• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Forum moderator applications are now open! Click here for details.
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Atheist Alliance

Alice

(>^.(>0.0)>
3,077
Posts
15
Years
Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room

What do you guys think? I was speechless... prior to this I supported the 'It gets better foundation' and was thinking of doing something to help it, now I'm not so sure. What was he thinking?

Accepting Christians as your enemy is the entirely wrong way to do things... they may think of us as their enemy, but we don't have to return the favor. It's the same as if you're the good honest student, and someone is constantly bullying you... no one will ever notice the bully, but if you retaliate, you will get caught, and you will be punished as if you started the whole thing. He just retaliated, unfortunately.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room

What do you guys think? I was speechless... prior to this I supported the 'It gets better foundation' and was thinking of doing something to help it, now I'm not so sure. What was he thinking?
First, just because Savage is the founder of It Gets Better doesn't mean that everything he does is automatically related to that movement. If you have issues with IGB then you should take issue with it over its own merits or flaws.

I think what he did was polarizing and extreme. Normally when someone does or proposes something so far from the mindset of the status quo it makes them afraid and more willing to accept someone with similar views who is more moderate. I'd say that's a good thing because it helps the idea gain traction, but in this case I don't think it works very well since there really isn't an in between place.
 

CarefulWetPaint

Doctor Lobotomy
1,193
Posts
12
Years
Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room

What do you guys think? I was speechless... prior to this I supported the 'It gets better foundation' and was thinking of doing something to help it, now I'm not so sure. What was he thinking?

Just because he is the founder of something doesn't mean his views are the exact same as the foundations, refusing to help them out now because of one thing one member did is a little bit silly I think, but it's your call in the end.

Regarding Savage.. WOW, he definitely went over the top. I think it's fine if you think something like that and he may of had some valid points but attacking a religion to get your views across is not the correct way to go about it. Mocking the people who walked out of the room is definitely taking it to far, as you shouldn't attack someones beliefs. I think he could have definitely gotten his point across in a much more friendly way which would have actually had people take note on it. Though if he didn't do this would it have gotten as much exposure as he has gotten from doing it? Who knows, though the article did have his reason's in it which people would now be thinking of. That's my take on it anyway.
 

CyanFlame

Gotta get the sauce
43
Posts
11
Years
  • Seen Jul 10, 2012
*I'm not atheist but I have a question:*
-What's the difference between being an atheist and not having a religion?-
 

CarefulWetPaint

Doctor Lobotomy
1,193
Posts
12
Years
*I'm not atheist but I have a question:*
-What's the difference between being an atheist and not having a religion?-

An atheist believes there's no god(s) or deities.
And by not having a religion I'm going to assume you mean agnostic means that you don't think it is possible to prove the existence of or truth of religious claims to be true.
(Excuse me if I'm wrong or if I generalized not having a religion the wrong way.)

I hope that helps you out and answered you question (at least a little bit.)
 

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.
8,959
Posts
13
Years
droomph said:
However the ones who are 35 and have a six-figure job and still want an abortion? No. They should be forced to enjoy the luxury (or punishment) of a child, because you have liven long enough with full freedom to do whatever you wish, and in this case everything you said is true and fully valid.

Even that is a huge judgment call to make on something that is none of your business, and that's the whole problem with the pro-life movement. Everything they say comes across as passing judgment on the lives and decisions of others when they have no right to do so.

FrostPhoenix said:
Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room

What do you guys think? I was speechless... prior to this I supported the 'It gets better foundation' and was thinking of doing something to help it, now I'm not so sure. What was he thinking?

As Scarf said, he is not the It Gets Better foundation. If you are re-considering doing something to help them out because of this, it says way more about you than it does about him or the foundation.

As for the speech itself, actually ripping the Bible might have been a little over the top considering how funny people get about that sort of thing, but the point he was trying to make is valid and I just saw it as a visual aid to what he was saying. Provocative? Sure, but sometimes to get a point across you have to be.

The thing is that as many wonderful Christians as there are who are fine with the gay thing and support gay rights, there are an equal or greater number of idiots out there who use their religion as a scapegoat for their bigotry. Because of that, speeches like Savage's still need to be made. It's good and well to talk about how not all Christians are that way and therefore Christianity is not the enemy, but this is something we already know, and being complacent about the rest of them because of that won't get anybody anywhere. There are still bigots out there and change isn't made by settling for what you have. Sometimes you have to do something to get noticed. He succeeded.

Overall, I think the tearing of the Bible may have been extreme and I understand why people would be offended by it, but it got a news article written, didn't it? There are millions of copies of that book, this may well be the first time one of them has been used for something positive.
 

droomph

weeb
4,285
Posts
12
Years
Even that is a huge judgment call to make on something that is none of your business, and that's the whole problem with the pro-life movement. Everything they say comes across as passing judgment on the lives and decisions of others when they have no right to do so.
I said...vasectommmyyyyyy~ besides...I already said that I wasn't dead serious. I can always change my views, because it's not gonna affect me.

Geesh.
Gay-rights activist rips Bible, mocks teens fleeing room

What do you guys think? I was speechless... prior to this I supported the 'It gets better foundation' and was thinking of doing something to help it, now I'm not so sure. What was he thinking?
I don't get why he would do that. But do remember whatever side he's on there's always gonna be crazy people. We have to ignore them and focus on the majority of the people who deserve to have their true arguments heard.
 

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.
8,959
Posts
13
Years
Just because I came late to the party doesn't mean I'm not gonna say what I wanted to say lol. In any case, I'm not asking you to change your views, just pointing out the flaws in them :P

Vasectomies don't really relate anyway. I'd like every straight man to have a vasectomy, but in the end that's a pro-active measure and abortions are a reactive measure. What you were saying was that if older people of means accidentally fell pregnant they should be forced to keep and endure the baby.
 

FrostPheonix

Eternity.
449
Posts
13
Years
Just because he is the founder of something doesn't mean his views are the exact same as the foundations, refusing to help them out now because of one thing one member did is a little bit silly I think, but it's your call in the end.

Yeah, I suppose I just got a bit angry ^^ soz about that, I think I'll still donate or something.


Overall, I think the tearing of the Bible may have been extreme and I understand why people would be offended by it, but it got a news article written, didn't it? There are millions of copies of that book, this may well be the first time one of them has been used for something positive.

As to him not being the whole organisation and all, I think that if you are the founder, you're a representative of it. Actions you make will affect how your organization is being seen, and one should consider that in public speeches. At least that's how I see it. 

And I think most of his points aren't very valid. In the shortest book of the Bible, Philemon, Paul is asking the slave owner to free a slave. Doesn't seem very pro-slavery to me. I realize the old testament has parts that are pro slavery, but I think most Christians would agree that the old testament isn't to be taken literally anymore. Since the coming of Christ we follow the New Testament. Modern Christians would follow the New testament, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure it is pro-slavery. God does tell Paul that everyone is equal in the eyes of God. I realize that he wanted to get people to realize that homosexuality isn't bad, but I don't think he had to go this extreme for it. Sure, it got into the newspapers, but it wasn't exactly positive publicity.

There are millions of copies of [the Bible], this may well be the first time one of them has been used for something positive.

...I'm trying real hard not to lash out, but can you not say something as offending as that? I realize this is an Atheist club, but that doesn't mean you have to say something like that...
 

Barrels

The Fresh Prince of Kanto
82
Posts
12
Years
Yeah, I suppose I just got a bit angry ^^ soz about that, I think I'll still donate or something.

Please, do. Whether you agree with the actions of one member of the organisation or not, the work they do is nothing short of fantastic. And so necessary. I'd honestly liken them to an emergency service in that they are there to save vulnerable young lives.

I realize the old testament has parts that are pro slavery, but I think most Christians would agree that the old testament isn't to be taken literally anymore.

Really, really not trying to flame or anything, so please don't misunderstand, but... this is so confusing to me. Are you saying that you'd have been OK with him ripping up half of the Bible? Or just the parts that condone those kinds of practices? Or none of it?

Do most Christians not follow the whole Bible? You've genuinely knocked me for a loop there. I don't understand - how do you pick and choose? Isn't the whole thing the word of God? (It is, right? I just did a quick bit of research and found this: 'the writers claim a supernatural origin for their writings. Nearly 4,000 times, expressions like "Thus says the Lord," "The word of the Lord came unto me," etc., are recorded in the Bible.')

Please, man, you're the expert. Any answers would be thoroughly appreciated. :)

EDIT: Also... Andy, no offense, mate, but please don't stick me on the members' list just yet. I'm still divided as to whether joining a group of atheists characterised as an alliance is too provocative for a peace-loving soul like myself. :P (Who are we allied against, exactly? The 'many wonderful Christians who are fine with the gay thing and support gay rights' - well, no, obviously. But if it's the 'equal or greater number of idiots out there who use their religion as a scapegoat for their bigotry', then should we be using atheism to fight them? Shouldn't it be the Enlightenment Alliance, or the Freedom Alliance, or the Rights Alliance? Because if we're fine with their belief then atheism isn't a weapon - and I don't believe it should be seen as such anyway. It's playing into the hands of those who see us as evil, devious Satan-warriors.)

(All, feel free to prod me in the eye and disagree volubly. I'm usually wrong about most things, lol.)
 
Last edited:

FrostPheonix

Eternity.
449
Posts
13
Years
Really, really not trying to flame or anything, so please don't misunderstand, but... this is so confusing to me. Are you saying that you'd have been OK with him ripping up half of the Bible? Or just the parts that condone those kinds of practices? Or none of it?

Do most Christians not follow the whole Bible? You've genuinely knocked me for a loop there. I don't understand - how do you pick and choose? Isn't the whole thing the word of God? (It is, right? I just did a quick bit of research and found this: 'the writers claim a supernatural origin for their writings. Nearly 4,000 times, expressions like "Thus says the Lord," "The word of the Lord came unto me," etc., are recorded in the Bible.')

Please, man, you're the expert. Any answers would be thoroughly appreciated. :)

Oh, I'm so happy someone asked me nicely about my views ^^ Usually its just... ah, forget it ^^ Meh, not sure I'm an expert but I'll give it a shot:

Well, the thing is, I myself consider the new testament to be the current true Bible. Maybe I spoke a bit hastily there when I generalized christians, but I myself believe mostly only in the New Testament. The old testament was... well, old. It has laws for how people should live, and was prior to when Jesus died on the Cross for our sins. For example, we don't see christians offering sacrificial lambs or anything, do we? In the same way, some of the Old testament practices have become obsolete. Another thing was that some of the laws were aimed to the people of the time. For example, the concept of a king. God originally didn't want to give Israel a King, but since they kept asking, he relented. Which eventually led to Israel's downfall. I think, in the same way, God didn't like the concept of slaves. But, since Israel wouldn't have listened to him anyway, he tried making laws so that slaves and masters could live in harmony instead. (I hope I'm right here, you might want to ask other christians for their opinions as well, but here's what I think myself).

Also, Jesus somewhere in the Bible said that all the laws in the Bible could be summarized in the two greatest laws, which if you follow you basically follow the other laws of the Bible:
"Love your God with all your heart"
"Love your neighbour as yourself" (In Matthew 22:36-40)
Well, it may just be me, but I think the second law contradicts slavery.

Yeah, the whole Bible is the word of God. And no, we don't just pick and choose; well, at least I hope I'm not. I think choosing the new testament over the old testament isn't picking and choosing, because both relate to two different ages. One without the complete forgiveness of sins, and one with Jesus.

If any other christians are reading, feel free to fill in or correct anything I've said. I hope I answered ur question ^^. Feel free to ask anything else I might have missed out.
 

Shining Raichu

Expect me like you expect Jesus.
8,959
Posts
13
Years
Barrels said:
EDIT: Also... Andy, no offense, mate, but please don't stick me on the members' list just yet. I'm still divided as to whether joining a group of atheists characterised as an alliance is too provocative for a peace-loving soul like myself. :P (Who are we allied against, exactly? The 'many wonderful Christians who are fine with the gay thing and support gay rights' - well, no, obviously. But if it's the 'equal or greater number of idiots out there who use their religion as a scapegoat for their bigotry', then should we be using atheism to fight them? Shouldn't it be the Enlightenment Alliance, or the Freedom Alliance, or the Rights Alliance? Because if we're fine with their belief then atheism isn't a weapon - and I don't believe it should be seen as such anyway. It's playing into the hands of those who see us as evil, devious Satan-warriors.)

It's... just a name lol. I am the owner of the club but I wasn't originally, so I can't exactly speak for the intentions of the actual founder. I would venture, though, that it would have had in large part to do with alliteration :P. It is funny how funny people can get about this sort of thing, though. The original name of the LGBT Club was this ridiculous alphabet soup name (something like The LGBTQIPAAOSGOSCREWYOURSELF Alliance) which I thought was totally ridiculous, so when I took it over I discussed the club name with the group and we decided on "The Rainbow Connection [LGBT Club]" only to talk to a gay guy on MSN who said he didn't feel comfortable posting in it because there was no longer a letter there representing the supporters of the LGBT community. So I had to ask for the name to be changed again... and it suddenly seemed a lot clearer to me why the previous owner went for the silly alphabet soup name... so that nobody had their feelings hurt. So yeah, long and tangential story aside, it's odd how much stock people can put in a name.

That said if anybody is uncomfortable with it, I'm not opposed to a change. I don't think the Enlightenment Alliance is appropriate though, nor the Freedom Alliance because as it still is an atheist club, it would imply that Christians are unenlightened or not free, which would rub them the wrong way. Rights Alliance isn't exactly right for what we actually discuss here, either :P.

It's up to you whether you want to join, but we would love to have you :)

FrostPhoenix said:
...I'm trying real hard not to lash out, but can you not say something as offending as that? I realize this is an Atheist club, but that doesn't mean you have to say something like that...

Noted - I guess my humour isn't for everybody. It's interesting though, Savage might be saying that exact same thing right now!
 
Last edited:
10,769
Posts
14
Years
*I'm not atheist but I have a question:*
-What's the difference between being an atheist and not having a religion?-
It depends on the person.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god(s). This may be an active belief ("There are no gods therefore I do not believe them.") or a passive one ("I can't be sure there are gods or not so I can't believe in them.")

Not having a religion is not always the same thing. Some people are "spiritual" and believe in higher powers without specific doctrines/rules of religion. Then of course there are atheists who generally don't have religion, although a few people do attend religious services because of social/cultural reasons even if they don't believe in the spiritual.
 

Alice

(>^.(>0.0)>
3,077
Posts
15
Years
Noted - I guess my humour isn't for everybody. It's interesting though, Savage might be saying that exact same thing right now!
I think that's why I have such an easy time posting here vs the Christian Club(which I just tried to find, and I guess it's closed now anyway.)... I just said lolkthxbai and moved on when I read that. Didn't phase me, lol. Although, I am much more down to earth than most Christians I think... when you think about it, the Bible has accomplished three things. Lots of wars, lots of discrimination, and helping people go to heaven... and for someone who doesn't believe in heaven, that's not a very good track record.

That said, it's humans that are actually causing those things, not the bible itself. They just use it as their excuse. I imagine things wouldn't be too different without it. Assuming there would be any things without it in the first place. :P
 

CarefulWetPaint

Doctor Lobotomy
1,193
Posts
12
Years
I think that's why I have such an easy time posting here vs the Christian Club(which I just tried to find, and I guess it's closed now anyway.)... I just said lolkthxbai and moved on when I read that. Didn't phase me, lol. Although, I am much more down to earth than most Christians I think... when you think about it, the Bible has accomplished three things. Lots of wars, lots of discrimination, and helping people go to heaven... and for someone who doesn't believe in heaven, that's not a very good track record.

That said, it's humans that are actually causing those things, not the bible itself. They just use it as their excuse. I imagine things wouldn't be too different without it. Assuming there would be any things without it in the first place. :P

Human's are causing those things because of the bible though. You can not forget what the past was like, if you didn't believe in god and you said so public, you were more then likely going to end up dead because the bible/religion was the highest power on the planet at the time and disputing anything said in the bible would result in you getting the opportunity to truly see if there was anything about heaven was true (ie you ended up dead).
You can not forget the wars because of religion that have happened in the past or of the massacres of people in the name of God by missionaries etc.

Saying it's not the bible itself is like saying its not a gun killing someone but the person holding the gun, which is true but without the gun perhaps there wouldnt have been that murder and without the bible perhaps there wouldnt have been the millions and millions of causalities in the bibles name/name of god.

I must admit I feel rather uncomfortable just saying the bible because I know its not the only religious scripture in the world and not the only one people have killed for, so me generalising and saying the bible is a bit harsh and I apologize in advance if it offends anyone.
 

Alice

(>^.(>0.0)>
3,077
Posts
15
Years
Saying it's not the bible itself is like saying its not a gun killing someone but the person holding the gun
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a murderer didn't have a gun to commit a murder, he would simply find another weapon. There are plenty of other tools to murder with, and likewise, plenty of other reasons for humans to wage war.
 

Oryx

CoquettishCat
13,184
Posts
13
Years
  • Age 31
  • Seen Jan 30, 2015
I think that's why I have such an easy time posting here vs the Christian Club(which I just tried to find, and I guess it's closed now anyway.)... I just said lolkthxbai and moved on when I read that. Didn't phase me, lol. Although, I am much more down to earth than most Christians I think... when you think about it, the Bible has accomplished three things. Lots of wars, lots of discrimination, and helping people go to heaven... and for someone who doesn't believe in heaven, that's not a very good track record.

That said, it's humans that are actually causing those things, not the bible itself. They just use it as their excuse. I imagine things wouldn't be too different without it. Assuming there would be any things without it in the first place. :P

I think it's part of hanging around with Andy. Like it's something you kind of have to know with him - if you just know him on the surface level because you know he's not a fan of religion you'd think he was 100% serious on that, but on a deeper level he's still definitely open to intellectual discussion on it because an exaggeration is just an exaggeration sometimes. :P

An interesting experiment in religion is to think of what religion would be like without the Old Testament. While many Christians do believe that the New Testament "overwrites" the Old Testament, they're still influenced by the images of overbearing violence (for example, in Exodus where half of the Israelites turned to worshipping idols while Moses was on Mt. Sinai, and the God-approved solution was that the people who are still loyal to God must slaughter the idol-worshipping people) in their ideas, and the idea of human beings passing judgement on one another. If their only source of influence was Jesus, who urged against judgement from human beings and pretty much only preached love and forgiveness for all people, do you think the Christian religion would have turned out differently?

Although, this raises another question for me personally, something I've been thinking about for a while. Often the violence of Christians is blamed on the angry Old Testament God. But, the violence of Christians is what's in the mainstream media, not other religions (except for radical Muslims, but that's not my point). If we agree that the violence of Christians comes from the Old Testament, then why aren't the Jewish people considered way more violent than Christians? Is it a matter of Christians coming to power while Jewish people were still being discriminated against, therefore giving them the ability to actually oppress based on their beliefs while the Jewish people had no such ability? If they had not had to deal with those hardships and had risen to popularity in the way Christianity has, do you think they would have the same level of violence?

Food for thought.
 

Bela

Banned
262
Posts
14
Years
QuilavaKing said:
That said, it's humans that are actually causing those things, not the bible itself. They just use it as their excuse. I imagine things wouldn't be too different without it. Assuming there would be any things without it in the first place. :P

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a murderer didn't have a gun to commit a murder, he would simply find another weapon. There are plenty of other tools to murder with, and likewise, plenty of other reasons for humans to wage war.

What you seem to be suggesting here is that people just really want to kill others really badly, and are eager to find an excuse to do it. I don't happen to view humans so basely.

I contend that the Bible or other religious texts can in fact be a source for a person's violent actions, not merely an excuse for it. This would seem to be an attempt to whitewash the Bible or other religious texts of calling on their followers to kill in the name of their God. If you read through the Bible or other religious texts, you will find described as punishable by death things which we would today consider rather mundane practices. Your children misbehave?

Exodus 21:17 said:
He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death.

(And as an aside, what exactly led us away from this sort of thinking? Was it God suddenly deciding that practice was no longer morally 'correct,' or was it secular morality forcing religion to abandon such dogma? And if it is a God who decides it is moral one day to kill your children if they misbehave and immoral the next, you have yourself but an arbitrary designation of morality that is not consistent nor has any self-correcting mechanism for determining what is moral.)

Consider the case of regular people who are convinced by their religion to kill. When a woman kills her children because she believes God told her to do so, is that her using religion as an excuse for her secret craving to murder? Just some regular housewife, who thinks God told her to do it. I think religion is directly responsible for this woman's behavior--it is like poison to a rational mind. How could she rationalize that her children should be killed? Surely the story of Isaac, something this woman would certainly be aware of, has more to do with it than some insatiable appetite to kill?

Can you really say the intent to kill is truly independent of what some religion may convince a person is the right thing to do?
 

CarefulWetPaint

Doctor Lobotomy
1,193
Posts
12
Years
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. If a murderer didn't have a gun to commit a murder, he would simply find another weapon. There are plenty of other tools to murder with, and likewise, plenty of other reasons for humans to wage war.

I'm really frustrated with how you seemingly ignored eveything else I posted and just took the one piece of a sentence that backed up what you said and took it completely out of context of what I was saying to make it seem like I was agreeing that people just want to kill people and the tool used it irrelevant.

If you actually read what I said you'd understand that I was saying Yes, its not possible for the bible to kill someone by itself because the bible is unable to kill someone just like a gun is unable to kill someone without having someone using it.
The bible is iinciting the violence, just like the gun is delivering the bullet that kills.

I'll probably have to come back and edit this when im less frustrated so Im sorry if it doesnt make much sense atm.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top