What is Digg?251 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -17/+169Absurd straw man argument. You're overgeneralizing all criticism of Christianity. It is the same like certain hardcore atheist link all Christians with extreme fundamentalist Christians.
We are criticizing Christian dogma and belief. If you're unable to stand such criticisms perhaps you don't have faith to begin with.
Please list the incidences you claim of 'call for banning of Christianity and suppress our speech.'
Please list any criminal 'hate crimes' by atheist you claim that has happened.
Please list the atheist hate groups you claim to exists. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+139@siszam
Give me a ***** break. There are extraordinarily few atheists calling for Christianity to be banned or for Christians' freedoms to be curtailed, and those that do are just as evil as the Christian fundamentalists who want to push a Christian theocracy and who call for non-Christians' freedoms to be curtailed (see this very story for an example of the latter).
I suspect that what you're so upset about is that people are free to disagree with and criticize Christianity and its claims. I know that American fundamentalists like to pretend that people who question them are in fact attacking them, but this just isn't the case. Indeed, it trivializes actual persecution and is an insult against all those who actually suffer. I know that many think that religion should be held above criticism, but such an attitude simply leads to the rise of untenable and unethical beliefs. All I can say is while you have a right to religion, you do not have the right not to not be offended. Grow up, and get over that persecution complex. - schroeder, on 10/12/2007, -5/+75@the close-minded thread starter
I'm agnostic leaning towards atheist and I don't "hate" religious people as you suggest people with such beliefs do. I only feel they accept too much on faith without question. I hate "people" who are intolerant of others or force their ideals and beliefs on others in violent or persecutive ways. Do what you want and believe what you want to believe but don't force me to agree with it or get offended if I say or do something you don't agree with. I find most atheists to feel this way as well. - d00ley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+73That is a side issue. The main issue is what the ***** right does the UN, or anybody, have to proclaim what can and can't be said? Freedom of speech is not negotiable. The concept of controlling "hate speech" is anti-free speech. Pure and simple. And to go further, outlawing "hate speech" is, at its core, the introduction of thought crimes. No matter who you are, you should oppose this, whether it's coming from the UN or from your own government.
- j01101010, on 10/12/2007, -8/+70does this mean i can't wish people a happy zombie jesus day anymore?
- prisoner24601, on 10/12/2007, -2/+61Speaking as a Christian, I feel the sentiment behind this bill is simply horrific. Digg has a fairly large Atheist contingent, and certainly there are frequent comments that annoy and/or offend me. However, NONE of those "offensive" ones are the genuine, thoughtful (although I still believe to be wrong) counter-arguments on creationism, abortion rights, or any other such issue. I'm only "offended" by the (sadly kind of common) juvenile "preaching to the choir" cheap shots at people of faith. I actually enjoy the overall spirit of debate here, and certainly there can be no issue more important than "I think, therefore I am... but why?" That's the "follow on question" that we ALL have to answer. The snide "dear baby Jesus please..." and "may the flying spaghetti monster touch you" responses are just sad and juvenile.
However (and to return to the major issue of the "blasphemy ban" issue at hand) I think it is *critically important* that Christians and Atheists alike stand in agreement that such restrictions are simply monstrous infringements on freedom. As a Christian, you can be sure I will try with all that I am to convince you of the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but at the same time, as a Christian, I will absolutely defend YOUR right to not believe it.
Genuine faith is NOT afraid of criticism or debate. The notion that "no one should be allowed to say anything offensive to another" is truly pathetic, and the implications that *I* might be banned from making statements that I believe to be true is really frightening.
If YOU cannot say "There was never any real person named Jesus" then I cannot say "Mohammed was NOT a prophet of God" or "Joseph Smith did NOT find any golden plates" or "The theory of the Big Bang is simply inadequate to explain the ultimate origin of the universe." Truth is offensive at some level to every false opinion. We have to be willing to accept a society where people are allowed to "offend" us if we have any real love of the truth.
True Christianity does NOT hide behind "you are not allowed to offend me" even though a few posters here want to pretend this bill is in a reflection of the values of "mainstream Christianity." I, for one, actually ENJOY having real discussions with (reasonably polite) Atheists who present what they believe to be facts that I find completely *wrong* but do it in a spirit of genuine debate. This ban stifles debate, discussion, progress, and the pursuit of truth. Its a disgraceful notion and I, as a Christian, would never support it, nor would any of the Christians I know. It is very telling that the article specifies that Muslim nations were supporters of it. - annonimality, on 10/12/2007, -1/+59"When will the persecution end? I dream that one day there may even be a Christian president, or 43 of them... consecutively." - Jon Stewart.
- Nighttime, on 10/12/2007, -4/+59People shouldn't ignore things like this. The right to free speech is critical, lose that and what freedom do you really have? Today they ban blasphemy, what is next? This is a major precedent, a non elected UN body, telling you what you can and can't say. I'm surprised Americans aren't throwing a fit over this.
- nonchai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+48never heard of fox news or lgf?
We have every right to lobby and shout from the rooftops about the deceit of "preaching jesus" - elrechazao, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45Religions, whether they are christian, muslim, jew, hindu, or whatever they are, are just looking for governments to do what they can't: stop anyone from saying anything bad about them.
It's so nice that the UN wants to destroy freedom of free thinking people everywhere to stand up and say what they think.
I'm christian and think anyone and everyone should have the right to say what they want about mine or any other religion. - SkittlesUSA, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33And we have every right to shout from the rooftops about the joy of "preaching Jesus."
BTW, I dugg you up because I agree that you have the right to do that. - Cyberen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30I thought freedom of expression was one of those things that falls under "universal human rights", the kind of thing the UN is supposed to protect.
I thought the point of faith was so someone could question your belief system and you wouldn't break down and cry over it. - Oldboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+33As an atheist myself, this resolution is horrifying. According to the article, Islamic nations were the primary supporters of this, and it's easy to see why. If it becomes taboo to criticize a religion, then they get a blank check to do whatever they want because their government and their religion are tied so closely together. Screw them if they think they can get away with human rights violations with the excuse that an invisible deity told them it's okay.
Plus, wouldn't this bring up some pretty hairy issues over simply expression your religious beliefs? I mean, for a Muslim to say, "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet," isn't that blasphemy according to Christianity and Judaism? - Zreitan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+31you know, you're right, atheists don't have imaginary magical friends who sit in the sky and talk to them.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+30I tend to explain the world with science. It's by no means perfect or complete, but it's a hell of a lot better than the old method of "making up stories, attributing them to God, and burning anyone who disagrees at the stake". As for who I thank at the end of the day, I thank the people who made it better for me. Who else would I possibly thank for helping me?
- Masterbaiter, on 10/12/2007, -5/+30WTF? I mean WTF are you smoking? You're just an emotionally needy/weak person, if you need someone to reaffirm your needy life.
- cherrick, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26@stonewaljacksn
No. It means that Digg is populated by a bunch of people with a sense of humour. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28No the point of faith is to believe in things without supporting evidence or even in things with contradictory evidence. That's why the faithful turn to measures like this--they can't rebut criticism, so they have to outlaw it.
- sfpfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24Can I still insult the Scientology cult or is their lawyers enough to stop me?
- kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26@stonewaljacksn:
If, in science class, you teach children that evolution is a lie, Darwin was a manifestation of Satan and that two of every species in the world lived on Noah's Ark, they will grow up believing it to be true despite the scientific consensus being the exact opposite. Being susceptible to theist propaganda in school makes you a child, not a "total weak-minded pussy". Atheists object to religion being taught in school as fact because the claims are unfalsifiable, contradictory and based on unreliable texts written over a thousand years ago by hundreds of individual authors with their own agendas and biases.
Open-mindedness would require giving the concept of God credence which is equal to that of other unfalsifiable claims. Given that Christians reject the existence of Zeus whilst hypocritically accepting the existence of God, atheists are being consistent by rejecting ALL unfalsifiable supernatural entities.
The state should not help promote religion. Schools are property of the state and a place of learning, and thus religion has no place in them. People are free to preach superstition outside of the classroom. Atheists are worried about the effects religion is having on society and the attempts of theists to subvert secularism and introduce theist (primarily Christian) theology into the public sphere.
Please explain why the non-belief in an unfalsifiable entity isn't an indicator of a "healthy state of mind". By the way, the existence of God is independent to the validity of religion; the two are separate issues. You should have known that already, since you label yourself agnostic. - xkrwlng, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26atheists don't "persecute" any religion in particular, they only believe that ALL religions are incorrect, and that none of them should be forced on anybody. that includes christianity. USA happens to be a christian nation, so it's understandable that the "christian majority" will incorrectly think that they're being singled out by atheists.
there's nothing wrong with anybody practicing any religion in particular, but that particular religion shouldn't be funded with federal dollars. that's why Islam isn't taught/preached in our schools, and that's why Christianity *shouldn't* be taught/preached in our schools (unless it's in a historical context). - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21How about you just accept that I'm perfectly happy believing that there are no supernatural beings, and I'll accept that you do believe in supernatural beings? I won't try to dissuade you of your belief, and you don't try to dissuade me of my lack of belief?
Fair enough? - omegaworks, on 10/12/2007, -4/+25@rat2
Really? I see people around me, my family, my friends, all of us trying to make it in life. I thank them for being there for me. To thank God or some other mystical being for all the things they do just doesn't seem right to me. - lubacious, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22Maybe because Americans know, albeit indirectly, that U.N. Resolutions aren't legally binding.
- rolandde, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Rather than the UN fighting for a secular Europe and America, it is trying to sweep all the problems under the rug by prohibiting people from bringing them up. Bravo. I thank the God that does not exist that the UN is a defunct organization.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23This is equivalent to banning any questioning of a political party. A truly sad day for freedom, and the U.N. once again fails us all.
- codyman, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25I consider myself christian and I think a ban on "defamation" of religion is just downright stupid... why should the U.N tell people what they can / can't say? All they are is a puppet-organization that puts on a show to make the world look all koombayah about everything which is *****... the U.N is just a complete joke and this is the nail in the coffin....
- AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23@stonewaljacksn
Why would you bring up 'respect' about zombie jesus comment. Evey single person on this planet that is not christian knows that the jesus myth is right up there with the alien abduction myths. If you want to indulge in delusion go ahead, but don't expect rational people to pretend it has some merit. we don't go around 'respecting' people that think they are napoleon either.
Happy Zombie Jesus day everyone.
Just because I'm an Atheist doesn't mean I won;t take advantage of some holiday time. (For that matter evey single holy day of every single religion should be national. respect them all so I can get more days off based on other peoples delusions - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20@Stonewall: Howdy Stonewal
"The attempts of atheistic groups to ban all talk of religion in schools is equally as wrong as this anti-defamation ban."
Most atheist have absolutely no problem with religion being taught in schools in comparative religious classes. The issue is the preaching. Kids should not be preached to, especially if it sponsored by the government.
"Then EVERYTHING GOES. If you wish to have a voice in public venues, then you must allow religion the same. That's the bottom line."
I don't have a problem with religion in public venues as long as ALL religions get same rights to those venues. If you want to put up a Christmas tree, Wiccans get to perform their fertility rights at the same place. If you want to put up the ten commandments, Satanist get the right to put up their inverted crosses or inverted pentacles as well at the same place.
"Then why do you all seem so worried about it?"
That's because religious nuts think they run the country. If they leave me alone, I don't give a damn what they believe. Most atheist are the same, except for a rare minority which will disappear if the religious right stop shoving their ideology down out throats.
"BY THE WAY, did you ever think that such a ban might also go for say...Christians badmouthing Muslims?...or Jews?...of course not, because the world revolves around you"
Thanks for overgeneralizing all atheist. Anyway It doesn't frickin matter, free speech matters and I'll damn hell criticize whoever the hell I want without someone telling I'm not allowed to do so. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17@stonewalljackson: "But yet, you do, because you all fear it."
No, we don't fear religion. We fear what is done with it. From not being able to buy beer on Sunday to attempts to suppress science in general and evolution and sex education in specific, the limitation of marriage to heteros, the arbitrary line for diverse age sexuality without any consideration at all for cognitive and physical maturity, the forcing of everyone else to carry the tax load of superstitious operations, land holdings and buildings, the misogyny you've been carrying out in fact and in law ever since the middle east goatherds wrote up how to treat women in your books of "faith", the forcing of women to cover themselves, sharia law, fools flying into buildings, strapping bombs to themselves and walking into cafes and shopping centers, bombing abortion clinics, encouraging people to crucify themselves and to crawl literally miles on their knees on gravel, 800 years of not one, but *two* filthy inquisitions, ten or so crusades, witch burnings, the suborning of the national oath, your crazed little ditties appearing on our money -- I mean really, what's to worry, right? It isn't like we should worry, is it? And now the UN wants to suppress speech in the name of religion. What's to worry?
What, me worry?
You think atheists are Alfred E. Newman waving our hands about nothing. You're wrong, and you're blind. I won't speculate as to why, but certainly, your point is worthless.
I am a pretty rabid atheist, as they go, meaning, I really, really think theists are utterly, completely wrongheaded. And yet, I *really* *don't* *care* what you believe.
When I begin to care is when your personal beliefs start stepping all over my toes, and the toes of my children, and the toes of my family. When that happens, your personal beliefs have become a real problem, in precisely the sense that I describe above. When I pay my taxes, and part of it has to cover what the church doesn't; that's my toes. When I can't have a beer on Sunday. That's my toes. When I can't marry more than one person, that's my toes. When my friend can't marry their same-sex friend, that's their toes AND my toes AND my family's toes. And so on.
So quit pretending religion is a force that can do no harm, and that it should be just left to do whatever its proponents feel is the action of the day. Religion isn't harmless, it is well known to be dangerous as heck to freedom and to the individual, and as such, you can have every expectation that atheists will LEGITIMATELY resist religion as applied in any formal way to them, direct, indirect or speculatively.
The UN saying that we have to "respect" some set of religious beliefs is enough reason to me to throw the UN right out of the country. We can use the building for something better, I am sure. Almost anything is better than hosting a nest of religious vipers in our midst - and we know these are vipers; this action makes it quite clear.
True respect is earned. Not given, not taken, and not legislated. Until the religious learn that, they won't even know what it *is*. - joecodemonkey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20I'm a Christian and I oppose this law. Or, at least I would if it meant anything. However, I'm not a citizen of the UN nor are any of you. Let the UN pass whatever measures it wants. Unless members of the security council can agree on enforcing a resolution does it really mean anything? They might as well pass a resolution declaring everyone in the world has to learn to play the kazoo. Stop freaking out already.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Well, first, people would have to HEAR about it. I don't trust the American media far enough to believe that that's going to happen.
- gamehunter101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18our freedom of speech is slowly washing away and all most of the public does is flow with it
- Dumbledorito, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24Blasphemeeeee!
Blasphoryouuuu!
Blasphoreverybodyyyyy! - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"Maybe because people have proven themselves incapable of shutting the ***** up and not saying bad things about religion?!? Don't like the idea of Government or the U.N telling you to quit being asshats? Then do it yourselves!"
"Being an asshat" isn't, and shouldn't be illegal. "Saying bad things" about *anything*, isn't, and shouldn't be illegal. The first amendment makes that clear:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech"
That means you can say "bad things" and "be an asshat". - SandorClegane, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16I love the fact that this came from the UN human rights council, featuring such paragons of human rights as Algeria, India, South Africa, and Indonesia. Also note that in 7 of the 14 member states you might be killed for criticizing Mohammed.
Beyond that since when is it the UN's business what my opinion of religion is? If I'm a devout Christian who thinks that all Muslims and atheists will burn in hell then it's my God given right to say so. If I'm a Pastafarian who has been touched by his noodly appendage and think all Christians are ignorant hicks then I can damn well say that too. We ignore this body at our peril, ladies and gentlemen. The time will come soon when we have a president and a supreme court who think that bowing to the UN in everything is a pretty good idea, and what will we do then? - TheGiR81, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17This is about as absurd as trying to ban the word ***** in NewYork. Religion is just one of those things that naturally attracts criticism. No one can stop it, even if the penalty was death. Besides, even if they could, you could expect MORE criticism of religion then ever afterwards.
- KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15"Maybe because people have proven themselves incapable of shutting the ***** up and not saying bad things about religion?!?"
Why should we shut up? Are you against free speech?
Religion makes rediculous claims, why should we just silently accept them? - jamsea, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14St.Peter was a rabbit...
- merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12"Plus, wouldn't this bring up some pretty hairy issues over simply expression your religious beliefs? I mean, for a Muslim to say, "There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet," isn't that blasphemy according to Christianity and Judaism?"
Hah, good point. I've met a handful of Christians, some of whom I even consider friends, who consider all non-Christian religions, and even some other denominations of Christianity, to be "Satan Worship". And yet those same people would cry bloody murder if anyone were to say anything bad about their own practice. - altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Wow you really don't know much about history do you? Christians are just as apt to slaught people as Muslims. The only difference in this day an age is the Christians have the power and hence Artillary and the Muslims have squat and hence have to user their own bodies. Not that I advocate killing by either side, but seriously you've got to be pretty ignorant to think that if Iran invaded the U.S. you'd not strap a bomb to yourself and march into a group of Persians.
- kronix2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I meant to add that this is simply a PROPOSAL, primary supported by Islamic countries. Religious minorities and non-religious people are already persecuted in Islamic states, but this UN proposal would give these Islamic states the blessing of the UN. It runs counter to the founding principles of the EU and US. If this proposal actually builds up any momentum, expect other countries to kick up a fuss. The risk is that religious groups would take the US or EU to the UN and demand that they comply with the statute if it passes.
I didn't know you were an agnostic, stonewaljacksn. I seem to remember the user stonewalljackson (now banned) of being a neo-con Christian fundamentalist. I went through your profile, and either you've turned over a new leaf, you've suffered brain damage, or you're not the same person who owned the stonewalljackson account. - rat2, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17One More Reason to UNdo the U.N.
- KlayBorg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14"How do you explain this world. If you don't believe in god."
Did you shut your eyes, ears and mind in science class?
"You have no one to sit down at the end of the day and say thank you too."
So? - altjeringa, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I say thank you to the universe everyday. Being grateful does not require some omnipotent being. I am grateful to many things and many people.
From what I've read of the Christian God, I've nothing but respite for him, he really is an egotistical prick. If I believed in him I'd have nothing but contempt. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@Prisoner: I like your earlier post. Just some corrections:
"Any Theist simply has concluded that the best explanation is a super-natural one, a Deity of some sort."
That is actually one of the better logical conclusions I've seen Theist make.
"If someone tells me they believe the universe was created by the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man you can't really be suggesting I give that claim equal weight?"
The question is why not? You currently have a supernatural belief system which means that all supernatural claims should be plausible for you.
"1. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be "proven" in the scientific sense"
I partially disagree. The existence of a personal omnipotent omniscient omni benevolent God who plays a role in daily life(unless said God is actively hiding) as a hypothesis can be disproven using the scientific method. Claims of Christians of God's role in miracles and many other claims can be investigated and disproven. A more pantheistic or deistic god cannot be disproven.
"2. The existence or non-existence of The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man cannot be "proven" in the scientific sense"
Nope but the possibility can be so minuscule as to be virtually impossible. Quantum theory states that you theoretically have a chance of walking through a wall...it's so improbable that the universe will likely end before you do it but it cannot be disproven.
"But 1 & 2 do not have "equal probability." I mean, even the most hardcore Atheist will admit (after a long and genuine give-and-take honest discussion of the issues) that he cannot completely 100% dismiss the possibility that there could be a God who created the universe in some way or another. There is, however, not anyone alive who would *honestly* say they believe the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man created the universe."
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Theist claim that God created the cosmos, there is as much evidence of that as the Stay Puft Marshmallow man(Marshmallow actually exists, while we don't have any tasty God candy...sigh). - Masterbaiter, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10I'm sure this was just a slip of tongue but, to correct you, Atheism is not a belief. Atheism is simply without God/gods-belief, not belief in no God.
- richiestang78, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Wow and I only thought here in the US do they know how to force religious values on people. Anyway, Atheists aren't there to hate Christians, we're here to question not just Christians but religion in general. Don't start by saying we're all out there to hate, yeah I'm sure there are D-Bag Atheists but there are plenty of Christian ones too.
Also to that first comment, are you really comparing Atheists to Nazis? I mean more people have died because of the name of God then anything else in history so don't start that argument of Christians are holy then thou because what you believe is meaningless on what kind of person you are.
Atheism is the belief in no God, not in nothing. Athieism is to believe in logical thought and the fellow man, sounds pretty nice to me rather then a God that floods the earth, destroys a city and kills new borns? And yes i know thats the Old Testament but thats the foundation of the Christian God, I know because I was fed that stuff through out my years in a Lutheran High School.
First its teaching Intelligent design as science and now this, the only apocalypse I see is the utter destruction of logical thought in the world. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@Prisoner: I like your earlier post. Just some corrections:
"Any Theist simply has concluded that the best explanation is a super-natural one, a Deity of some sort."
That is actually one of the better logical conclusions I've seen Theist make.
"If someone tells me they believe the universe was created by the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man you can't really be suggesting I give that claim equal weight?"
The question is why not? You currently have a supernatural belief system which means that all supernatural claims should be plausible for you.
"1. The existence or non-existence of God cannot be "proven" in the scientific sense"
I partially disagree. The existence of a personal omnipotent omniscient omni benevolent God who plays a role in daily life(unless said God is actively hiding) as a hypothesis can be disproven using the scientific method. Claims of Christians of God's role in miracles and many other claims can be investigated and disproven. A more pantheistic or deistic god cannot be disproven.
"2. The existence or non-existence of The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man cannot be "proven" in the scientific sense"
Nope but the possibility can be so minuscule as to be virtually impossible. Quantum theory states that you theoretically have a chance of walking through a wall...it's so improbable that the universe will likely end before you do it but it cannot be disproven.
"But 1 & 2 do not have "equal probability." I mean, even the most hardcore Atheist will admit (after a long and genuine give-and-take honest discussion of the issues) that he cannot completely 100% dismiss the possibility that there could be a God who created the universe in some way or another. There is, however, not anyone alive who would *honestly* say they believe the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man created the universe."
The burden of proof is on the claimant. Theist claim that God created the cosmos, there is as much evidence of that as the Stay Puft Marshmallow man(Marshmallow actually exists, while we don't have any tasty God candy...sigh). - AniceAtheist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9@stonewaljacksn
So your saying thought crimes are a form of terrorism? It is people like you who are ushering in the new fascism 'democracies' -
Show 51 - 100 of 249 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is