2020 Non-Crows AFL Discussion Part 2

[footy4ever]

sure is.

then you are delusional.

 

[woopedazz]

A Non-Crows AFL discussion thread seems appealing right about now.

 

[WetCrow1991]

Remember when Dawkins went on Q&A? That was the most awkward sh*t ever. He gave his usual performance but kept getting nervous laughter from the crowd, minute later he's like "why is everybody laughing?". I felt bad for him, he was clearly knowledgeable but had no clue how to communicate with that kind of audience.

Yeah, and Dawkins' smugness only added to the awkwardness.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Yeah, and Dawkins' smugness only added to the awkwardness.

I mean this is Dawkins. It's his default mode.

 

[WetCrow1991]

A Non-Crows AFL discussion thread seems appealing right about now.

Start a reconquista, got until next the draft next Wednesday.

I'll start.

I think St Kilda will take a spud with their first pick.

 

[WetCrow1991]

I mean this is Dawkins. It's his default mode.

Yeah, it does seem like the popularity of that type of activism has dissipated, at least in mass media like television.

Dawkins main problem, in my opinion, is that is swayed too far from being a science educator.

 

[spenze]

The non-believers should be working Christmas and New Years without penalty rates, problem solved

To be fair in Roman BC times, the month of December was celebrated with gift giving, lots of feasting, drinking and of course, uninhibited sex. Saturnalia was celebrated from 17th and concluded on the 25th of December.

Then the Christians took it over and well, made it Christian

 

[FAITH]

You seem to think you're the moral compass of this board at times.

It's quite funny.

I thought that was Jenny, the humanist.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Yeah, it does seem like the popularity of that type of activism has dissipated, at least in mass media like television.

Dawkins main problem, in my opinion, is that is swayed too far from being a science educator.

Maybe right. He certainly shouldn't have been doing TV shows like Q&A. That format doesn't suit him at all.

 

[FAITH]

It's a complicated one. On balance I would say that Hitler wasn't motivated by atheism as such, but he did seem to have a set against organised (Christian) religion.

I'm not going to die on the hill of "atheists never commit crimes in the name of atheism as such" but I do place a great deal of weight on Steven Weinberg's quote:
"With or without [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."


Good comment. I don't hold Christians, or in particular Catholics, or even their churches (communities) in general, responsible for those crimes, it's the campaigners in charge, who are/were motivated by protecting the institution, more than the religion.

And "atheists don't have institutions" cuts both ways. Sometimes people point to all the faith-based charities and say "show me all the atheist charities doing good work". To which I reply
1. We don't have institutions, and
2. Lions, Rotary, Fred Hollows.... they don't "act in the name of atheism" but they're not motivated by religion, either.


I disagree. I think "good people", if you like, who happen to be religious, conflate the two when there is no necessary correlation or cause and effect. (See Weinberg above). And I think it's a pretty grim view of humanity to think that we need to have a belief in a mythical god - and especially to be under threat/pressure from that god - to be good people and to do good things.


I can actually. Partly because I think the "positive effect" is just good people doing good things, without religion being the cause - as above.


This is where, as an atheist, I have more time for the late, great Christopher Hitchens than I do for Richard Dawkins. Both have/had a disdainful, hostile even, attitude to religion, and write/wrote/speak/spoke strongly about it, sometimes in quite eviscerating terms - but somehow I find Hitchens to be more - I don't know, urbane and articulate (and funny) whereas Dawkins just comes across as angry, hostile and annoying. Even though they are really saying the same things.

I've always been intrigued by atheists view on what makes people "good."
How do you or other atheists judge one person as good and the other bad?

 

[FAITH]

then you are delusional.

Or maybe you're ignorant?
Typical Aussie bogan who hasn't viewed the positives, not just the negatives that religions have brought to the world?

 

[WetCrow1991]

The non-believers should be working Christmas and New Years without penalty rates, problem solved

Ah yes, Ecclesiastes 3:8.5
A time for reasonable overtime and a time for penalty rates.

 

[DJ75]

Start a reconquista, got until next the draft next Wednesday.

I'll start.

I think St Kilda will take a spud with their first pick.

I think GC will trade pick 5 to Geelong for picks 27 and 51.

 

[footy4ever]

Or maybe you're ignorant?
Typical Aussie bogan who hasn't viewed the positives, not just the negatives that religions have brought to the world?

Now you're being idiotic. A mere a glance around the net for information and opinion on this topic will show you history doesn't lie, and is clearly weighted against the perceived good of religion. No more discussion from me on this.

 

[flashcrow]

Religious s**t

Taoism s**t happens.
Buddhism If s**t happens, it’s not really s**t.
Islam If s**t happens, it’s the will of Allah.
Protestantism s**t happens because you don’t work hard enough.
Judaism Why does this s**t always happen to us?
Hinduism This s**t happened before.
Catholicism s**t happens because you’re bad.
Hare Krishna s**t happens rama rama.
Evangelism Send more s**t.
Atheism No s**t.
Jehovah’s Witness Knock knock, s**t happens.
Hedonism There’s nothing like a good s**t happening.
Christian Science s**t happens in your mind.
Agnosticism Maybe s**t happens, maybe it doesn’t.
Rastafarianism Let’s smoke this s**t.
Existentialism What is s**t anyway?
Stoicism This s**t doesn’t bother me.


Now let us get back to Non-Crows AFL Discussion

 

[FAITH]

Now you're being idiotic. A mere a glance around the net for information and opinion on this topic will show you history doesn't lie, and is clearly weighted against the perceived good of religion. No more discussion from me on this.

AHH yes, the net, where everything is 100% true and perfect.

I've spent long periods in Africa, Asia, South America and Eastern Europe.
No one will ever convince me that religion has had more of a negative effect than positive.

 

[WetCrow1991]

I think GC will trade pick 5 to Geelong for picks 27 and 51.

They're only taking academy kid aren't they?

 

[Crow till I die]

Religious sh*t

Taoism sh*t happens.
Buddhism If sh*t happens, it’s not really sh*t.
Islam If sh*t happens, it’s the will of Allah.
Protestantism sh*t happens because you don’t work hard enough.
Judaism Why does this sh*t always happen to us?
Hinduism This sh*t happened before.
Catholicism sh*t happens because you’re bad.
Hare Krishna sh*t happens rama rama.
Evangelism Send more sh*t.
Atheism No sh*t.
Jehovah’s Witness Knock knock, sh*t happens.
Hedonism There’s nothing like a good sh*t happening.
Christian Science sh*t happens in your mind.
Agnosticism Maybe sh*t happens, maybe it doesn’t.
Rastafarianism Let’s smoke this sh*t.
Existentialism What is sh*t anyway?
Stoicism This sh*t doesn’t bother me.


Now let us get back to Non-Crows AFL Discussion

you forgot Jedi..how could you forget Jedi

 

[flashcrow]

you forgot Jedi..how could you forget Jedi

Bugger, I thought I felt an unbalance in the force.

 

[Thetrader15]

Is this the :2020 Non-Crows AFL Discussion" or the "2020 Non-AFL Crows Discussion"?

 

[FR0GGY]

The non-believers should be working Christmas and New Years without penalty rates, problem solved

It’s called being self employed

 

[arrowman]

Remember when Dawkins went on Q&A? That was the most awkward sh*t ever. He gave his usual performance but kept getting nervous laughter from the crowd, minute later he's like "why is everybody laughing?". I felt bad for him, he was clearly knowledgeable but had no clue how to communicate with that kind of audience.

I don't recall it, but I can imagine. Too much grumpy old man.

Put Hitchens in the same situation (and he has been), and you get - generally - the same ideas, but expressed more eloquently / incisively - and with liberal doses of humour.

(In case it's not already obvious, I love Hitch, god rest his soul.)

The non-believers should be working Christmas and New Years without penalty rates, problem solved

Meh, if Christmas didn't exist it would have had to have been invented as an end of year family gathering / holiday / celebration of whatever. It's not my fault it happens to coincide with a Christian festival. (And, of course, in turn was coopted from pagans.) I don't feel at all uncomfortable about it.

Dawkins main problem, in my opinion, is that is swayed too far from being a science educator.

True. The way he can talk/write about evolution, in particular, is outstanding.

 

[DJ75]

you forgot Jedi..how could you forget Jedi

Jedi: This is some forceful sh*t

 

[WetCrow1991]

I've always been intrigued by atheists view on what makes people "good."

Goodness is subjective. A persons' view on this would be influenced by the sum of the social relationships they've had in their lives and the social values and identities they hold as a result.

As for the how:

How do you or other atheists judge one person as good and the other bad?

All things being equal, much the same as most religious people.

However placing things within a framework of good or bad is restrictive and doesn't reflect the complexity of the world.

 

[arrowman]

I've always been intrigued by atheists view on what makes people "good."
How do you or other atheists judge one person as good and the other bad?

I don't think the premise to that question is sound.
In the first place, it would be my personal view and not an "atheist" view, because the only thing atheists have in common is their lack of belief in gods, everything else is up for grabs. There is no "atheist" view.

In the second place, I would say there is no difference between atheists and religious people in that regard, we would all, as human beings, judge "goodness" in the same way (on a scale from "not doing outright bad things" through to "spends every waking moment volunteering for good causes, giving significant $ to charities etc). The only difference is that maybe religious people might (a) see being religious / devout as "good", and (b) assume that religious people are more likely than atheists to have "good" attributes. Which of course I would disagree with.