Trade Your Bible For Porn

An anonymous reader writes "Atheist students at the University of Texas at San Antonio announced that any student over the age of 18 will receive pornographic materials if they trade in religious materials. From the article: 'Leaders of this atheist campaign allege that porn is no worse than what's written in religious texts. A university spokesman says that this controversial cause is completely legal, though he admits a majority of the students on campus do not agree with it.'"

Comments

Stunts

[pudge]

I find that people who feel the need to perform stunts like this to make a point usually have trouble making a point in any other way, and a need for attention for themselves and their "cause." Yes, we get it, you hate the Bible. But you have no actual arguments against it beyond your dislike, and you're boring.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."

So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

That makes no sense. You literally can't back that up so it's meaningful.

Done. For chrissake, every dictionary definition of dogma even says it's a synonym for religious doctrine. How can that not make sense?

it's easy to rattle off many, many rational religious people throughout history

Who said anything about rational? Any sane person is rational to some degree. The phrase is 'reasoned with'. You can't reason with people who exclude evidence because some book tells them to exclude it.

They don't want rational argument

We know only about this present escapade, not about any previous efforts they may or may not have made. You may be willing to judge them out of ignorant assumptions in absentia, but that only makes you unreasonable and subjective, the worst foundation from which to make judgement. Unless you can point me to evidence that this group has done nothing else, made no other efforts, then I reject the validity of your judgement.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Oh and just a little clue for you ... all of Protestantism was BASED ON the notion that religious doctrine CAN and SHOULD be questioned, and subject to examination (that was one of the primary bases of the theses, if I may school you via rhyme). The Apostle Paul himself told us to subject all teachings, including his own, to examination. To claim all religious doctrine, including Christian doctrine, is dogma denies a couple thousand years of Christian teachings to the contrary.

Of course, many Christians ARE dogmatic. No doubt there. But only someone truly ignorant on the subject, or maliciously dishonest, would say it is a reflection of the nature of Christian doctrine itself.

Re:Stunts

[Anonymous Coward]

Oooh, you win. He'll never be able to argue against your ironclad "incorrect" argument.

Re:Stunts

[ElectricTurtle]

There is no strawman. You made no argument besides 'nuh UH!' It is not possible to create a similar but deliberately weaker argument than that for the purpose of deliberately dismantling it. You clearly don't know what a strawman is.

I'll grant that there may be some dictionaries that do not list religious doctrine as one of the definitions of dogma. So, in a absolute sense, yes, not 'every' dictionary, but that is simply deliberate obtuseness on your part about a rhetorical device. Most dictionaries of the English language have the aforementioned as part of the definition, including but not limited to: Random House Dictionary; The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition; Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition; Cambridge Dictionary of American English; etc. Stop being disingenuous.

And now the ethnocentrism comes out. Where previously we were talking about religion, suddenly we're talking about Christianity. Of course, why wouldn't we, after all, Christianity is the exception, it's not like all those other religions. Pardon me while I roll my eyes so hard they could put a smooth surface on fresh asphalt.

You want to play that game? Fine. The resurrection of Christ. All Christians must believe it, and the only evidence for it is in religious text, all scientific evidence to the contrary is ignored. That is the very essence of the denotation of dogma.

I think you're being deliberately dense about the difference between rational and reasonable. Do you notice how those are both adjectives? They are not the same word. You don't know much about the definitions, much less connotations, of words do you? A rational person connects causes to effects, learns from experience, etc. etc. A reasonable person is one who is objective, less closed-minded. These are connotations of context. If you just say 'reason' out of nowhere it does not have the same feeling or background of meaning (connotation) as when you talk of 'reasonable people'. In this sense, to use the language fully, it is necessary to look beyond the straight definitions of rational vs. reasonable.

You're incapable of demonstrating a single thing in the Bible that tells anyone to exclude any evidence. You're just inventing something that doesn't exist.

2 Peter 3:5. If you don't believe in creation, you're wrong.
Galatians 1:8. If anybody says something different from the Bible, they are cursed.
2 Corinthians 10:5. This one is so good, it can speak for itself:

Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

If that's not clear enough I don't know what is.

That's what YOU were doing to "religious people." I was just playing along in the game you started.

Key word there is ignorant. I know a lot about history and where religion fits into it, including Christianity. I judge religion on the facts, the purges of heretics, the slaughter of infidels, the suppression of dissent, the continuance of misogyny, the tacit acceptance of racism and slavery, etc. etc. What I said is you don't know anything about these people beyond this story. Until you do, your judgement is weaker than my judgement of religion.

Also, 'judgement' is an accepted alternate spelling. But you wouldn't know that, since you have some strange aversion to dictionaries.

Re:Stunts

[trurl7]

Well...yes and no...

Yes, Protestantism is based on questioning your faith. But somehow, you don't find many ex-Protestants-turned-atheists at revival meetings, do you? The "questioning" is not earnest inquiry: suppose you do wind up rejecting the Bible for the badly cribbed ramblings of sunstroke-addled "prophets" (and the occasional self-serving insertion such as Deuteronomy) that it really is. You're not going to be welcomed back into the fold. The truth is that the "questioning" in faith is like teenage girls going to a bar on the slightly sleazy side of town to feel like a risk-taker: technically true, but no one's actually expecting anything to happen.

If your questioning gets you to a re-affirmed belief, then you've "succeeded". If it turns you away you're an evil heretic and need to be burned. (And before anyone says anything, yes, the Protestants did burn people. For one among many examples, look up the Calvinists).

So no, his claim is correct.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

You did something EXACTLY LIKE THAT, just one post above.

No, I did not. You're very confused. Your quote only shows me saying that there's both good and bad in religion, not trying to -- as you falsely claimed -- attribute everything good to religion. Nor did I even state or imply that anyone should be thanked, as you, again, falsely claimed.

I did the first, part, yes: I said, "ahh, but that's just human nature." But I never said that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank."

You denied something which you wrote just moments ago.

You clearly saw something in what I wrote that literally was not there, in any form.

similarly brainwashed to you

Again -- you don't seem to understand this -- making things up doesn't help you. Really, it doesn't.

I can choose.

I did choose. And I can choose again if I am convinced that I am wrong. And I am open to convincing. None of you appears to be up to the task.

Don't feel bad: it's not that you are bad at this (although you are), it's that you don't have good arguments on your side.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Look, I get it, you don't see that there.

It literally isn't there.

I am the one who said what I said. What you say is there was not in the text of what I wrote (obviously), and it was not intended to be implied by me. Unfortunately for you, you have no evidence to the contrary; unfortunately for me, I cannot prove what was in my mind. However, since I am the authority on what I say and you have no counterevidence, I win.

You don't see how you attributed "some people (and some sects) will burn you" to "People are human, of course there will be vitriol and wrongdoing"; to their humanity.

Can you really not read simple English? I explicitly stated that I was attributing their failings to their human nature, but that it was the second part of your assertion -- "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank" -- that I was not engaging in.

Your job at this point would be to show that I ever claimed that "when everything is 'good,' [religious people] are the ones to thank." You can't do that.

Religions didn't have anything to do with it, nosir

What is your evidence that they do? If you were right, then we would expect to see more violence from religion than without it, but we don't see that at all. By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century.

You don't have to tangle yourself yet again in deying things you just wrote; I understand.

I understand you're a tool.

And please...you choose? I also thought that I choose when I was like you. But it's, if I might use such a term ;p , a diabolic self deceit.

No, that's your department. You deluded yourself into thinking that everyone else thinks like you do: that because you had deluded yourself into being religious, therefore I do the same. This is obviously self-refuting, however: if I thought just like you do -- as your argument assumes -- then I would be an atheist now.

Really, stop the line with demanding arguments

No. As long as you make assertions, I will -- following the rules of logic you pretend to follow, but, in fact, disdain -- demand that you back them up.

But you're closed to them

You have no evidence of this. All you have are examples of POOR arguments you gave that I logically refuted ... refuted so entirely that you didn't even attempt to rebut. You transparently pretend that because I refuted your arguments, that I am therefore closed to them.

You realize that everyone sees through that, right?

That's why arguments don't work, not because they are weak.

Yes, the rejoinder of the person without any arguments. We've seen it before.

Re:Stunts

[ffreeloader]

Well, you're right, they probably do have "trouble making a point in any other way" since religious people are dogmatic by design. It's like Dr. House said, "If religious people could be reasoned with there would be no religious people."

So when rational argument is ignored or avoided, I wholly support doing high profile things that provoke a response.

I'd just like to point out something about your post. You are assuming everyone starts with the same underlying assumptions that you do. Thus anyone who disagrees with you is irrational, according to your logic.

The point is that people with your beliefs often refuse to acknowledge much of what you believe to be true is taken on faith. You have faith that everything you believe about evolution is true. Why do I say faith? Because evolution and things such as the non-existence of God have never been conclusively proven.

Anything that has not been proven conclusively, such as 2 + 2 = 4, is believed to be true by starting with certain assumptions, and assuming/believing/having_faith_in those assumptions. I watched a Nova program on PBS a while back in which one of the scientists interviewed estimated that the current total sum of knowledge about the universe that scientists now know is estimated to be maybe 1% of what is possible to be known. I would posit that calling anyone irrational for openly accepting something by faith when your side dogmatically denies any existence of God on the basis of knowing about 1% of what can be known about the universe is basing that dogmatic belief in faith. Faith that further knowledge about the universe will not prove anything in the assumptions now believed about the universe in the scientific community to not be true. I'd say that's a huge leap of faith, as knowing 1% of any subject has never been a guarantee that the 1% is totally correct and does not include anything that will be proven false in the future. In fact, this has been proven true over, and over, and over again by the scentific community.

That makes calling anyone honest enough to openly state that they live by faith irrational an exercise in self-condemnation.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

Btw. this one statement caught my eye...

"By far, more murders were committed by explicitly atheistic regimes than religious ones in the 20th century"

Could you please expand on that? Are you referring to military, or something smaller in scope? I'm trying to identify if religion (or lack of) has anything to do with it...

I am referring to the mass murders by the regimes of the USSR and China, responsible for somewhere between 75 million and 100 million human deaths combined.

I would say atheism played a role in two ways: first, in that because atheism is itself an ideology, these fascist regimes were set on wiping out any ideologies that posed a threat. This is not unique to atheism, of course, but it's distinctly different from having a regime that has no ideology.

Second, in that because it was an atheist regime, as opposed to an explicitly pacifist ideology (such as some branches of Christianity or Buddhism, for example), there was no restraining factor within the ideology itself. But again, this is not unique to atheism.

Re:Stunts

[pudge]

What you describe is antitheism, not atheism

False.

We aren't laughing with you, we're laughing at you

[spun]

Thanks, pudge. There's nothing I quite enjoy more than watching you get smacked down repeatedly, only to come back swinging with arguments that work only in your own mind. I bet you think you're winning this argument, don't you? Hilarious.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

Is religion so meaningless to you that would extend its definition to include any arbitrary group of people that may or may not have read books by a particular author? If you support education and read Green Eggs and Ham as a kid are you in the Church of Dr. Seuss? Should these "religions" get the same tax breaks we extend to more established religions? I advocate that people read the Bibles they so proudly wave around. That doesn't mean I'm part of any sort of religion myself.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Bakkster]

Is religion so meaningless to you that would extend its definition to include any arbitrary group of people that may or may not have read books by a particular author?

I said essentially. It's obviously not a religion.

However, Dawkin's form of 'militant atheism' shares many traits with the very religions he rails against. Particularly, his very hard-line claim that his is the Only True Way (capitalization mine). Did he start a religion? Not really. Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

Is he as Dogmatic, radical, and evangelistic as some religions? Absolutely.

Really? Which religions? Dawkins never trained any suicide bombers; he never tortured people in an Inquisition; he never launched a Crusade; he never advocated ostracizing people from their communities who don't agree with him; he never started any political parties; he never put "in Dawkins we trust" in the pledge or on the money of any nation; he never lobbied any nation to engrave excerpts from his writings on their military hardware; he never even organized any camps where parents could send their children to memorize passages from his books. Is there such a religion that does none of these things? He does advocate that you think critically about ideas presented to you and demand proof for people's conclusions. If you call this radical, certainly Christianity, just to pick a religion at random, is far more radical.

There's an old story about a child who claimed that a certain emperor who marched through the streets of his town was not wearing any clothes. I could be wrong, but I think that the child did not also wish to be emperor - he just wanted to point out that the emperor was not wearing any clothes.

Re:It might just be me, but...

[Tim4444]

sexual assault on a child is sometimes less damaging than teaching a child to follow Christianity

Interesting proposition considering that the Catholic Church does both. I believe Dawkins never actually said that as such, but rather made an insensitive comment about "the Church's real child abuse" or something to that effect. Still, is he more vile than the people actually abusing children or the institution that protects the abusers?

Dawkins is just one voice among many. Attempts to use him to brand a single unified atheist movement are more a result of his detractors than the efforts of the people he has come to represent - willingly or unwillingly. BTW, you can no more do a disservice to atheism, that is "not religious," than you can do a disservice to "not small" or "not a number" or "not bowling" or "not evil." Asserting anything at all about a "not" when nothing else is known about it is complete nonsense. Perhaps you mean Dawkins is doing a disservice to British people, or the scientific community, or to advocates for the separation of church and state, or to humanists, or to people who simply refuse to believe in anything for which there is no evidence.

People could be forgiven for not understanding much of philosophy.

I guess sex sells

[smadasam]

As a University of Texas - San Antonio graduate, this makes me sad we people try to tare down others beliefs.