News Stories

[ganbaru]

Obama, Netanyahu face struggle over Iran "red lines"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...82403V20120305

Their most immediate concern is that Iran be prevented from reaching nuclear weapons capability, not just from developing an actual device, and they worry that time is running out for an effective Israeli attack as Tehran buries its nuclear facilities deeper underground.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

As a matter of fact, I do believe some good folks are already on it. The reason you might not have heard quite as much about these people is, yes, you are quite right; they are getting hunted down and shot for it. Which would be quite convenient for you, yes? The religious vigilantes do such a great job of silencing non-believers in those areas through use of terror and force, muting the story of their struggle so effectively that it is the similar, yet more effective and less threatened efforts in the West which takes up more airtime, allowing fine young ladies such as yourself to make such ignorant comments about how campaigners for freedom of thought like the billboard people should set their priorities straight.

In any case, just because there may be more pressing concerns in other lands, doesn't necessarily make local and perhaps less urgent efforts any less worthwhile. As a matter of fact, I do think the billboard people have a good reason for wanting to settle things in their own backyard first, given that a sizable minority of the inhabitants in their backyard are seriously considering such a character as a certain Mr Richard Santorum for the position of executive.

Wow... way to go making the ludicrous assumption that I find convenience in the violent silencing of anyone who voices dissent towards a repressive majority, which I don't. I don't know if I should find it laughable or offensive when all I did was point out an uncomfortable truth that people are being oppressed for their beliefs, religious or otherwise, when nothing in my statement makes any claims as to what I think these groups should or should not do. I only pointed out that if they intend to try to do this in more radically oppressive nations, their actions will likely cause some major ass backlash, and yet they'd be surprised how much support they'd get in such oppressive regimes. If they really want to find support, they might actually find it in places where oppression is rampant as opposed to more "free" nations such as the United States. The risk of persecution may be outweighed by the rewards.

Edit - My spelling sucks.

[Ridwan]

I guess I was a bit thermal. Continuous exposure to retards can be quite unhealthy. However I never like seeing, or even knowing that Kultuurkampf being so much a cool stuff nowadays. I can shrug it off with sarcasms most of the time but on occasions I just can't really help getting my button pushed...

@SaintessHeart : (On N.Korea) That move is certainly being directed to address domestic affairs, like usual.
(On Billboard) There

@Ascaloth : I was a bit thermal. But as hyperbolic as what I might have said is certainly not contradictory to Silverman's move, which is blatantly confrontational. There is certainly a bit of such spirit in there.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I have no qualms about them advertising their beliefs since I used to be an atheist myself, though I felt that they shouldn't have done it physically.

If they wanted to draw followers into their atheist club, they should have done "invitations" talk & debate. Not only would they learn more about other religions to counter them, they could gain more respect (which in turn leads to more followers) for being a peaceful ideology.

Strangely ironic that I managed to do some of this in a Jesuit university of all places. There were a lot of atheists in my alma mater, and they did it with respect for the religious beliefs of others, and they were easily treated with the same amount of respect in return. Civil debate and all that, and I somehow doubt that such in-your-face wording like this will get the same civil reaction out of people.

I have to assume that they'd know some touchy individuals will find such wording offensive.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Wow... way to go making the ludicrous assumption that I find convenience in the violent silencing of anyone who voices dissent towards a repressive majority, which I don't. I don't know if I should find it laughable or offensive when all I did was point out an uncomfortable truth that people are being oppressed for their beliefs, religious or otherwise, when nothing in my statement makes any claims as to what I think these groups should or should not do.

Oh? Let's review your previous statement again.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

If they really believe in what they're advertising, they should try doing it in a Middle-Eastern country.

Here you are, making a claim that the billboard people should take their efforts to the Middle East, and by extension, away from where they are currently concentrating their efforts. And given how you have not mentioned the actual efforts taken by non-believers in the Middle East to get their like-minded people out of the closet, as well as the violent persecution they have suffered for it, I can only assume that you have erstwhile been ignorant to their plight. The alternative possibility, that you have selectively blinded yourself to it, is far too abhorrent to consider for a fine young lady such as yourself, after all.

Additionally, I can find nothing in your previous statement that indicates you have pointed out any uncomfortable truth of the sort you mentioned, that people are being oppressed for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. Perhaps, you would be so kind as to enlighten me on how your omission of this particular point is equivalent to your having mentioned it?

Originally Posted by Aegir

@Ascaloth : I was a bit thermal. But as hyperbolic as what I might have said is certainly not contradictory to Silverman's move, which is blatantly confrontational. There is certainly a bit of such spirit in there.

Of course there is. These are a group of people who have been oppressed and kept in the closet for years by the highly religious communities they find themselves stuck in, so discriminated against that they are more distrusted than rapists by the unthinking masses who have bought into the lies told to them by their religious leaders. And all they are simply saying by this billboard campaign, is that they are not going to hide anymore in the face of social condemnation, and encouraging the like-minded people who fear to come out of the closet to fear no more, and come out of hiding. And you know, America? Freedom of speech? You seriously are going to condemn them for exercising a basic right in their supposedly democratic country?

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

I have to assume that they'd know some touchy individuals will find such wording offensive.

Funny how when a religious leader does it, it's a-okay for them, eh?

Here's a riddle. Taking the letters R, S, T, L, N, E:

T_e __t __ll_n_ t_e _ettle _l___

Can you solve it?

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Oh? Let's review your previous statement again.



Here you are, making a claim that the billboard people should take their efforts to the Middle East, and by extension, away from where they are currently concentrating their efforts. And given how you have not mentioned the actual efforts taken by non-believers in the Middle East to get their like-minded people out of the closet, as well as the violent persecution they have suffered for it, I can only assume that you have erstwhile been ignorant to their plight. The alternative possibility, that you have selectively blinded yourself to it, is far too abhorrent to consider for a fine young lady such as yourself, after all.

Additionally, I can find nothing in your previous statement that indicates you have pointed out any uncomfortable truth of the sort you mentioned, that people are being oppressed for their beliefs, religious or otherwise. Perhaps, you would be so kind as to enlighten me on how your omission of this particular point is equivalent to your having mentioned it?

1. I'm a guy.

2. Read the rest of the post which I edited after the board conked out on me.

3. I am fully aware of the plight of the people who practice some sort of system that is not Islam in countries like Saudi Arabia, who will cane you in public if they ever find you worshipping some deity other than Allah. Just because I fail to mention their plight and their efforts to change them does not blind me to them, but okay, I concede to not pointing out that point (the oppression, the efforts to fight them, etc.) in the first place, but yes I am aware.

4. Internet sarcasm is so cliche.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Funny how when a religious leader does it, it's a-okay for them, eh?

Here's a riddle. Taking the letters R, S, T, L, N, E:

T_e __t __ll_n_ t_e _ettle _l___

Can you solve it?

A kettle is a kettle no matter how black or the pitch is sings when it boils.

Seriously thought not everyone like me, or any religious person for that matter, would be in agreement of a religious leaders words and be distinctly selective towards it as opposed to someone with the same words but of a different world view. Words and language mean what they mean whether they come out of a priest, a rabbi, an imam or an atheist. An atheist calling someone a rapist carries as much weight as a religious person and vice versa. To put simply more trust in some person's claim merely on the pretense that s/he is a religious leader with a claim to moral authority without making you own intelligent judgment is stupid. I went to a more liberal (comparatively speaking anyway) for just that precise reason, as a Catholic who is personally at odds with almost fifty percent of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I'm not too sure about the ultrareligious whackjobs in your region, but you'd probably be surprised how many aren't as supportive of the clergy as the stereotype seems to suggest.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

1. I'm a guy.

Oh my, apologies. In my defense, it was an easy mistake to make.

3. I am fully aware of the plight of the people who practice some sort of system that is not Islam in countries like Saudi Arabia, who will cane you in public if they ever find you worshipping some deity other than Allah. Just because I fail to mention their plight and their efforts to change them does not blind me to them, but okay, I concede to not pointing out that point (the oppression, the efforts to fight them, etc.) in the first place, but yes I am aware.

Very well.

And to answer your previous point, I'll reiterate; just because there is a bigger issue to resolve in foreign lands, doesn't make any effort, however much easier and less dangerous it may seem, to be any less worthy. There is something to be said for cleaning house before focusing attention to other lands after all, as the unlucky souls stuck in that backward economic wasteland called the USA might attest to.

4. Internet sarcasm is so cliche.

Hey, a guy's gotta practice sometimes.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

A kettle is a kettle no matter how black or the pitch is sings when it boils.

Seriously where do find it to assume that me, or any religious person for that matter, would be in agreement of a religious leaders words and be distinctly selective towards it as opposed to someone with the same words but of a different world view? Words and language mean what they mean whether they come out of a priest, a rabbi, an imam or an atheist. An atheist calling someone a rapist carries as much weight as a religious person and vice versa. To put simply more trust in some person's claim merely on the pretense that s/he is a religious leader with a claim to moral authority without making you own intelligent judgment is stupid. I went to a more liberal (comparatively speaking anyway) for just that precise reason, as a Catholic who is personally at odds with almost fifty percent of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, stupid it may be, yet such stupidity runs rampant still even in professional organisations tasked to defend the liberty of non-combatants. When one sees as many examples of double standards with regards to differences in the perception between the religious and the non-religious, this double standard tends to be the first thing that comes to mind when one hears anyone sermonizing on how secular campaigners should conduct themselves.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Of course there is. These are a group of people who have been oppressed and kept in the closet for years by the highly religious communities they find themselves stuck in, so discriminated against that they are more distrusted than rapists by the unthinking masses who have bought into the lies told to them by their religious leaders. And all they are simply saying by this billboard campaign, is that they are not going to hide anymore in the face of social condemnation, and encouraging the like-minded people who fear to come out of the closet to fear no more, and come out of hiding. And you know, America? Freedom of speech? You seriously are going to condemn them for exercising a basic right in their supposedly democratic country?

Oh I'm sufficiently aware of the historical circumstances behind the situation. I'm sufficiently aware about what's behind the social momentum that has driven them (and many others) that senseless. And I can perfectly forsee how the possible results of their efforts won't remotely going to approach their expectation, their stated formal expectation at least.... If those basic rights include "the right to attempt painting religious people as inherently impulsively oppressive by trolling them" then I will call on reviewing those basic rights.

[MeoTwister5]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

And to answer your previous point, I'll reiterate; just because there is a bigger issue to resolve in foreign lands, doesn't make any effort, however much easier and less dangerous it may seem, to be any less worthy. There is something to be said for cleaning house before focusing attention to other lands after all, as the unlucky souls stuck in that backward economic wasteland called the USA might attest to.

There's a reason why I only watch Faux News for the lulz and not for the intellectual stimulation. And yes, you can put "Faux News" and "intellectual stimulation" in the same sentence.

Religious extremism is a scary thing, even the peaceful ones. I once tried attending church service in a very hardline church that was practically televangelism. That was the first time I really started to believe in people's willingness for mass hypnotism.

Indeed, stupid it may be, yet such stupidity runs rampant still even in professional organisations tasked to defend the liberty of non-combatants. When one sees as many examples of double standards with regards to differences in the perception between the religious and the non-religious, this double standard tends to be the first thing that comes to mind when one hears anyone sermonizing on how secular campaigners should conduct themselves.

Tolstoy said it best:

“Nowhere nor in anything, except in the assertion of the Church, can we find that God or Christ founded anything like what churchmen understand by the Church.”

In a way I'd probably more akin to a Tolstoyan, since I'm usually more in agreement with Christian Anarchism that organized religion. I find myself ultimately answerable to God and not to men in cloth. I'd really just have to say that a lot of Christian extremists forget one of the most important passages from Luke (17:21):

Neither shall they say, See here! or, see there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Aegir

Oh I'm sufficiently aware of the historical circumstances behind the situation. I'm sufficiently aware about what's behind the social momentum that has driven them (and many others) that senseless. And I can perfectly forsee how the possible results of their efforts won't remotely going to approach their expectation, their stated formal expectation at least.... If those basic rights include "the right to attempt painting religious people as inherently impulsively oppressive by trolling them" then I will call on reviewing those basic rights.

Last I heard, the right to freedom of speech did not include the right to not be offended.

And putting your Appeal to Motive aside, thank you for admitting that you are in favour of censorship of free speech. Your honesty in this regard is much appreciated, and noted.

Originally Posted by MeoTwister5

Religious extremism is a scary thing, even the peaceful ones. I once tried attending church service in a very hardline church that was practically televangelism. That was the first time I really started to believe in people's willingness for mass hypnotism.

Aye, I've had the same experience. Bad times, bad times.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

Last I heard, the right to freedom of speech did not include the right to not be offended.

And putting your Appeal to Motive aside, thank you for admitting that you are in favour of censorship of free speech. Your honesty in this regard is much appreciated, and noted.

Nah, I simply don't like my beloved uncensored free speech being milked for fanning conflicts unrewarding for noble causes instead of for more civil efforts that can be more effective and more befitting to be employed by so-called "defenders of reason". And putting words to someone else's mouth isn't exactly the way to win civil points.
Judging from what the article has pointed out about their records, I won't expect much from them.

[Ascaloth]

Originally Posted by Aegir

Nah, I simply don't like my beloved uncensored free speech being milked for fanning conflicts unrewarding for noble causes instead of for more civil efforts that can be more effective and more befitting to be employed by so-called "defenders of reason". And putting words to someone else's mouth isn't exactly the way to win civil points.
Judging from what the article has pointed out about their records, I won't expect much from them.

I cannot help but notice how you keep failing to notice that "fanning conflicts" is not, and never was, the point of the billboard campaign. At this point, I'm going to have to assume that, for one reason or another, you are choosing not to see it, given how you seem to be actively avoiding having to address the point I brought up.

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I have no qualms about them advertising their beliefs since I used to be an atheist myself, though I felt that they shouldn't have done it physically.

If they wanted to draw followers into their atheist club, they should have done "invitations" talk & debate. Not only would they learn more about other religions to counter them, they could gain more respect (which in turn leads to more followers) for being a peaceful ideology.

Not to interrupt you folks, I just wanted to jump in to clarify, atheism itself is not an ideology. It is a singular rejection of a single assertion, which is the only thing any two atheists are absolutely guaranteed to have in common. That's all I wanted to say.

[risingstar3110]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-rebels.html

Libya not gonna be so safe for Westerner for several years to come i guess

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

I cannot help but notice how you keep failing to notice that "fanning conflicts" is not, and never was, the point of the billboard campaign. At this point, I'm going to have to assume that, for one reason or another, you are choosing not to see it, given how you seem to be actively avoiding having to address the point I brought up.

There are two possibilities :

a) They're purely that short-sighted and impatient believing that what they're doing is the most effective way to draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintanable.

b) They're purely that short-sighted and impatient believing that what they're doing is the most effective way to draw closeted atheists out in largest rate achievable and maintainable, by consciously trying to stir conflicts within the religious communities to separate the minerals from the ores, while simultaneously "demonstrate" how inherently palaeololithical religious peoples are and thus scoring ideological points over the unreasoned myth believers.

Judging from how they behave, it's safe to decide on b). And not only their method will likely drive the religious more confrontational and close-minded, there also won't be much outflow of freed atheists coming their way, much less continuously, compared to what they could've achieved by building more compassionate public image. What they want is to ignite an epic confrontation where they can come out as victorious freethinkers with their rationally-based arguments unconfrontable by verses from books based on imaginary perceptions about reality, which will cause large scale abandonment of religion in favor of reason, which explains the level of their political sensibility and their grasp over how human socio-psychology works. Scenario a) demonstrates even less amount of those but at least there is no destructive intention in it (though will certainly bare the same result).

They're gonna fail ultimately. And I don't like it when attempts to encourage people to use more of logic and reason to evaluate things (especially religion) end up in failure, especially when caused by the ironical use of methods not grounded on logical sensibilities, inspired by wishful teleological visions. All they will serve us with will be mind-degenerating flame wars that will lead us to nowhere, and I have been exposed to them at a frequency more then I need in a lifetime !

[JC...]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-rebels.html

Libya not gonna be so safe for Westerner for several years to come i guess

Sad but unsurprising. I'm surprised there's so much coverage of this, but seen very little about black Africans being imprisoned and abused.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...an-rebels.html

Libya not gonna be so safe for Westerner for several years to come i guess

Their mosques wouldn't even be standing, or they wouldn't even be alive without the Desert Rats. The British have fought on their behalf twice in history, and this is how they repay them?

[JC...]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Their mosques wouldn't even be standing, or they wouldn't even be alive without the Desert Rats. The British have fought on their behalf twice in history, and this is how they repay them?

It's what 'we' get for aiding an out of control militant faction... The only things stopping this happening in Syria are China and Russia. Besides they probably have little knowledge of history.

[Ridwan]

Originally Posted by JC...

It's what 'we' get for aiding an out of control militant faction... The only things stopping this happening in Syria are China and Russia. Besides they probably have little knowledge of history.

Hmm, I wonder if history classes held during Qadhaffi era have anything to do with this occurence...