You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
"At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but what the fuck?

Do any of you audiophiles outside California get the "gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" banner ad?

"Yes On 8?"

Perhaps "Yes on 8" is really some form of obtuse reference to speaker impedance not being allowed to dip too low?

Well, at leat nobody can claim that Stereophile leans too far to the left any more.

On the plus side, if 8 passes, maybe we can move on to addressing the shamble heteros have made out of the institution of marriage.

A 50% divorce rate amongst heteros doesn't exactly do marriage proud.

I say, protect marriage from heteros!

Vote yes on 69!

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I think it was Kinky Freidman who 1st said gays should be allowed to marry.
After all, they have as much right to be miserable as the rest of us.

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Online
Last seen: 12 min 7 sec ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Do any of you audiophiles outside California get the "gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" banner ad?

What banner ad? Where?

Kal

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

No such ad here - just a boring get your PCB boards made in China ad.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Do any of you audiophiles outside California get the "gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" banner ad?

What banner ad? Where?

Kal

Top of the main page and forum headers.

Click on it and it takes you here:

Stereophile Approved Message?

And here:

Do you get a group shot of the four candidates?

Kal Rubinson
Kal Rubinson's picture
Online
Last seen: 12 min 7 sec ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 9:34am
Nope.

Nope. Clicked on your links and saw what you said but could not get there from clicking any headers directly. Just the usual stuff.

Must be targeted at you.

Kal

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Nope.

They must know I'm in Cali, Cali.

So, I wonder who approves Stereophile's banner ads?

Could it be...

Satan?

AeWingnut
AeWingnut's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Aug 18 2007 - 6:45pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

stop gay sex

support gay marriage

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
stop gay sex

support gay marriage


"Legalize necrophilia between consenting adults." - Tim Powers

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Do any of you audiophiles outside California get the "gays shouldn't be allowed to get married" banner ad?


No, but we have something similar on the ballot here in Connecticut. I don't object to those people trying to influence opinion with ads, but the radio ads that run here never admit their agenda. They just tell us to vote for "letting voters decide issues directly" without saying what issue is at stake. In this case, banning gay marriage. At least they do say at the end of the ad that it's sponsored by the Catholic League. So I guess anyone with half a brain can figure it out.

--Ethan

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Of all the off-the-wall threads on this site, I find this one the most refreshing. Last Wednesday, my neighbor and I chased two Xtian Fundamentalists off our block. They had traveled here from Chicago and Seattle in order to save my Hispanic neighbors from the likes of me and my husband David. Later in the day, I spent hours trying to get police to stop a party of gang members dealing cocaine on my block. They're the same gang members who used to yell fag at us as we walked and drove by. It's so refreshing to know that heterosexuals have their family values straight.

Anyway, I appreciate the support for our marriage that I infer from this thread.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Yes, plenty of support. My gay nephew just got married two weeks ago, though they had to fly to Seattle.

--Ethan

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 1 month ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
They're the same gang members who used to yell fag at us as we walked and drove by.

You just don't appreciate there are activists on either end of the socio-economic spectrum. They just want to make your neighborhood safer for pimps and whores. Plus, they're jealous you don't have to deal with WAF- while they argue over where to put the stolen boomboxes.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Of all the off-the-wall threads on this site, I find this one the most refreshing. Last Wednesday, my neighbor and I chased two Xtian Fundamentalists off our block. They had traveled here from Chicago and Seattle in order to save my Hispanic neighbors from the likes of me and my husband David. Later in the day, I spent hours trying to get police to stop a party of gang members dealing cocaine on my block. They're the same gang members who used to yell fag at us as we walked and drove by. It's so refreshing to know that heterosexuals have their family values straight.

Anyway, I appreciate the support for our marriage that I infer from this thread.

Well, then again, maybe they flew all that way because they want to save your neighbors from buying a Quantum QX4.

So, Jason, any idea why Stereophile would sell such ad space?

Did you get the same banner ads I did?

Dirty money, man. Dirty money.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: Nope.


Quote:
They must know I'm in Cali, Cali.

So, I wonder who approves Stereophile's banner ads?

It appears this ad is being placed through Google and is being targeted at California-based ISPs. We are taking action to have it blocked, but the point will soon be moot, of course.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Nope.


Quote:
We are taking action to have it blocked, but the point will soon be moot, of course.


Hopefully in more ways than one.

The more happily marrieds - of whatever stripe - the better.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Nope.

im a traditional type guy with a southern upbringing, but I despise political ads. havent read rolling stone in years for that very reason. it has become nothing more than a leftist battle cry propaganda machine with a few shit reviews of shit music.

aquinas
aquinas's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 4 2008 - 5:22pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Jason,

First off, I've enjoyed what you have written in stereophile; there are several of you guys that use the language well, and it's a pleasure to read.
I'm a bit disturbed when you talk about running Christians off your block. I don't mean to offend, but who thinks of Christianity as something that needs to be run off the block, as if Christians are akin to drug dealers?
I understand that you're gay. I also understand how being gay may influence your views on certain things, such as faith. I also respect your right to say anything you wish and live anyway that you choose. I do not understand what I interpret to be intolerance on your part toward Christians. Am I the only one here thinking this?
Would it be okay if there were ads on/in stereophile supporting gay marriage?
Anyway, I thought you should know that some of us Christians have no problem with who you are, but with what you say. We wouldn't run you off of our block. Come to think of it, how exactly did you run somebody off?

Christians like hifi, too.

-Doug

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Jason,

First off, I've enjoyed what you have written in stereophile; there are several of you guys that use the language well, and it's a pleasure to read.
I'm a bit disturbed when you talk about running Christians off your block. I don't mean to offend, but who thinks of Christianity as something that needs to be run off the block, as if Christians are akin to drug dealers?
I understand that you're gay. I also understand how being gay may influence your views on certain things, such as faith. I also respect your right to say anything you wish and live anyway that you choose. I do not understand what I interpret to be intolerance on your part toward Christians. Am I the only one here thinking this?
Would it be okay if there were ads on/in stereophile supporting gay marriage?
Anyway, I thought you should know that some of us Christians have no problem with who you are, but with what you say. We wouldn't run you off of our block. Come to think of it, how exactly did you run somebody off?

Christians like hifi, too.

-Doug

Hi Aquinas,

I really appreciate your post and the distinction you raise. I stand corrected.

Although I was raised in the Jewish religion, I believe strongly in the message and teachings of Jesus Christ. I do not believe in religious zealots who mask bigotry and hatred in the name of Jesus Christ. We could have a contest to see which major religion is responsible for the most death and destruction in the world.

The people we chased off our block were the equivalent of the Christian missionaries who robbed native cultures of earth-based, feminist-based religion and supported governments that killed those they wished to exploit. Proposition 8 in CA was largely funded by the Mormon Church and Catholic organizations. They sent missionaries from out of state - the people we chased off the block were from Seattle and Chicago - to LIE to people. They claimed that same-sex marriage would force churches to marry gays and lesbians. NOT TRUE. They claimed that same-sex marriage is anti-family, and detrimental to children. ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. They claimed that banning same-sex marriage was a way to support religious rights. LIE.

Huge antipathy to same-sex marriage came from black churches. These were the same ministers who denied, and often continue to deny, that AIDS has decimated the African-American population. They are old, hard-line denialists, afraid that homosexuality somehow weakens manhood. And the entire African-American population suffers as a result.

I am committed to spending 7 hours today in public safety meetings in Oakland City Hall. Must go offline and prepare. Never let it be said that gays and lesbians do not work for the highest good.

jason victor serinus

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Never let it be said that gays and lesbians do not work for the highest good.


Some do. Some don't.

Oddly enough, just like every other group of people.

Annoying how every group manages to squirm out of its definitional box.

aquinas
aquinas's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 4 2008 - 5:22pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Jason,

Thank you for your appreciation of my previous post. This one, though, I

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Aquinas, very well spoken, Sir.

Jason, I don't know what your story is entirely, but you are, no doubt, doing a great disservice to Stereophile by posting some of the things that you do.. Something about you makes me uneasy, (and no, it isnt your sexual preference).

maybe we need an editor for the forums.

edit... I hope that Stereophile will spare the readers the political commentary..... Lord knows we have enough left leaning rags already.

Audio technology. Gear. Music Reviews..


Quote:
Jason,

Thank you for your appreciation of my previous post. This one, though, I

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" for a full examination of this.


A fascinating, superbly reasoned and written book.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
maybe we need an editor for the forums.


Yes!

My posts would greatly benefit from the ministrations of a good editor.

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Read Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" for a full examination of this.


A fascinating, superbly reasoned and written book.


I must respectfully disagree with JA & Elk on Dawkins' book. I loved reading "The Selfish Gene," but I found "The God Delusion" bumbling. As a scientist, he does not engage in a serious inquiry into the problem, instead relying on rhetoric and attack. In approaching religion, he commits the cardinal sin as a scientist - he abandons the scientific method. Granted he is not writing a book on science, but the methodological reason by which he attempts to debunk God is profoundly & purportedly "scientific". He takes a conjectural hack saw to the "God phenomenon" even before carefully assessing the phenomenon itself. Which results in his idea of God being ridiculously primitive, basic, and unsophisticated... too much to write about but those that are curious can read this excellent bashing of Dawkins' book by H. Allen Orr, one of the world's foremost evolutionary geneticists & authors, on New York Review of Books here:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

I'd link other reviews by different scientists and critics, but don't have enough time to hunt...

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 5 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I find the idea of using the scientific method to put God into human terms foolish and arrogant. God(he, she, it or whatever) has never, and will never be a part of the natural world. God was not created, but has always been. The Arrogance of some atheists is appalling.

that Dawkins book is pure shlock.. my 6 year old nephew with autism could provide a more compelling argument.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I like Dawkins a little, but his book does not accomplish what he intends.

Some things remain ineffable.

I find certainty at either end of this spectrum to be the real joke.

As for Dawkins and Hitchens, they are faux atheists.

They are mad at God and this is their little fit of pique. They are trying to punish the concept of God for some primal wrong they felt they were done.

They yell at God, telling Him He doesn't exist.

(I'm an atheist, myself, but Dawkins and Hitchens are strident crybabies.)

aquinas
aquinas's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 4 2008 - 5:22pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

John,

When I wrote that Christianity is not responsible for death and destruction in the world, I was speaking (as it were) of the present. As in today. Right now. I was attempting neither to rewrite history nor to deny that atrocities have been committed by people calling themselves Christians. I

judicata
judicata's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 26 2008 - 11:55am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

John,

I've got to partially disagree with you here.

First, of course you can separate fanatical extremists within a group and refrain from generalizing to the group itself. In other words, while it is obvious that many dreadful acts have been done in the name of religion, it is fanaticism/extremism that causes it. Not religion itself. Heck, I'm sure if you got a bunch of crazy atheists together, something similar would happen. Stop blaming religion for stuff - it's extremely annoying and disingenuous.

Second, as a Libertarian, I obviously agree that people should generally be able to do whatever they like without the government stepping in (of course there are limits when we interfere with others' right - murder being an easy example). This is especially true when it comes to legislating morality - it simply isn't the government's job to tell people what is moral or immoral. In this case, whether same-sex married couples should be able to marrry. Therefore, I say let them.

But, I do not question the sincerity of the anti-same-sex-marriage group as a whole. While it is clear that some of them are insincere or just plain nuts, some (I think probably most) of them are sincere but simply wrong. In other words, although I believe they're wrong, they do sincerely believe that allowing same-sex marriage cheapens some conception of "family" and they're voting to stop it. Of course, their position offends me on multiple levels (especially since they're legislating morality), but I don't question the sincerity of the group as a whole.

Welshsox
Welshsox's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 9 months ago
Joined: Dec 13 2006 - 7:27pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I find the idea of using the scientific method to put God into human terms foolish and arrogant. God(he, she, it or whatever) has never, and will never be a part of the natural world. God was not created, but has always been. The Arrogance of some atheists is appalling.

that Dawkins book is pure shlock.. my 6 year old nephew with autism could provide a more compelling argument.

Interesting to view non believers as arrogant.

Just because we dont buy into the worlds biggest ever marketing scam ( religion ) there is no need to say we are arrogant. Its not unreasonable to ask for proof of something before believing in it.

Alan

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

"Excellent bashing" indeed. Great link and a wonderful read. Thanks.

I never took Dawkin's book as science -more as an interesting exploration of the topic.

The history of philosophy is replete with proofs and disproofs of the existence of a god, none of which I find compelling.

It's the discussion itself that fascinates.

I find each of the extreme positions on the question of a god's existence equally unpalatable.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Doug,

Great last post. I don't agree with all of what you write, but you present your thoughts cogently and respectfully.

Kudos.

You write:


Quote:
This relates specifically to Prop 8, which is not a legislative initiative, but rather a ballot initiative, and does not take away any of our rights.

How do you answer the objection that the proposition does indeed take away rights, the right of same-sex partners to marry?

A couple of days ago, they had this right. Today they do not.

Heterosexuals certainly think of the ability to marry as recognized by the state, together with marriage's additional benefits, as a sacrosanct right.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I must respectfully disagree with JA & Elk on Dawkins' book. I loved reading "The Selfish Gene," but I found "The God Delusion" bumbling. As a scientist, he does not engage in a serious inquiry into the problem, instead relying on rhetoric and attack. In approaching religion, he commits the cardinal sin as a scientist - he abandons the scientific method.

Problem is, selfdivider, that as Stephen Jay Gould has written, matters of faith are not open to investigation using Scientific Method in that hypotheses cannot be falsified.

Google Pastafarianism for a completely bogus but internally self-consistent, self-justifying model of a religion. Now you may not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but there is no way of using Scientific Method to prove that there is no such being.


Quote:
those that are curious can read this excellent bashing of Dawkins' book by H. Allen Orr, one of the world's foremost evolutionary geneticists & authors, on New York Review of Books here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

I will check it out. But what I do find interesting is the suggestion that religious belief confers an evolutionary advantage on the group of believers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Its not unreasonable to ask for proof of something before believing in it.


Yes, and that applies to believing in many audiophile tweaks as well as believing in god.

--Ethan

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
When I wrote that Christianity is not responsible for death and destruction in the world, I was speaking (as it were) of the present. As in today. Right now. I was attempting neither to rewrite history nor to deny that atrocities have been committed by people calling themselves Christians.

Understood. But in the cases I mentioned, the person responsible for the genocides and calling himself a "christian" was the Pope, who by definition _is_ a Christian.


Quote:
I
linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
I must respectfully disagree with JA & Elk on Dawkins' book. I loved reading "The Selfish Gene," but I found "The God Delusion" bumbling. As a scientist, he does not engage in a serious inquiry into the problem, instead relying on rhetoric and attack. In approaching religion, he commits the cardinal sin as a scientist - he abandons the scientific method.

Problem is, selfdivider, that as Stephen Jay Gould has written, matters of faith are not open to investigation using Scientific Method in that hypotheses cannot be falsified.


Very true, JA. But it doesn't mean that the scientific methodology to verify/debunk God's existence hasn't been used. In fact, history tells us that the converse is true. From Aquinas or the entire school of Rationalist scientist-philosophers, like Descartes, to the post-Darwinian evolutionary scientists, the philosophers and scientists have indeed used the rationalist model of scientific inquiry to debate God.

Which is what Dawkins himself does in his book, as well, to a large degree, as he tries to prove that the "God Hypothesis" is improbable. The logic which Dawkins uses to debunk the "God Hypothesis" in his book is not so different from the scientific logic, wouldn't you agree, JA? I believe that Dawkins set his argument up in that fashion, but did not properly investigate the hypothesis beyond received notions and commonly perceived prejudices concerning religion (which is the bulk of Orr's argument in NYRB review...). Which kind of reduces Dawkins' argument to a highly entertaining (sometimes) and subjective rant that is ultimately flawed and unconvincing, at least for me.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

It is indeed true that it is not possible to logically either prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

To be an atheist requires the same act of faith as to be a theist.
Both stances exist outside of the rational.

The only purely rational stance is to be agnostic.
Or, another way of putting it is the only stance that doesn't require an act of faith is to be agnostic.

Acts of faith are uninteresting to me which is why I am agnostic.

I neither know nor care if there is a deity, it doesn't affect my existential life.

I do find it disturbing that some of the religious posters here have so nonchalantly shown there bigotry as if there were nothing wrong with it.

At Jesuit High school our class in christian existentialism dealt very effectively with the futility of trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

One either makes that leap of faith (transcending rationality some would say)
or one doesn't.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
It is indeed true that it is not possible to logically either prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

To be an atheist requires the same act of faith as to be a theist.
Both stances exist outside of the rational.

The only purely rational stance is to be agnostic.
Or, another way of putting it is the only stance that doesn't require an act of faith is to be agnostic.

Acts of faith are uninteresting to me which is why I am agnostic.

I neither know nor care if there is a deity, it doesn't affect my existential life.

I do find it disturbing that some of the religious posters here have so nonchalantly shown there bigotry as if there were nothing wrong with it.

At Jesuit High school our class in christian existentialism dealt very effectively with the futility of trying to prove or disprove the existence of a deity.

One either makes that leap of faith (transcending rationality some would say)
or one doesn't.

Utter pap, my friend.

Atheism is the lack of faith, nothing more to it. Atheism requires no leap.

Atheism merely states that the evidence in favor of believing in the existence of God is insufficient to generate faith.

Done deal.

I can't believe how many times I've heard people attack atheism as a "belief."

I would offer that the default setting in my case is "no God," and that I have not been offered sufficient evidence to engage belief.

Please stop using that old BS about atheists taking a leap of faith, just like the theists.

It's ridiculous.

Do you actively 'believe' that there is no Zeus? Do you intentionally take a reverse leap of faith when you say you don't believe in Thor or Odin?

You spend time actively disbelieving in the existence of Ra, Apollo, Shiva, et al?

Or, do they just fail to meet muster to engage belief?

I share the same state of belief with my Christian brothers in that none of us believe in 788 of the 799 listed deities. We agree on all but one.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Utter pap, my friend.

Atheism is the lack of faith, nothing more to it. Atheism requires no leap.

Arguing that atheism requires irrational faith is akin to the creationists arguing that evolution is religious.


Quote:
I share the same state of belief with my Christian brothers in that none of us believe in 788 of the 799 listed deities. We agree on all but one.


Except I am drawn to Ganesha.

How could one not like a deity that resembles an elephant and beneficently removes obstacles?

Cool dude.

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Everything is but a dream within which existence is experienced. There is no provable reality outside the images that dance in our heads. To deny, embrace or ignore this is irrelevant. It simply is.

ethanwiner
ethanwiner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 2:26pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
the default setting in my case is "no God," and that I have not been offered sufficient evidence to engage belief.


Same here. When a believer tells me I can't prove there's no god, I point out that I can't prove the moon isn't made of green cheese either. Sure, we've sent men to the moon, and they brought back soil samples. But starting ten feet below the surface is solid green cheese. For now nobody can prove otherwise, so should we believe it?

--Ethan

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Everything is but a dream within which existence is experienced. There is no provable reality outside the images that dance in our heads. To deny, embrace or ignore this is irrelevant. It simply is.


We collectively got over this little fallacy hundreds of years ago.

But it remains a favorite of high school students and college freshman everywhere.

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
those that are curious can read this excellent bashing of Dawkins' book by H. Allen Orr, one of the world's foremost evolutionary geneticists & authors, on New York Review of Books here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19775

I will check it out. But what I do find interesting is the suggestion that religious belief confers an evolutionary advantage on the group of believers.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


Well, that hypothesis is very much in line with Dawkins' notion of memetic evolution espoused in "The Selfish Gene," and religion or faith would then be seen as a cultural artifact, a "meme", whose evolutionary trajectory would be analogous to a gene's. Which is to say both their trajectories, then, would necessarily be Darwinian.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Utter pap, my friend.

Atheism is the lack of faith, nothing more to it. Atheism requires no leap.

Arguing that atheism requires irrational faith is akin to the creationists arguing that evolution is religious.


Quote:
I share the same state of belief with my Christian brothers in that none of us believe in 788 of the 799 listed deities. We agree on all but one.


Except I am drawn to Ganesha.

How could one not like a deity that resembles an elephant and beneficently removes obstacles?

Cool dude.

Ganesha is our house god. He shares duty with several Buddhas.

Our NFS Audio icon is a Buddha. But they both come to the show with us...

That is my favorite Ganesha. Like Shiva, he also has two manifestations. The other aspect of Ganesha is usually placed on the lower back of statues of him. (I won't spoil the punch line.)

We actually designed the main axis of our home to have good Buddha Feng Shi...

This is our other Buddhist statue in back...

Our first T.H.E...

Another favorite 'religious' icon...

Ganesha, a better look...

NFS Audio Buddha...

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Everything is but a dream within which existence is experienced. There is no provable reality outside the images that dance in our heads. To deny, embrace or ignore this is irrelevant. It simply is.


We collectively got over this little fallacy hundreds of years ago.


Really? Enlighten me, please.


Quote:
But it remains a favorite of high school students and college freshman everywhere.

Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten...

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Everything is but a dream within which existence is experienced. There is no provable reality outside the images that dance in our heads.


Quote:
We collectively got over this little fallacy hundreds of years ago.

But it remains a favorite of high school students and college freshman everywhere.

What then is the current explanation of individual consciousness and the "physical reality" we perceive? Just curious.

Ay, that is the question and therein lies the rub...

It has as many answers as there are people answering.

I like this one:

"All the world's a stage,
And all the men and women merely players:
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts,
His acts being seven ages

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

To steal from Madonna, I can sum it up for you...

Some boys are idealists, some boys dualists

I think they're o.k.

If they dont give me proper insights

I just walk away

They can argue and they can plead

But they can't see the light, thats right

'cause the boy with the cold hard reality

Is always mister right, cause we are

Living in a material world

And I am a noumenal girl

You know that we are living in a noumenal world

And I am a material girl...

Or something like that.

*(Obtuse joke disclaimer)

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

It is not pap Buddha.
Rather than go into this I refer you to Camus, Myth of sissyphus.

The only stance that doesn't require some level of belief is agnosticism.
I think you are letting your emotions get in the way of rational thought.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 1 week ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I have not previously seen a representation of Ganesha playing any musical instrument. Neat.

Thanks for the pics.

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
It is not pap Buddha.
Rather than go into this I refer you to Camus, Myth of sissyphus.

The only stance that doesn't require some level of belief is agnosticism.
I think you are letting your emotions get in the way of rational thought.

I think it really boils down to how "atheism" is defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

What is a newborn child; atheist, agnostic, theist or gnostic?

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading