I have no problem being in a category, that is how I find like minds to associate with.
I'm gay, I go to a gay bar to meet other gays.
I am atheist, I can go to atheist meetings to meet other atheists.
I also know from many years of gay activism, The only thing that happens when you try to dodged the label, the people that apply the label out of hate will see it as being ashamed of being that label.
I am not ashamed of being an atheist and I am PROUD to be in that category.
Don't care what the Pluto Killer thinks of the word Atheist.
Tons of atheists disagree with you Einstein and Sagan.
As the movement builds, those that run away from the atheist label will be left in the dust.
They sound like gays making excuses for not coming out of the closet. The same reasons in both cases.
It does not matter if he takes on the label, those that that will assign the baggage will label him as such and dump the baggage anyway. The only thing he accomplishes is giving the impression that he is ashamed of being gay to those that label him as such.
They should take a clue from gays when it comes to activism.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2015 10:26PM by MJ.
being Atheist is totally a choice, even though, like he said, it's not even anything, other than a choice, to have an adversarial relationship with the vast majority of the population that is theist. Bad analogy.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2015 10:32PM by koriwhore.
Neil wants to avoid the label because he doesn't want it to interfere with the conversations he is interested in having. Maybe he thinks if he doesn't avoid the label people will tell him atheists are more hated than rapists rather than talking about science.
Good point. I'm sure the religious don't like it when Tyson the tolerant says this:
"The problem arises is if you have a religious philosophy that is not based on objective realities that you then want to put in a science classroom. Then I’m going to stand there and say, “No, I’m not going to allow you in the science classroom.” I’m not telling you what to think, I’m just telling you in the science class, “You’re not doing science. This is not science. Keep it out.” That’s where I, that’s when I stand up. Otherwise, go ahead. I’m not telling you how to think."
By running away from the choice, they think they have you on the run AND CAN CHANGE YOU. Hell, they try to change gays even though it is not a choice. I can't imagine what they would do if they thought we were at all ashamed of who we are.
WHen they attack the label (and they will apply it) and you start to back away form it, they will see you as ashamed.
But hey, let the haters define what you call yourself. Give them that power.,
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2015 10:39PM by MJ.
But lettings define how you are labeled is a bad thing.
Hey, Koriwhore, why don't you do us a favor and check in with the Mormons and let us know what we can't label ourselves as. If we can't use certain labels because they heap baggage on it, we need someone to let us know what those words are!.
Even though being gay is not a choice, the haters still claim that it is. It does not matter what we are or how we label ourselves, it does not matter to the haters. But if we run and hide from what we are, we appear ashamed to the haters.
I find it interesting how some people can't get past labels and talk about ideas. I've found Tal and Koriwhore's threads about atheism fascinating. It seems that the question of whether something is a bad idea, not true, unsupported by evidence is irrelevant to them. It's a paradox to me.
In their world, how do you reject a bad idea? If you reject religion, you're potentially an evil atheist rapist. If you're in the mormon church, you're a member of a fraud. Strange stuff.
The reason why you have trouble understanding why people can not get past the labels is because it is not the labels that are the issue. It is not baggage people attach to the issue that is the problem. Worrying about the label does not actually address the issues behind it. Take on a new label and the baggage then gets attached to the new label.
That is why we went from the "N" word, to colored, to people of color, to African American. All the worry about the label and changing labels did not change the bigotry behind the labels.
The labels issue is a red herring that wastes time and accomplishes nothing other than aiding and abetting the enemy.
dagny Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know, right? > > Most people here don't form their views based on > cult of personality.
I know. But hey its good to see you here Dagny !!!!!!!
I think a God of creation can be disproven. How can a god of creation create itself.
If you need a creator to create everything, there is no creator to create the creator. If there is a creator without creation, then a creator is not needed for creation and there was no creator that created the creator.
deGrasse sounds like he is covering his ass and trying to avoid controversy so he can keep doing all those TV shows.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/09/2015 12:08AM by MJ.
What God are we talking about? There's a good chance we just happened. The evidence is leaning in that direction. However, we also can't say that 100% there isn't a God.
Humans have already been wrong about 10s of thousands of gods, even if there is a God. Humans have a lousy track record in regards to the existence of God.
I think it clear that the preponderance of the evidence is already on the there is no god side. I personally believe that the evidence is beyond reasonable doubt. Of course there are those that will insist on 100% proof, but very little is proven to that extent.
MJ-- Buddy, you are probably in the 99.9% category. Maybe even 99.99999% category. The catch is you, nor anyone that was ever alive, can or can't say that God ever existed.
Having two choices, 99.999999999999% to 0.00000000000i
Would you really try to use words that make them seem like the are equal possibilities? If a God really exists can't be proven either way? It would clearly be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Evolution is not proven 100%, but people claim it fact.