Posts by chris
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I don't have any stories in my life like the one about the Jehovah's Witness outcast with respect to Atheists oppressing their children.
My great grandfather was kicked off the farm and disinherited for voting Labour, does that say more about The National Party, National Party supporters, or his parents?
-
-
Damn straight Tom.
Good morning Andin, thanks for your reply.
Horrendous atrocities committed in the PRC back in the day to stifle religion,resulted in significantly limited freedom of public expression of religion
Here's a reasonable overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ChinaThe People's Republic of China was established in 1949. Its government is officially atheist, which viewed religion as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism.
Do you have anything that might resemble evidence for your assertions above?
Sorry, no Andin. My dish is but persuasive language with a sprinkling of anecdote, I'm not pigeon holing anyone here, I'm not trying to make a case that
Christians are far too accustomed to calling this bluff.
Or any other stereotype. Merely that this seems more likely related to the locale, the respective personalities involved and our various bents, mightily affected by education.
I could have installed a CCTV camera to prove that not a single religious/ atheist devotee has come to my door to proselytize me over the past 7 years. In fact no one has come to my door at all, except that one old guy in 2007 (when I used to sleep with door unlocked) who came inside to deliver my mail.†
Similarly I could have carried a camera around to prove no attempt has been made to convert me on the street. But the startling lack of that sort of thing negates the purpose somewhat. Similarly of the 1000s of students who I've broached the notion of God and religion with, I could have kept record of the fact that only one of those students ever made an attempt to proselytize or even promote his religious/spiritual/ superstitious beliefs in my presence.
To quote him;
"I believe I can fly"
but I've never seen him fly, despite his passionate rendition via R Kelly.
This anecdotal evidence contrasts glaringly with experiences living in NZ and the UK. I'm involved in this discussion not to prove a point, but to raise doubt and encourage skepticism, to question whether these negative traits being posited are those of the religious, or of religious people in certain regions and are not more so just traits of people and human institutions in general.
I'm satisfied with the lack of religious persuasion I'm presented with to the extent that I'm prepared to question the stereotypes. Beyond that I have little to offer. besides the fact that I find these types of arguments lack the more refined form of civility I've grown accustomed to*
There is presently an awful lot of publicity around events the the RCC, that would suggest that beliefs left alone in peoples minds festered and erupted in very corrosive ways. Of no benefit at all.
I'd need an example to address that. Certainly the mental health sector is ineffectual. But if you are making the claim that absence of religious beliefs left alone in peoples minds festered and erupted in very corrosive ways then how is that not a criticism of your own belief? Have you found your atheism has caused you to fester and corrode? I doubt detailed self analysis would present such a finding.
*To address the initial post in a little more detail.
without wanting to undermine the downright hilarity, merely to iterate a pointI've always thought that the problem with religion (and especially Christianity) is that it's so very loud.
as is sport
an unhappy Christian would begin pacing the graveyard around midnight, shouting for hours on end: "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?"
a Christian was dealing with mental health issues
No, I offer them a nice cup of tea, and take their damned pamphlet
David is a nice guy but perhaps more accommodating than he'd like to be, arguably related to the fact that charity is one of the fundamentals of Christianity as presented in The Parable of the Good Simaritan and that these values permeate our western culture and by proxy consciousness at its most fundamental level.
In fact, I was once so polite to an American Mormon that he wept with gratitude,
This can be gratifying.
My Glaswegian anarchist grandfather was surprisingly keen on door-knocking proselytizers,
David's grandfather found arguing with Christians to be good sport. and was an anarchist.
and so he turned them into goats.
he would not shy away from winning an argument by confounding the opposition.
Another problem I have with religion is its unnecessary complexity.
David finds religion complex. But using Bennifer or Brangelina as reference points, he will not shy away from successfully trivializing others' belief.
and so on.
'The Problem with Religion' works because
1. It is very funny
2 It is a popularized stance.if this were an attack on feminism thinly veiled under the title 'The Problem with -isms', or an attack on homosexuality titled 'The Problem with Sexuality', all hell would break loose.
But consider how impolite religious believers can be.
Or anyone for that matter.
I don't really have much of a habit of making connections between what people attest to believe and the religious badge they wear, because when all is said and done the prime recourse of religion beyond the walls of the mind is as a means of social identification and self classification.
-
If any other dicks happen upon this thread and read that rant, I mean no offence. We are what we are. We can't escape our dickishness, but we can develop our ability to better appraise and respect others' tolerance levels towards us.
-
I will give that even the most vociferous Atheist, hell bent on getting you thinking really hard about something they think it's a waste of the world's time to think about, is nowhere near as annoying as proselytizing Christians
Living somewhere where others' religion and lack of is just not that interesting to anyone, the distinction seems to be fairly academic. Many of the anti religious examples given on this thread are stained perhaps with the mildest dose of regional bias, the post and thread itself seems to hemorrhage the style of proselytizing that is being railed against (good/bad-right/wrong-us/them-left/right). and ultimately, the accusations thrown either way, are as we all know, a hindrance to the human quest for harmony.
Certainly that is how practitioners of certain religions behave in this or that locale, but these forceful hard sells are not exclusive to religion or atheism or the ACT Party or vacuum cleaners. These incidences says more about the locale's degree of civilization and legislation governing it than anything, as do the reactions. If we can tolerate politicians door knocking to earn our trust and sway our devotion then we can tolerate religious reps. Personally I favor the world where no one dares sway my beliefs at my doorstep or on the street.
Horrendous atrocities committed in the PRC back in the day to stifle religion, resulted in significantly limited freedom of public expression of religion (particularly with reference to these Abrahamic religions which are undeniably the prime focus of this thread) that have been allowed to reemerge, producing an environment where belief systems remain in the only place they're of any practical benefit, ie. in peoples' own minds.
Shit methods, but good results. Perhaps something to be learned, perhaps not.
Islander found a way to deal with bible bashers which by the sound of it has proven almost entirely successful,
"Missionaries will be hosed" works fine too,
You can usually get an Atheist to piss off by saying you agree with them. Christians are far too accustomed to calling this bluff.
Generalizations like this take us little distance along the road to understanding, it's not the religion/ the political party/ the sales company that is at fault, as much as it is that this or the other person who wants to alter another's belief system/ political leanings/ patio in a forceful and unwelcome manner is a
dick.
-
In striking contrast to everything else he mustered, McVicar's last line in that interview was surprisingly apt. For the most part he seemed like a possum caught in the headlights.
-
Great episode btw. Ondemand is working much better now.
-
We record very much as-live, and it's rare for us to go more than about 90 secs over. The producer will make that call if he thinks there's something that'll need tightening up the next day. So you'll see a little bit of magic-of-television, but only a little bit.
Intriguing, when I watch, I always sense from the brief glimpses that the audience is/has just enjoyed a meal and drink in the studio for some reason, I imagined it must have been more like 90 minutes culled.
-
A wicked thought: surely atheism is the most definite advocate of this particular view, in our day?
One need only look as far as Hollywood, someone earlier mentioned Disney films and this theme "you just need to believe", and then we'd see some kid believe, defy convention and astound the onlookers, but the whole pretext being that anything that isn't scientifically proven is impossible, and by and large this is the reality we are presented with and readily consume. to suggest that anything other than the scientifically proven is possible in this day and age is to risk being scoffed at.
the term magical realism as used with relation to literature in Academia is another example of the bias in the way our perceptions are presented to us.
scientists are successfully trained via this method. But they are actually quite a small proportion of people in the world, and their way of thinking is actually pretty peculiar
While Science is overwhelmingly the domain and people in labcoats advancing theories mµ by mµ. From century to century there are great minds like Einstein's or Tesla's who push us forward a millimetre, whose whole approach and openness seem to have far more in common with spiritual explorers like Steiner than with the honed mind of the average scientist. I'd say like anything, it takes all sorts.
-
Charlie Brooker had a very informative report once on the various techniques used by Big Brother et al to create atmosphere and deliver a narrative. He showed how you could make the exact same scene covey a completely different story depending on how it was edited.
Sorry Russell, I hadn't noticed that before I posted on the topic. I've occasionally had queries of this nature with regards to Media 7. One of the first things I noticed when I watched it was that it seemed from the observed comfort of the audience that it must be a much longer event, How long is the shoot generally and what percentage of discussion is omitted?
Also bearing in mind that although a reaction shot may be genuine, sometimes it just doesn't convey the right look (yawns, fidgeting, cleaning of teeth), is there much substitution of shots?
Oftentimes the camera shows more than one person, but I have noticed the occasional seemingly questionable cut to closeup, have there ever been any clangers that have had to be edited out in this way?
And not being aware as to how much input you have in the editorial process, has there ever been a moment when you've watched the final master and thought something has been perhaps slightly skewed or decontextualized by the editor? Or do you retain a healthy degree of control there?