Western Expresso

[chrisallard5454]

Your bias' are very unforgiving and represent a church-state mentality (similar to Iran) far more than any other Religious sect in this country would.
Please remember that Clunis' interview was conducted before a Christian Magazine, made for a Christian audience.

Why does H0twired find that Atheists are the most annoying Religious group today? Because outside of extremists, Atheists are the only group where a large portion of the population are OK with causing a dispute over their beliefs. I am referring to Canada in this sense, as this is the Country that we live in. To compare a Canadian Christian with a politically driven American Christian is as ludicrous as comparing a Canadian Muslim with an Iranian Jihad extremist.
This is only exemplified by what we are seeing right here on this forum.

First, Headhorse (who has made it clear that he is not a Christian) found an article talking about Clunis' beliefs, and his thoughts concerning prayer. Where was this article found? On a Christian Website for a Christian Magazine.

RRSkylar you said that "Bringing religion into anything outside the church or your home is crap". Well two things can be said about this statement. It is good that you believe in our charter of rights and freedoms, especially that bit about:

"freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication" and "freedom of conscience and Religion, except that the latter can only be practiced freely within the confines of your home and or church". Wait does it actually say that?

Second: Devon Clunis has followed this new found charter of rights and freedoms -despite its biased nature- , and has kept his beliefs within the confines of his home/church. How so, you ask? Because, it may surprise you, but yes, like the rest of the world over the last several decades the Church has progressed past prayer/bible studies and church on Sundays. The church consists of websites, interviews, pod-casts, radio stations, Soup Kitchens, Missions, charities, etc.

If someone decides they want to go searching through a Christian Magazine, the truth is -and it may surprise you- they will probably find some Christian articles containing - you guessed it - Christian content.

Secondly, if you guys want to put a hate on for us Religious fanatics, then do it with some moral fiber. At least Cam has had the decency to back up his beliefs with some solid arguments. All you guys have done is managed to prove that you really know nothing about the topic at hand.

Riverman, you win the prize for the worst rebuttal in the history of man - including the current presidential debates - ""Atheism is a religion" is one of the silliest statements ever spoken. Atheism is a religion just like not collecting stamps is a hobby."

Way to provide some proof or some back story to your statement. Atheism is in fact a Religion. You have a skewed perception of what the word Religion means. Let me enlighten you: a Religion is a group of people adhering to a specific set of beliefs and or practices. To simply believe that there is no God is not to be Religious, likewise, to believe that there is a God is not to be Religious. To take that belief and place it upon the eyes of multiple individuals, to adhere to rules, then in fact creates a Religious body.

There are in fact hundreds of Religious Sects out there that practice Atheism, there are multiple denominations, where fundamental goals are preached upon the body of believers. Sorry to disappointing you Riverman, but you are a part of a Religious group, you would simply be what is known as "Non-denominational".

Ever heard the statement Religiously, "That man follows Hockey Religiously". That is a word that perfectly defines Religious in today's sense. When you take a belief and apply it so that it defines a major part of who you are, (such as pressing your beliefs upon those who don't share your beliefs, like has been done on SSP), you are taking major steps to becoming one who is extremely Religious, or an Extremist.

Your guys and your comments are sickening me. You have the same level of tolerance as the Jihad who shot that girl seeking the right to Education. You think that just because your belief is unique that you have the right to judge others and tell them how to live their lives? Then I suggest that you move to another country similar in nature to Iran and practice your Church-State there, because you are no better than the Jihad. It is despicable, disgusting, and it should not be tolerated.

Also I'd hate to bring about this new bit of information, but, everyone believes that they are right when it comes to their beliefs, which is why they hang on to them so desperately. That doesn't give them the right to shoot others down because they can't find the same truth in other peoples beliefs. To all of you, this statement hits home more than any other when it comes to the fundamentalism you all fear "Talk about the Pot calling the Kettle black"...

[rypinion]

In Canada, I believe a good portion of people are uncomfortable with the idea of any type of non-scientific belief or faith guiding public decision making, and the reactions on this board are simply just reflecting that fact.

Frankly, I think you're overreacting, Chris. People can have their beliefs about anything, but I believe most agree that public policy should be driven by research and science. That's all people are being protective of, here (for the most part, I think). Some people may be less than eloquent in how they express it, but I think that's all it is.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by rypinion

In Canada, I believe a good portion of people are uncomfortable with the idea of any type of non-scientific belief or faith guiding public decision making, and the reactions on this board are simply just reflecting that fact.

Frankly, I think you're overreacting, Chris. People can have their beliefs about anything, but I believe most agree that public policy should be driven by research and science. That's all people are being protective of, here (for the most part, I think). Some people may be less than eloquent in how they express it, but I think that's all it is.

I am not over reacting. People have not discussed Science in any way here. They have done nothing but discriminate against those who are Theists.

I too (despite being a Christian) believe that public policy should be driven by science and research. And so do most Christians that I know, including Devon Clunis. I said myself that I believe in the separation of church and state. I took biology, geography, and philosophy in University. Christians aren't mid evil, bewildered, little children that don't have an understanding of today's world. A lot of today's most renowned scientist believe in some sort of Theology. And despite what many may think, most Christians have obtained degrees at the same Post-Secondary institutions that all of you have attended.

What is happening here is the ideology that Theism and Science can not be intertwined (in that you can't believe in the good of science and a God at the same time), which is simply not true. And it has been done in a form that is most insulting to believers. Truthfully, most people I know wouldn't even bother getting offended by what these people have said, because they are used to it. I, however don't turn a blind eye to direct insults to me and those closest to me.

And it is easy to say I am the one overreacting when you aren't the one being insulted.

All Devon Clunis said is that "what would it be like if people - of all religious stripes - were to pray for the peace of this city, and then put some action behind that".

He called the people who pray, to pray (on a Christian magazine) he then said the part that you are all forgetting: he plans to act on these things once he becomes Chief. He has already discussed with me some of the things that he plans to do. Funnily enough, prayer wasn't one of the things mentioned during our discussion.

[armorand93]

[rypinion]

All I was suggesting was that people get uncomfortable with anything that suggests the possibility of non-science guiding public policy, whether it is actually true or a real stretch.

Just like when people get uncomfortable with anything that suggests the possibility of corruption, like when the CAO sells a shell corporation to the mayor. Whether or not it actually is a corrupt deal, it makes many uncomfortable.

Ross Eadie put it in an interesting way today: "He hasn’t been in the political eye. He’s made a mistake... He’s got to get used to the sound bites."

While the end of Clunis' quote is the important part, it is the rest of the quote that gives most people the shivers.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Your guys and your comments are sickening me.

Nobody is insulting anybody. It is just so very unnerving that in this day and age normally intellegent people are so influenced by a superstition. And when a public official like Clunis spouts such drivel in the media, any media, it is just downright creepy.

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Nobody is insulting anybody. It is just so very unnerving that in this day and age normally intellegent people are so influenced by a superstition. And when a public official like Clunis spouts such drivel in the media, any media, it is just downright creepy.

Calling it a superstition is an insult. Calling it drivel is an insult. Calling it creepy is an insult. Asking for his removal because of a statement built around his beliefs is an insult. Calling Christians nutcases is the act of insulting them.

Shall I go on?

In one post you did nothing but prove my point. Who are you to say all of these things? As I said before, the most acclaimed, accredited of scientists and philosophers from both sides of the spectrum have had debates about Theology from the beginning of time. And somehow, Riverman of Winnipeg has come up with the answer that we have all been looking for, thus enabling him to disregard the beliefs, and feelings of others so that he can talk in such a disgusting manner. Give me a break.

And to add to that, so what if we are "influenced by superstition". What is bad about this so called superstition that we are influenced by? It has been shown very clearly here which group is more or less tolerant of the other. Is it not a lack of tolerance that we fear most about Church-States? Is it not one group suppressing others that we fear?

You have shown which group is doing that. What have we done? We pray, yes. But out of all the things that you could be afraid of, prayer? Do you fear the "intellectual individual" who goes out in the grass to have a bit of quiet time to reflect on his studies? Or the Monks who spend days meditating?

Name one message that Jesus gave in the Bible that should be feared. Never mind what we believe in terms of the supernatural, because the truth is you don't know the answer. I don't either, neither does Stephen Hawking, neither did Albert Einstein, etc. etc. So no one is in any place to judge others on what they believe, especially when it can't be proven either way. Leave it alone, it doesn't affect you. And in Clunis' case, I can guarantee you that his prayer will not have a negative impact on how he does the job. If it did he wouldn't have been hired.
He could be praying 24/7 and it wouldn't affect his job, unless you are saying that people can't chew gum, rub their belly, while tapping their head and walking at the same time.

[chrisallard5454]

To make it clear: I am the one who has been insulted. Rypinion, rest assured the comments on this forum and anywhere else have done nothing to stir the emotions of Devon Clunis. He is far older, wiser, and far, far more mature than myself. You could call him a jack ass, hilly billy, bible thumper with all the sincerity that you possess and he would smile and shake your hand, and think nothing less of you.

Me, on the other hand, I would have every urge in the world to punch you in the face. But then again I have a lot of growing up to do.

[Riverman]

Pull out a dictionary Chris.

Definition of SUPERSTITION
1
a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2
: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by vid

I was unaware that having meetings, writing books, speaking at conferences, and arguing with peers and acting more arrogant than other groups, was the definition of religion!

How many books have been written or support groups formed about not collecting stamps?

Why do atheists need to continue to talk about all the things they don't do?

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Pull out a dictionary Chris.

Definition of SUPERSTITION
1
a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation
b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2
: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

What about drivel, creepy? As I am sure you have heard before, it isn't in what you're trying to say, it is in the manner of which you say it. It is very clear from your comments that you lack a certain respect for people who don't share your Theological beliefs. That concerns me, what about those who don't share your cultural, or sociological, or political beliefs? That is a very dangerous mentality to have Riverman.

Once again, who are you to call what we believe superstition? Have you encountered what each believer has which lead to their faith? Do you have any proof to the claim that there is no God? To say that there is no God is just as superstitious as saying there is a God.

My point is that you are in no position to say some of the things that you have been saying. You don't have all the answers. So it is very condescending to talk in way that suggests that you do.

1. 3/4 of the worlds believers used to be Atheists. Therefore to claim ignorance is absurd. I have no fear of the unknown. I am perfectly OK with the fact that I may die tomorrow, in fact I have embraced the unknown. I don't believe in Magic or Chance so I won't even go there. False conception or causation. In what matter are we discussing here? because that opens many doors in terms of debate.

b. My belief in God comes from a book, not from superstition. Discount the Bible, with proof, and you may in fact sway my belief in my God. But once again to believe in the supernatural is no more superstitious than not believing. The only one who can avoid superstition is the agnostic. Why? Because that individual freely admits that they don't know, without discounting the topic at hand before having the answers.

2. Provide me with the evidence to the contrary of my beliefs, and while were at it to the 100 million other beliefs out there. And be careful with this one. Make sure that you are ready for a debate, because I have studied this topic as much as anyone (from both sides of the door).

And thank you, for finally providing a thoughtful, and considerate answer that took some time to procure, rather than just spouting your own opinions.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by h0twired

Why do atheists need to continue to talk about all the things they don't do?

Why can't individals be concerned about the collective good? Religious superstition regresses the collective intellect of humanity and some atheists would like to see it gonzo.

Some atheists (like me) are just happy with the occasional facepalm.

[h0twired]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Why can't individals be concerned about the collective good? Religious superstition regresses the collective intellect of humanity and some atheists would like to see it gonzo.

Then that should be accepted regardless of their religious or non-religious motivation.

Originally Posted by Riverman

Some atheists (like me) are just happy with the occasional facepalm.

Except in the instance of this thread... or on the WFP forums...

[chrisallard5454]

Originally Posted by Riverman

Why can't individals be concerned about the collective good? Religious superstition regresses the collective intellect of humanity and some atheists would like to see it gonzo.

Some atheists (like me) are just happy with the occasional facepalm.

In what way does the "Religious Superstition" which I might add (for the tenth time) that you possess as well, regress society?

You throw what to me is an insult as you are saying right here plain as day that our beliefs regress society, with no proof to back your statement. In other words, you dislike a group of people, and therefore they are the problem in this society.
It isn't the "Superstitious" that are the problem, it is the mentality that you can't believe in a Theology and be progressive at the same time. What is regressive is the idea that you shouldn't believe in something just because you cannot account for it. The judgement of others because of their beliefs is regressive.

This whole debate has been stirred by a comment that Devon Clunis made. Please, enlighten me as to how his comment has regressed society in any way. I would suggest reading over everything that he said thoroughly so as to not make yourself sound ignorant.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

3/4 of the worlds believers used to be Atheists.

First, don't capitalize atheists, it is incorrect. And the statement above is wrong, all believers were once atheists, everyone is born atheist. No one believes in a deity until they are indoctrinated.

Second, don't go asking to prove there is no god, that is just silly. If you make an assertion there is a god, the burden of proof is on you. Here is a little video to explain this concept.

Third, no one is insulting you no matter how often you repeat it. You are are only perceiving what we are saying as insults. I'm sure you are a nice fellow.

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

In what way does the "Religious Superstition" which I might add (for the tenth time) that you possess as well, regress society?

Believing in gods is destructive when there are no gods. Really, can't you see that? Sky fairies? Really?

[Riverman]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

This whole debate has been stirred by a comment that Devon Clunis made. Please, enlighten me as to how his comment has regressed society in any way. I would suggest reading over everything that he said thoroughly so as to not make yourself sound ignorant.

How many people do you think who saw him on the news tonight thought "Oh man, what an idiot!"

He probably is not a fool but he seems to be doing his best to suggest otherwise.

[Reed Solomon]

Originally Posted by chrisallard5454

Calling it a superstition is an insult. Calling it drivel is an insult. Calling it creepy is an insult. Asking for his removal because of a statement built around his beliefs is an insult. Calling Christians nutcases is the act of insulting them.

Shall I go on?

I urge you not to. You are free to be insulted by anything and everything, but the fact that you are insulted does not make his statement any less valid.

Religion is by definition superstition. That is fact. Unless you can scientifically prove that your God is God without pointing to quotes in the bible to prove the bible true. That's not going to do it.

Calling it drivel is clearly opinion. He's entitled to his. I find it somewhat entertaining to see the stories humankind has come up with to explain the unexplainable, so I wouldn't go that far, but he did and if you're insulted, deal with it. Or call the religious police and have him tried for heresy.

If your God really did impregnate a woman with his child who is actually an aspect of himself thus making him his own father, well delightful! But I for one think that comes off as a bit creepy.

Asking for his removal is a bit premature. If he wants to tell everyone to dig a hole 2 feet deep in their backyards in order to catch the bad spirits that possess criminals to do bad things, he's welcome to do so. It'll be about as effective as prayer is, but if stupid ideas don't hurt anybody (except ghosts), and calling for prayer doesn't hurt anybody or do anything whatsoever, he's free to have them enacted.

Is calling Christians nutcases an insult? That depends on if a large segment of Christians in North America can be perceived to be mentally unbalanced or espouse views that are dangerous or illogical. If it is so, then while individual Christians might be insulted by the use of the term, it could still be a perfectly cromulent term to use.

[1ajs]

pff religion the biggest waste of our time ever


as for the new cheif my opion is still up in the air i have herd good things about him so see what happens

[armorand93]

Originally Posted by 1ajs

pff religion the biggest waste of our time ever


as for the new cheif my opion is still up in the air i have herd good things about him so see what happens

Agreed. Scientific materialism is the way to go!