Presumably adverse effects
also happened with regularity.
edited 16th Apr '11 12:55:46 PM by Pykrete
I wouldn't say experience is sufficient — the Greeks were pretty reckless with all things sexual, and the Romans were only slightly better.
Knowledge, however, yes. You don't have to convince me of anything, I'm already in favor of the Church dropping homophobic doctrine.
edited 16th Apr '11 1:09:14 PM by Pykrete
I think this, like the notion that Dawkins is "against religion" (he's not; he's against teaching religion as science, but as a separate subject, Dawkins is OK with teaching kids religion), is just another case of misinformation.
It is very common (at least, based on my experience) that Christian people know very little about Dawkins or other prominent atheists, but they often seem to think that these atheists are trying to limit their liberty to believe or something like that. It simply is not the case. For example, look at the poster that was on the bus:
"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."
How is that offensive, again? It doesn't even say that "There is no God" - it says there probably is no God, and it's a very significant difference. It doesn't say that religious people are wrong, and it doesn't say that people should stop believing. It just promotes the idea that one shouldn't worry about moral standards set by an entity that is not proven to exist. Nothing offensive at all.
Most of the cases of "discrimination" against people who believe by atheists that I've been referred to were exactly like this. That is to say, people took offense without even looking at the case.
Yes, sometimes atheists have attacked believers. Sometimes, it goes the other way. But neither group is fundamentally pre-disposed to attack each other, and if you ask me, I'd estimate that violence by believers against atheists is globally and especially historically much, much more prevalent than violence by atheists toward believers. But that's not the point. The point is that we can live in harmony and make our respective points of view heard without offending each other, just like this poster on this bus does.
I'm beginning to feel that some people were offended by this simply because they saw a picture with Dawkins standing under the banner.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.So if the message was "stop worrying and come to church", it'd be offensive 'cause it would imply that people would worry less if they went to church?
That looks like you're just looking for a reason to take offense or you're somehow offended by the very notion that atheists and believers both have a message they'd like people to hear.
Oh, well... YMMV, I guess.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.The majority, however, aren't excessively worried to the point of detriment.
edited 16th Apr '11 1:33:15 PM by Pykrete
Yeah that line is certainly something that could be interpreted as offensive. Things like that are part of why I dislike Dawkins. Though I'm no better really since I go with "Who the fucks cares. Go do shit and believe whatever. All of you bitches worry and bitch too much. Even the atheists,".
edited 16th Apr '11 1:34:08 PM by Aondeug
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan ChahOn being offended by being told to not worry and go to church. That also doesn't offend me personally. It does however come off as dickish and is likely to offend people. Atheists and theists alike.
On enjoying typical church services: I like Catholic mass and only Catholic mass.
^No but it is very easy to read it that way. Wording is very important and that phrase is just worded badly.
edited 16th Apr '11 1:36:22 PM by Aondeug
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan Chah

No idea, to be honest. The fact that the demographic is already skewed toward religion would mean any statistics would have to go per-capita. Records
of that spike of bullshit toward Muslims shortly after 9/11 don't really give much background or motive on the perpetrators. And of course there's China, Soviet Russia, etc., whose atrocities in a few decades basically eclipsed a good chunk of the combined history of interfaith wars, and China is still being violent to religious folk of most colors. And, you know, whose affiliations were inconsistent, and motives were primarily based on power.
I feel a Touhou joke coming on, but I'll refrain.
That. Although...
Well at the time it was physically hazardous. Putting things up an orifice of tissue prone to tearing, in the context of poor hygiene standards should be a no-brainer.
edited 16th Apr '11 12:35:12 PM by Pykrete