Truth - the New Hate Speech

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I commend this woman. Rape trauma is, indeed, life-changing, especially gang-rapes and/or multiple rapes over time. Not enough exposure is given to just how damaging it can be, not only physically, but psychologically, except in cases where it results in death.

I think, though, that a balance must be struck between giving a first-hand accounting of the trauma and it becoming mere graphic entertainment. People don't go to the opera expecting to be subjected to such shocking violence, so it was probably not originally written this way (just as on-screen and on-stage murders don't actually use as much blood as reality provides), so I applaud her decision (perhaps the director's decision) to portray it in a more realistic way.

(Edit: I'm sorry, I just noticed that you said this opera was a version of Rossini's William Tell, taking place in the Balkan conflict in the 1990's. No wonder then. I saw the original opera once with a full orchestra (in New York City, I was 14 at the time), and it was truly magnificent, especially the music. The rape scene was no doubt a strong scene added for emphasis with the change of setting, and as such, obviously should have been played for effect, and therefore, more true to life. I agree that, in that instance, a rape scene "so sanitized that the audience was *not* upset at all by it" would indeed be more disturbing. )

Originally posted by AppleChess
Seriously.

Go to default to crass talk.

Glad you atheists can keep a conversation civil.

Glad you atheists can keep a conversation civil.

Says the guy who misconstrued the meaning of what I wrote to another poster and responded for the sole purpose of calling me an "idiot".

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I believe Sonship said he was going to be away for a few days.

Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully jaywill will find my post and respond.

Earlier he made the following argument:

Civilization occurs where people restrain themselves in areas where they may have been born with an impulse that should be under self control.
...
Suppose someone feels that he was born with an innate desire to physically attack gay people.
...
I am happily married for over 35 years. I was BORN, however, with an innate impulse to have as many women as I want.
I don't (by God's mercy) give in to that impulse under the excuse that I was born that way without a choice.

Should we give in to every impulse that we were born with?

For the examples he cited above, its easy to make a moral case as to why they should not be acted out.

Thus far he's been unable to make a reasonable moral case as to why homosexuals should not be allowed to be in loving committed relationships like heterosexuals are.

If he is unable to, then all he has is his interpretation of the bible. Since the bible is filled with ambiguous, conflicting and contrary information and therefore widely open to interpretation, any case that it is "against the will of God" is dubious at best.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully jaywill will find my post and respond.

Earlier he made the following argument:
[quote]Civilization occurs where people restrain themselves in areas where they may have been born with an impulse that should be under self control.
...
Suppose someone feels that he was born with an innate desire to physically att ...[text shortened]... widely open to interpretation, any case that it is "against the will of God" is dubious at best.

It is more likely that you just do not understand everything you read in the Holy Bible. 😏

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
You make a valid observation, but think you highlighted yourself the most pertinent disqualifier when you said:

"For this comparison to work I must necessarily assume the gay person would be suffering from an assault on his conscience just as the religious person would be, otherwise the comparison makes no sense."

Seeing this issue, as i do, fr ...[text shortened]... nal marriage is in any way threatened by more unconventional marriages. Live and let live i say.

Okay, I get it now. You had me going there for awhile, but I think I see what happened here.

I think you're injecting more into my argument than was there, and are perhaps falling back on a default defensive position that assumes I'm strictly talking about homosexuality as a sin. If I wasn't a Christian I don't believe you would have assumed this was the point of my reasoning... but I suppose it's unavoidable whenever someone identifies himself as something other than an atheist/agnostic.

It's been difficult for me to talk to atheists who think anyone who believes in God necessarily has a one track mind, and will assume they need to defend their own world view whether it comes under assault or not. From my perspective (no two are exactly alike) I believe I'm able understand atheism now in a way that I wasn't able to understand it before.

For one thing, I've noticed how not believing in a god (any god) seems to always to result in something else becoming a 'sacred cow'. With atheism there always appears to be something so revered by the atheist that any criticism of it (however justified) will not be tolerated. Evolution is one of those sacred cows that nearly every atheist on the planet will rush in to defend. And will even defend to the point of attacking any legitimate science that might happen to cause some doubt. It seems you guys are generally A-Okay with science (another somewhat lesser sacred cow) unless some aspect of it appears to turn against what you believe about evolution.

======================================================================================

But I've straying from the one salient point I wished to make here, and my point is that it's probably wise not to assume too much. Even if you think you're being softened up for a speech about how to get right with God, and it turns out you were right, it would still be better for you to wait for it instead of starting with preemptive defensive arguments.

I don't actually do much if any proselyting here, because I know too much of that can have the opposite effect. Aggressive proselyting often works to drive people away rather than drawing them in. I can tell you this much about myself, I didn't become a Christian because of any hard sell tactic... I've walked away from people who I happen agree with, and for no other reason than because they were jamming on me.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay, I get it now. You had me going there for awhile, but I think I see what happened here.

I think you're injecting more into my argument than was there, and are perhaps falling back on a default defensive position that assumes I'm strictly talking about homosexuality as a sin. If I wasn't a Christian I don't believe you would have assumed this was t ...[text shortened]... om people who I happen agree with, and for no other reason than because they were jamming on me.

I feel your pain because sonhouse keeps calling me a one trick pony.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay, I get it now. You had me going there for awhile, but I think I see what happened here.

I think you're injecting more into my argument than was there, and are perhaps falling back on a default defensive position that assumes I'm strictly talking about homosexuality as a sin. If I wasn't a Christian I don't believe you would have assumed this was t ...[text shortened]... om people who I happen agree with, and for no other reason than because they were jamming on me.

Yes, i was indeed talking as 'an atheist to a Christian'. (Apologies but that almost happens automatically in these forums). and assumed the 'homosexuality is a sin' card was face down on the table.

As for the 'sacred cow,' i don't know about that. There are of course some basic truths (as i see them) that befuddle me when disputed. For example, Hinds disputing the world is billions of years old is the same to me as him disputing gravity or that Ipswich Town is the greatest football team on the planet. (Give them time).

Originally posted by lemon lime
For one thing, I've noticed how not believing in a god (any god) seems to always to result in something else becoming a 'sacred cow'. With atheism there always appears to be something so revered by the atheist that any criticism of it (however justified) will not be tolerated. Evolution is one of those sacred cows that nearly every atheist on the planet w ...[text shortened]... r sacred cow) unless some aspect of it appears to turn against what you believe about evolution.

I suspect that is actually you projecting on atheists what you want them to be like, and not their real views. I have several times had theists act like they thought evolution or science was a sacred cow to me, when in reality they aren't. I do think science is a good way to examine the world, and I do think evolution is a good scientific theory. But then so do most Christians.
Do you think science is a sacred cow? I am fairly sure that you would defend science just about as much as I would, or at least you certainly should do so.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Yes, i was indeed talking as 'an atheist to a Christian'. (Apologies but that almost happens automatically in these forums). and assumed the 'homosexuality is a sin' card was face down on the table.

As for the 'sacred cow,' i don't know about that. There are of course some basic truths (as i see them) that befuddle me when disputed. For example ...[text shortened]... ting gravity or that Ipswich Town is the greatest football team on the planet. (Give them time).

I became excited about and began studying evolution when i was about 12 or 13 years old... and it just now occurs to me that's around the same time I entered puberty.

Anyway...that puberty thing is intriguing, but offhand I can't see any kind of relevant connection between that and an interest in evolution... Anyway (damn it, i'm distracting myself again!) I was very interested in evolution for the next 10 or so years before I became a Christian, and continued to assume it was true regardless of what the Bible said. I think I must have started off assuming as some people here do that it was simply a story about beginnings, and that it wasn't necessarily meant to be taken literally.

But looking back I can see this was a natural assumption for me to make, because 10+ years of intense interest in evolution was able to successfully compete with what little I knew (as a newly minted Christian) about Christianity. It was only about 10 to 15 years ago that I had finally come to the conclusion that evolution (macro) wasn't possible... but it wasn't easy for me to accept that, because I've essentially believed in evolution for about the same amount of time I've believed in God.

So it's taken roughly 40 years for me to really come to grips with understanding the existence of God, and roughly 40 years of believing in evolution to get out of my system... if I've done the math right.

I better get to the point of this quickly now before I completely forget what it is... the point of this is I have what I suppose could be called a working knowledge of evolution as well as an intimate understanding of atheism/agnosticism. Because at one time I was an atheist (who then called himself an agnostic) who was as sure of evolution being the cause of all life on earth as any Christian can be sure of God creating all life on earth.

There are atheists here who have talked about growing up in a Christian household, and there is no reason for me or anyone else to not believe it. But I just happen to be a Christian who was brought up by atheists, and when I first mentioned this I was very surprised to hear some of the resident atheists here tell me I was lying about my upbringing. So I have no doubt that I'm in the minority here, and can expect to see opposition to nearly anything I might have to say concerning my beliefs.

BTW I'm not complaining about this... I'm just saying it is what it is.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suspect that is actually you projecting on atheists what you want them to be like, and not their real views. I have several times had theists act like they thought evolution or science was a sacred cow to me, when in reality they aren't. I do think science is a good way to examine the world, and I do think evolution is a good scientific theory. But then ...[text shortened]... you would defend science just about as much as I would, or at least you certainly should do so.

If you're letting science follow it's natural course and allow it to point you in the direction the evidence is pointing, then you are using science correctly. But if you are using science only for the purpose of proving what you want to see proven, then you are probably using it incorrectly.

Science isn't a religion or a god. It's only as good as the people who are using it, because just like any other tool science can be used or it can be misused.

A sacred cow can be almost anything, and evolution just happens to be one of atheisms most important sacred cows. A sacred cow in this case is something you will believe in spite of evidence to the contrary... and that is what makes it a sacred cow.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I suspect that is actually you projecting on atheists what you want them to be like, and not their real views. I have several times had theists act like they thought evolution or science was a sacred cow to me, when in reality they aren't. I do think science is a good way to examine the world, and I do think evolution is a good scientific theory. But then ...[text shortened]... you would defend science just about as much as I would, or at least you certainly should do so.

And I suspect you are simply being argumentative. So in anticipation of your next possible objection I'll say...

Tools accomplish a specific purpose. If science isn't a tool then it doesn't accomplish a specific purpose. If science doesn't accomplish a specific purpose then what good is it?

any objections to that?

Originally posted by lemon lime
I became excited about and began studying evolution when i was about 12 or 13 years old... and it just now occurs to me that's around the same time I entered puberty.

Anyway...that puberty thing is intriguing, but offhand I can't see any kind of relevant connection between that and an interest in evolution... Anyway (damn it, i'm distracting myself aga ...[text shortened]... oncerning my beliefs.

BTW I'm not complaining about this... I'm just saying it is what it is.

In the interest of reciprocal sharing, i am currently toying with the idea that as an atheist my existence as the 'chosen one' has been foretold in secular fiction. For example, is it a mere coincidence that in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything is 42, the age i am due to reach next Sunday. (Which from 'now on' should be considered a holy day). I have also been told only many occasions that i have an 'eery skulk walk' which just happens to be an anagram on Luke Skywalker (another chosen one).

The pieces are starting to fall into place. But i digress...

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay, I get it now. You had me going there for awhile, but I think I see what happened here.

I think you're injecting more into my argument than was there, and are perhaps falling back on a default defensive position that assumes I'm strictly talking about homosexuality as a sin. If I wasn't a Christian I don't believe you would have assumed this was t ...[text shortened]... om people who I happen agree with, and for no other reason than because they were jamming on me.

Evolution is one of those sacred cows that nearly every atheist on the planet will rush in to defend.

Do you believe that evolution is a "sacred cow" to anyone who defends evolution be it atheist or theist?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Thanks for letting me know. Hopefully jaywill will find my post and respond.

Earlier he made the following argument:
[quote]Civilization occurs where people restrain themselves in areas where they may have been born with an impulse that should be under self control.
...
Suppose someone feels that he was born with an innate desire to physically att ...[text shortened]... widely open to interpretation, any case that it is "against the will of God" is dubious at best.

Yes, i am also eagerly awaiting his clarity on the points you raise.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you're letting science follow it's natural course and allow it to point you in the direction the evidence is pointing, then you are using science correctly.

I am using it correctly.

A sacred cow can be almost anything, and evolution just happens to be one of atheisms most important sacred cows.
Given that atheism isn't a religion, I find that statement hard to justify. At least you could say 'it is the most important sacred cow for some atheists' but then you would have to find such an atheist.

A sacred cow in this case is something you will believe in spite of evidence to the contrary... and that is what makes it a sacred cow.
Well it isn't a sacred cow for me (and I am an atheist).