Adam Savage at the Reason Rally

[Imaginarynumber1]

There was another thread in this section that contained an article that pretty much lambasted the recxent Reason Rally as a dark and hateful rally in D.C.

Here's a clip that I believe shows just the opposite to be the case.

[Lilly]

If this is "dark and hateful" then I'm going over to the "dark side" PDQ.

[willowdreams]

There was another thread in this section that contained an article that pretty much lambasted the recxent Reason Rally as a dark and hateful rally in D.C.

Here's a clip that I believe shows just the opposite to be the case.

COUNT ME IN FOR THE DARK SIDE!!!!

[Imaginarynumber1]

If this is "dark and hateful" then I'm going over to the "dark side" PDQ.

The article in the other thread tried to paint a picture of hate speech and resentment, when I think the whole rally was more a meeting of minds, if you will.

Plus, I though Savage made a great speech.

[Clarakore]

This thread, as the other, compliment each other in that both reveal just one side of the coin but together we can see both sides. This movement has function and dysfunction but without honestly evaluating that how will it ever integrate itself within society?

[Lilly]

Personally, (especially since I'm typing this on a computer) I'd say that scientific thinking has already integrated itself into society. And, rational thinking has been around for quite awhile (way back folks). I see this as more of what Carl Sagan was saying in "The Demon Haunted World".

I worry that, especially as the Millennium edges nearer, pseudo-science and superstition will seem year by year more tempting, the siren song of unreason more sonorous and attractive. Where have we heard it before? Whenever our ethnic or national prejudices are aroused, in times of scarcity, during challenges to national self-esteem or nerve, when we agonize about our diminished cosmic place and purpose, or when fanaticism is bubbling up around us-then, habits of thought familiar from ages past reach for the controls. The candle flame gutters. Its little pool of light trembles. Darkness gathers. The demons begin to stir.

And Dr. Sagan said this long before 9/11. IMO, we need this realization more than ever.

[libstaK]

Personally, (especially since I'm typing this on a computer) I'd say that scientific thinking has already integrated itself into society. And, rational thinking has been around for quite awhile (way back folks). I see this as more of what Carl Sagan was saying in "The Demon Haunted World".

And Dr. Sagan said this long before 9/11. IMO, we need this realization more than ever.

Yes that is a beautiful and Savage's speech was also beautiful, however I have to say it is not the sole realm of the atheist to appreciate these wisdoms. It would be as much a better world if people embraced that which we all have in common - love and with it empathy, and a capacity to reason.

[ChrLzs]

That's just awesome.

[Leonardo]

I saw grey skies and people wearing raincoats.

So, I have to ask...

Was God raining on their parade?

*tongue firmly in cheek*

[+Paranoid Android]

I think Unseelie said it best. Both this thread and the other show two sides of a coin. Adam Savage's speech was very well said, I reckon if I was a celebrity invited to the event I would have said something very similar (except for the last bit about himself being his own watcher instead of a creator). I can't say I understand why there was so much cheering over what he said. Even at large Christian gatherings, I don't cheer when the preacher says something I happen to agree with. Sounds more like a cult of celebrity (like people cheering a band at a rock concert when they tell them how awesome the crowd is).

In any case, I reckon Adam Savage (and guests like him) show one side of the Reason Rally (and to be fair it is almost definitely the larger side of things). On the other side are the people who simply want to protest religion. Those who want to declare "**** you Christians, don't tell me I can't have an abortion" (paraphrased, of course, for effect, I'm pretty certain those exact words weren't used - especially since pro-choice is not just a religious issue). I'm pretty sure those types of atheists also attended. And maybe they weren't intended specifically as part of the Guest List, they still attended and unfortunately for the organisers provided the downside to the event.

Just a thought,

~ PA

[Leonardo]

I think Unseelie said it best. Both this thread and the other show two sides of a coin. Adam Savage's speech was very well said, I reckon if I was a celebrity invited to the event I would have said something very similar (except for the last bit about himself being his own watcher instead of a creator). I can't say I understand why there was so much cheering over what he said. Even at large Christian gatherings, I don't cheer when the preacher says something I happen to agree with. Sounds more like a cult of celebrity (like people cheering a band at a rock concert when they tell them how awesome the crowd is).

In any case, I reckon Adam Savage (and guests like him) show one side of the Reason Rally (and to be fair it is almost definitely the larger side of things). On the other side are the people who simply want to protest religion. Those who want to declare "**** you Christians, don't tell me I can't have an abortion" (paraphrased, of course, for effect, I'm pretty certain those exact words weren't used - especially since pro-choice is not just a religious issue). I'm pretty sure those types of atheists also attended. And maybe they weren't intended specifically as part of the Guest List, they still attended and unfortunately for the organisers provided the downside to the event.

Just a thought,

~ PA

To be fair, PA, those whom you portray as the "dark side" of the Reason Rally are only standing up for what they believe in the face of a lot of pressure from a long tradition of religious influence on law. Additionally, they are not telling those who follow religious tradition what they can, or cannot, do with their own bodies.

I, personally, would not label those who wish to shout "**** you Christians, don't tell me I can't have an abortion." as 'dark' or 'hateful'. Those labels I would apply to those who cry liberty, while preaching (or practising) dictating.

[Lilly]

I, personally, would not label those who wish to shout "**** you Christians, don't tell me I can't have an abortion." as 'dark' or 'hateful'. Those labels I would apply to those who cry liberty, while preaching (or practising) dictating.

I (personally) would label anyone who publically shouted "F-you" at anyone, for any reason, at a public gathering as being disruptive and rude.

And just to add, embracing rational thinking does not somehow preclude having religious/spiritual beliefs.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Lilly
addition

[Imaginarynumber1]

The problem comes when we have religious and or spiritual people trying to impose their beliefs via our government. Look at Rick Santorum. Everything is all well and good until some starts to shove religion down someone else's throat.

Our governing body is of the people and for the people. Atheists are people as well, despite claims by others. Do we not deserve representation?

Sure there are those on both sides that take things too far, but is it not right to feel a little upset and the treatment some atheists receive at the hands of believers? I know I've been on the receiving end of it. And for what? Because I don't believe in someone else's god? That's just a silly reason to think less of somebody.

[Lilly]

...Sure there are those on both sides that take things too far, but is it not right to feel a little upset and the treatment some atheists receive at the hands of believers? I know I've been on the receiving end of it. And for what? Because I don't believe in someone else's god? That's just a silly reason to think less of somebody.

Exactly, regardless of which side one falls on (religious or atheist) no one has any right to dictate what another person chooses to believe. Also, I personally think no one has any right to shout out obscene remarks in public either. I know there are some folks who think otherwise, but I find such behaviour to quite rude and obnoxious.

[+Paranoid Android]

To be fair, PA, those whom you portray as the "dark side" of the Reason Rally are only standing up for what they believe in the face of a lot of pressure from a long tradition of religious influence on law. Additionally, they are not telling those who follow religious tradition what they can, or cannot, do with their own bodies.

I, personally, would not label those who wish to shout "**** you Christians, don't tell me I can't have an abortion." as 'dark' or 'hateful'. Those labels I would apply to those who cry liberty, while preaching (or practising) dictating.

I have to disagree. To use an example from the other thread, the journalist said something about a woman who held up a sign saying "stay out of my panties" (I think that's what it said, from memory). And though I agree that this wasn't a reference to sexual molestation (as the other article tried to imply) this does equate religious belief with the argument about pro-choice/pro-life. What isn't made clear is that there are quite a few non-Christians who don't believe in pro-choice. Yes, not all pro-lifers are Christian, believe it or not. But some people are so ensconced in their views that they cannot see this and believe that pro-life is a "Christian" view just as much as a person who thinks stem-cell research is wrong (another view that is not entirely championed only by religious folk). I still maintain my original statement - most people were thoughtful in their response/s, especially the guest speakers (of whom Adam Savage is the only person I have actually seen a video of). But outside of that are the "darker" elements of militant atheism, who are not there to promote reason but rather to promote anti-religion. That is a distinction I think some militant atheists are unable to distinguish between. Pro-reason, anti-religion - they are NOT the same thing, though some seem to think it is

~ PA

[Imaginarynumber1]

But outside of that are the "darker" elements of militant atheism, who are not there to promote reason but rather to promote anti-religion.

~ PA

There are the same group of people in religions. The ones that tell me I'm going to hell, the ones that protest funerals with hate speech, the ones that think that it is there mission to convert everybody, the ones that think a bronze age book makes a good foundation for 21st century laws, etc.

Regardless of my dislike for these types of people, they have just as much right to believe as I do to not believe. They, however, are not treated like lesser people because of their beliefs (maybe Westboro, but we all know they deserve it), while I and others have been.

They have every right to believe what they do, but when it crosses the line to government endorsement, it needs to stop. We're seeing it cross that line more and more often these days and there are a growing amount of people in the US that are not okay with that. Myself included.

Edited March 30, 2012 by Imaginarynumber1

[Imaginarynumber1]

Exactly, regardless of which side one falls on (religious or atheist) no one has any right to dictate what another person chooses to believe. Also, I personally think no one has any right to shout out obscene remarks in public either. I know there are some folks who think otherwise, but I find such behaviour to quite rude and obnoxious.

I do find that shouting when not appropriate is rude and obnoxious.

I don't mind people shouting obscene remakes, but then again I don't find any words to be obscene.

Except 'caddy-corner". And words that aren't words, like "acrost". Or when people use "then" instead of "than"....

[Leonardo]

I (personally) would label anyone who publically shouted "F-you" at anyone, for any reason, at a public gathering as being disruptive and rude.

And just to add, embracing rational thinking does not somehow preclude having religious/spiritual beliefs.

I agree that yelling obscenities is rude. My point was it doesn't make one "dark and/or hateful".

I have to disagree. To use an example from the other thread, the journalist said something about a woman who held up a sign saying "stay out of my panties" (I think that's what it said, from memory). And though I agree that this wasn't a reference to sexual molestation (as the other article tried to imply) this does equate religious belief with the argument about pro-choice/pro-life.

Which Christian denominations have in their tenet/doctrine that abortion is a permissable act, not 'sinful'?

What major religion, in 'Western countries', is throwing it's weight behind the Pro-Life movement?

Or are you suggesting the person was making a personal argument to each Christian individual, rather than arguing against the various Christian movements interfering in secular law?

What isn't made clear is that there are quite a few non-Christians who don't believe in pro-choice. Yes, not all pro-lifers are Christian, believe it or not.

Which isn't terribly relevant to the argument. In your hypothetical example, the person focussed on a religious group which was enabling (through it's influence with politicians and lawmakers) the Pro-Life Movement to influence law. Why, in a secular society, should that be allowed - especially for so sensitive an issue?

Do you think the Pro-Life movement would have anywhere near the influence it has without being backed up by major religions - such as Christianity?

Pro-reason, anti-religion - they are NOT the same thing, though some seem to think it is

~ PA

I never said they were the same thing. I am focussed on one particular example you gave which painted a person who was stridently libertarian as 'the opposite' of what you saw as "the good" at the Rally. I simply pointed out what I believe to be a flaw in your argument.

[Leonardo]

I (personally) would label anyone who publically shouted "F-you" at anyone, for any reason, at a public gathering as being disruptive and rude.

And just to add, embracing rational thinking does not somehow preclude having religious/spiritual beliefs.

I agree that yelling obscenities is rude. My point was it doesn't make one "dark and/or hateful".

I have to disagree. To use an example from the other thread, the journalist said something about a woman who held up a sign saying "stay out of my panties" (I think that's what it said, from memory). And though I agree that this wasn't a reference to sexual molestation (as the other article tried to imply) this does equate religious belief with the argument about pro-choice/pro-life.

Which Christian denominations have in their tenet/doctrine that abortion is a permissable act, not 'sinful'?

What major religion, in 'Western countries', is throwing it's weight behind the Pro-Life movement?

Or are you suggesting the person was making a personal argument to each Christian individual, rather than arguing against the various Christian movements interfering in secular law?

What isn't made clear is that there are quite a few non-Christians who don't believe in pro-choice. Yes, not all pro-lifers are Christian, believe it or not.

Which isn't terribly relevant to the argument. In your hypothetical example, the person focussed on a religious group which was enabling (through it's influence with politicians and lawmakers) the Pro-Life Movement to influence law. Why, in a secular society, should that be allowed - especially for so sensitive an issue?

Do you think the Pro-Life movement would have anywhere near the influence it has without being backed up by major religions - such as Christianity?

Are you of the opinion that a person's (or group's) religious beliefs should influence laws in a secular society?

Pro-reason, anti-religion - they are NOT the same thing, though some seem to think it is

~ PA

I never said they were the same thing. I am focussed on one particular example you gave which painted a person who was stridently libertarian as 'the opposite' of what you saw as "the good" at the Rally. I simply pointed out what I believe to be a flaw in your argument.

[The Silver Thong]

But outside of that are the "darker" elements of militant atheism, who are not there to promote reason but rather to promote anti-religion. That is a distinction I think some militant atheists are unable to distinguish between. Pro-reason, anti-religion - they are NOT the same thing, though some seem to think it is

~ PA

Organized religion is corupt to the core and saying that it takes a militant atheist to point that out is maybe going to far as I see nothing wrong with being anti religious. Now if the message from these so called militant athiests stated they were anti faith I would slap them myself. Being anti religious due to the actions of religion is just and commendable, any action against faith is not. That is the difference.

[Parsip]

You know, Leonardo, I don't believe American society is secular, but the government is, although not in a way that people can't vote for politicians or craft legislation based on their religious beliefs, as long as it doesn't violate anyone's rights. Western countries are generally democratic, and if you don't like the religious or political beliefs of the majority, there's really nothing you can do about it but try to convince people to adopt your views. Personally, I see nothing particularly religious about opposition to abortion. Pro-lifers, regardless of their religious beliefs, consider unborn human beings the same as born humans, and virtually every society is against murdering innocents, so abortion in their mind is no different than a mother choking her child to death. If you think about it, all laws are simply one group of people forcing their personal opinions on another group.

[The Silver Thong]

If you think about it, all laws are simply one group of people forcing their personal opinions on another group.

No science does not care about personal opinions. Science states the facts at hand not personal opinion as that would not be science. It is not one group vs another (faith based) it is a scientific understanding of what is as we know it. Faith based understanding of anything is personal.

Oh and no the US government is far from secular. Ones beliefe dictates the government. The US is the most religious nation on the planet.

Edited March 30, 2012 by The Silver Thong

[Parsip]

No science does not care about personal opinions. Science states the facts at hand not personal opinion as that would not be science. It is not one group vs another (faith based) it is a scientific understanding of what is as we know it. Faith based understanding of anything is personal.

Oh and no the US government is far from secular. Ones beliefe dictates the government. The US is the most religious nation on the planet.

Well, science isn't political. Science says fetuses and embryos are alive and human, but whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you're still forcing your personal opinions on other people. It's a double standard to single out religious people and criticize them for something that everyone does. I'm sure you support many laws that most people in your country, or at least America, oppose. But it's all right to you, because you believe it's the right thing to do regardless of popularity, which is exactly what every political Christian believes.

As for America's religiosity, thank you for the laugh. I find it unlikely that even 60% of Americans are religious. "Cultural" Christians/Jews/etc perhaps. Spiritual at most. But religious? Hardly. Every Muslim country is more religious than America. America may very well be one of the most religious countries in the West, but that doesn't say much. I sure hope you were exaggerating for dramatic effect.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Science says fetuses and embryos are alive and human

Science isn't sure when life begins. Or even death, for that matter. No amount of assertion will change that.

[The Silver Thong]

Well, science isn't political. Science says fetuses and embryos are alive and human, but whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, you're still forcing your personal opinions on other people. It's a double standard to single out religious people and criticize them for something that everyone does. I'm sure you support many laws that most people in your country, or at least America, oppose. But it's all right to you, because you believe it's the right thing to do regardless of popularity, which is exactly what every political Christian believes.

As for America's religiosity, thank you for the laugh. I find it unlikely that even 60% of Americans are religious. "Cultural" Christians/Jews/etc perhaps. Spiritual at most. But religious? Hardly. Every Muslim country is more religious than America. America may very well be one of the most religious countries in the West, but that doesn't say much. I sure hope you were exaggerating for dramatic effect.

Tell science and Julius Robert Oppenheimer science is not political and thanks for the laugh

Science states that all cells are alive no matter the nature of the simplicity. However it is science that can say when a fetus is actualy a being and not a cell. It is of opinion that one thinks a cell or a multi cell being no matter what is a human. When I have sex and use a condom does that mean I`m killing a million humans, no.

As far as living in Canada my freedoms are more than most could wish for and yes that gives me the freedom to speak out against religion and it`s underhanded way of dictating there view onto others and inforcing it by using some sort of out dated dogma in a book that can`t even keep up. After all a god that is all knowing should know better then to create an atheist that dares question lol.

As far as the US goes some estimates go as far as 83% of americans being religios however lets use your 60% and then use the population of 350 million and then compare that to Israel or Iraq or Afganistan. See what I mean Oh and try being elected into any form of government in the US stating there is no god or being agnostic for that matter. Good luck.