The Raving Theist

Dedicated to Jesus Christ, Now and Forever

Setting an Example

October 7, 2005 | 24 Comments

There

Comments

24 Responses to “Setting an Example”

  1. AK
    October 7th, 2005 @ 5:23 pm

    Next time I see Christians behaving badly in public, I will tell my friends or companions, while in earshot of said Christians, “Lets get away from those people. They are freaky Satanists. Just look at them!”

    If the Christians confront me on it, I will say “Hey with those crosses on your neck, what the heck ELSE could you possibly be? Get your devil possessed ass away from me!”

  2. UberKuh
    October 7th, 2005 @ 5:55 pm

    So, love or hate the truth, not the truth-teller.

    The problem I see with not thinking that one’s moral actions can set an example for others to follow is that, although it makes sense to not expect others to share your beliefs unless they make sense, it does not make sense, it seems to me, to assume that morality is not by nature a social construct that implicitly involves the ability to influence others to share your beliefs. If so, then setting an example is what morality is all about. Note that I am not arguing that morality is something that should be imposed, but simply that it will happen by virtue of what “ought” is.

  3. a different tim
    October 7th, 2005 @ 6:00 pm

    *First thought*
    It happens (the bad example thing) though, doesn’t it. We see it in the comments all the time. Someone posts in, gets a slapping from one of the more…er…excitable commenters, starts going “oooh, all you atheists are horrible, you even argue with each other” (sure we do, that’s what we come here for) or some such. Ad hominem stuff happens all the time…I think on this occasion the squad are just recognising that humans behave like that. It isn’t logical but nor are people.

    *Second thought*
    Why not put the Christians in the cages and let the animals tease them through the bars?

  4. Phil
    October 7th, 2005 @ 6:11 pm

    What’s funny is that the original letter-writer never specifies what religion the zoo-attending family appears to belong to. I’d like to know which religion’s tenets forbid taunting zoo animals and require the holding of doors for other as well as the thanking of door-holders, such that failure to adhere to those tenets indicates a lack of devoutness.

  5. Jean-Paul Fastidious
    October 7th, 2005 @ 7:20 pm

    Clearly they are Christian:

    “A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.” Proverbs 12:10

    “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” Revelation 3:20

  6. Borgia
    October 7th, 2005 @ 7:58 pm

    Counter-point to JPF quote:

    “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Genesis 1:26

    I ask you how many pages a contradiction-free Bible would contain? Probably not enough to wipe your ass with.

  7. Toxic
    October 7th, 2005 @ 8:52 pm

    Well, RA, I’m glad you still remember that from two and a half years ago. I barely remember writing it. Had to check to make sure it was actually me.

    I still think I was right. You aren’t just some guy at the zoo annoying the monkeys. You run a popular website. I’m not asking you to kiss ass and never get raw, but that particular case you were being extraordinarily crude and vile.

    Problem is, what you saw does reflect on us, us being the rest of the atheists. Atheists already get smeared by the religious; the reaction of religious people when they find out I’m an atheist, and don’t eat babies and worship Satan, proves that. With you on the net, sometimes, though not usually, reinforcing the negative stereotype, does hurt me and all other atheists in a small but real way. If you don’t want to be a role model, don’t run a popular website.

  8. Jennifer
    October 7th, 2005 @ 10:29 pm

    I think the God Squad would be a lot more interesting if they had a Buddhist and an Islamist in the mix. What council do you think the Dalai Lama would give?

  9. Jim
    October 7th, 2005 @ 11:19 pm

    I’m sure the Dalai Lama’s council would be a mix of really lovely quotes about how we can treat each other a lot better, as long as we don’t engage in the practices his own priests used on his people before they were thrown out of Tibet by the Communist Chinese.

    When Mao is an improvement, you know the regime was oppressive. And theist.

  10. Joe
    October 8th, 2005 @ 1:42 am

    this is possibly the funniest thing I have ever read:

    “which religion’s tenets forbid taunting zoo animals and require the holding of doors for other as well as the thanking of door-holders, such that failure to adhere to those tenets indicates a lack of devoutness.”

    and Jim….exactly. a theocracy is a theocracy………I don’t give a shit what fairytail you are following.

    and well it is late and I have had few drinks…………so fuck theists. the moment adults have an imaginary friend they should be disregarded. no one should ‘respect’ someones beliefs just because they believe it. beliefs should be questioned. If you cannot defend your beliefs without referencing fairytails that no one of that faith ever experienced………then it is the same as your boss defending the existence of Santa Claus or the Touth Fairy (I love using proper noun form for fairytail characters and not for god……….cause he the king of fairytail characters………….

  11. Joe
    October 8th, 2005 @ 1:55 am

    the moment any theists defends an atheist…………is the day I do that same in return……………I think the last person I know of to do it was Thomas Jefferson……………..

  12. Joe
    October 8th, 2005 @ 2:05 am

    if anyone looks at someone making an ass of themselves and thinks anything more then, “look at that ass, I hope I never look that way,” is a shmuck

    judging a religion on the actions of a single person is the same as judging a race for the actions of a single person……..

    since 99% of the people of the world have as much choice of what religion they belong to as choosing which race they belong to….

    religion is the study of demographics, same as race

  13. Lurker
    October 8th, 2005 @ 2:44 am

    Joe said:
    no one should ‘respect’ someones beliefs just because they believe it. beliefs should be questioned.

    Then you won’t mind defending your belief that a person’s actions are good or right. When you determine that a specific action is good, did you just make it up or was there some solid reason behind it? If you can’t to prove your belief is true and objective/factual then why should anyone ‘respect’ your belief?

  14. leon
    October 8th, 2005 @ 9:08 am

    It is bad enough when they tease me, but when they bang on the glass I really get pissed.

  15. Dada Saves
    October 8th, 2005 @ 11:05 am

    Lurker, why is “objective” a criterion for these supposed unassailable facts? Theists in general — and Christians in particular — claim moral absolutes all the time, but a cursory discussion always reveal that they apply the same moral relativism as the rest of us. (Quick example: ‘Thou shalt not kill’ morphed into ‘Thou shalt not murder’, and ‘murder’ is defined wholly by human law[s], which constantly change over time and place.)

  16. Lurker
    October 8th, 2005 @ 11:46 am

    Dada Saves said:
    Lurker, why is “objective” a criterion for these supposed unassailable facts? Theists in general — and Christians in particular — claim moral absolutes all the time

    I was commenting on Joe’s post. The idea that Joe is tossing out is that religious people have these unsubstantiated beliefs formed out of thin air. That may be true. I’m asking Joe to prove his beliefs are correct. If he can, I will adopt them. If he can’t then should I follow his example and mock him for believing in fairytales that he made up himself?

  17. Dada Saves
    October 8th, 2005 @ 12:23 pm

    “I’m asking Joe to prove his beliefs are correct. ”

    I know you are. I’m asking you why “objectiveness” is a necessary component of Joe’s proof. Or did you mean something else when you asked him, “If you can’t to prove your belief is true and objective/factual then why should anyone ‘respect’ your belief?”

  18. Lurker
    October 8th, 2005 @ 12:38 pm

    I’m asking you why “objectiveness” is a necessary component of Joe’s proof.

    That is what’s required according to Joe’s criteria. Unless, of course, I misunderstood Joe’s criteria for determining what is true. If so, then I ask Joe to please clarify.

  19. Dada Saves
    October 8th, 2005 @ 12:49 pm

    Where does Joe say anything about “objectivity”? In fact, where does he outline his “criteria for determining what is true” at all? The most he’s said about it is “defend your beliefs without referencing fairytails” — near as I can tell, though I could be wrong. Admittedly, he’s been drinking since 1:42 am, but still. I think it’s valid for you to challenge him to defend his epistemology, but unfair to impose restrictions, like “your defence shall be objective.”

  20. Lurker
    October 8th, 2005 @ 1:16 pm

    His criteria may not involve objectivity. But then I’d ask him how this differs from the theists he loves to mock. I’ll let Joe explain it to us all.

  21. Dada Saves
    October 8th, 2005 @ 1:26 pm

    Okay, fair enough. Maybe he’s sleeping in today …

    What’s with all the mockery? Doesn’t that get tiresome? (And pointless.)

  22. sternwallow
    October 8th, 2005 @ 9:13 pm

    “What’s with all the mockery? Doesn’t that get tiresome? (And pointless.)”

    Mockery is an antidote to certain illogical criticism stoppers as “You must respect faith because it is faith and you have to”. As such, it provides refreshmant to the psyche. That is why it is neither tiresome nor pointless. Crude language is also an antidote, not against the logic, but against the holy, righteous tones in which the beliefs are often expressed.

    I share some of Joe’s attitudes and that fact is unassailable. To the extent that I might want other people to share them, I would expect to have to justify those attitudes. The trick is, I have no interest in having someone adopt any of my attitudes that I can’t vigorously defend. The rest of my attitudes are all mine and you can’t have them. Nyah.

  23. Lurker
    October 8th, 2005 @ 10:16 pm

    What’s with all the mockery? Doesn’t that get tiresome? (And pointless.)

    Yes it gets tiresome so I’m hoping Joe will stop doing it.

  24. MBains
    October 11th, 2005 @ 9:14 am

    When Mao is an improvement, you know the regime was oppressive. And theist.

    Hey now Jim! Come on bro! Those people Loved being slaves.

    The sickening thing is that this is true. You could still go up there and ask them and a majority would love the DL Master back on his hilltop suckin’ the fruits of their meagre existence in exchange for ~BS~ that makes the slaves feel better ’bout their digs & lots.

    All China is gonna get out of that territory is resources to support their Space Program.

  • Basic Assumptions

    First, there is a God.

    Continue Reading...

  • Search

  • Quote of the Day

    • Fifty Random Links

      See them all on the links page.

      • No Blogroll Links