say, gun control—wouldn’t have set her off with an equal loss of control.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-40193599936696084212008-04-13T12:33:00.000-06:002008-04-13T12:33:00.000-06:00CalvinAlso, consider that she not only tore into S...<B>Calvin</B><BR/><BR/>Also, consider that she not only tore into Sherman after hearing about a school shooting, but the things she said.<BR/><BR/>"It is dangerous for children to even know your philosophy exists."<BR/><BR/>"What you have to spew is extremely dangerous."<BR/><BR/>"You believe in destroying!"<BR/><BR/>If hearing about a school shooting causes her to rip into an atheist in this way, particularly in a culture saturated with bigots linking atheism to school violence every time something like this happens, and with Monique Davis already working to sneek prayer into schools through a "moment of silence" - a measure that, itself, is associated with the bigotry linking atheism to school violence - there is not much of a leap here at all.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5538558902274824222008-04-13T12:28:00.000-06:002008-04-13T12:28:00.000-06:00CalvinIf you are not aware of the constant stream ...<B>Calvin</B><BR/><BR/>If you are not aware of the constant stream of statements saying every time that there is a school shooting that it is because the atheists have removed prayer in schools and that atheists and evolutionists have undermined morality, than you have had your head in the sand for a bit too long.<BR/><BR/>Just do an internet search on school shootings, and see how atheists, secularists, and the teaching of evolution are scapegoated for these crimes.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-18000638642495950592008-04-13T08:04:00.000-06:002008-04-13T08:04:00.000-06:00Waitasec - Davis' apology didn't tie atheists to s...Waitasec - Davis' apology didn't tie atheists to school shootings at all. <BR/><BR/>The original context of her explanation is crystal-clear: horrible news of yet another atrocity against a child (22 murdered kids in a year is kinda a big deal) filled her with pent-up anger looking for an outlet, and she blew up in the face of the first passionate disagreement she came across, which just happened to be with an atheist. <BR/><BR/>Had the docket been different that day, any number of different straws could have, and in all likelihood would have, broken the camel’s back.<BR/><BR/>There is not a shred of substance behind this attempt to play victim. I submit, Alonzo Fyfe, that you are guilty of precisely the sort of demagoguery you claim to be opposing.Calvinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08732753126859648649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-59634598659493827142008-04-12T12:14:00.000-06:002008-04-12T12:14:00.000-06:00DamnDamnAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1931456141613019712008-04-12T09:30:00.000-06:002008-04-12T09:30:00.000-06:00obbopSince the post isn't really about Ms. Davis (...<B>obbop</B><BR/><BR/>Since the post isn't really about Ms. Davis (it uses the current incident to make some other, related points), I don't think your translation will work.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-6959154513684718402008-04-12T07:50:00.000-06:002008-04-12T07:50:00.000-06:00Maybe I prefer the simplistic approach but that le...Maybe I prefer the simplistic approach but that lengthy diatribe...couldn't it be condensed to:<BR/><BR/>Ms. Davis is a poo-poo head.<BR/><BR/>Nyah nyah nah nah nah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com