"Evolution is only a theory" stickers... [Archive]

View Full Version : "Evolution is only a theory" stickers...

SixSixSix

9th February 2006, 01:28 AM

I don't know how many of you are on the eSkeptic mailing list, but I see that the intelligent design "unproven" sticker brigade are still at it.

I'm wondering if they would accept a similar ruling that required all Bibles to have a sticker saying, "The events and entities described in this book are not proven, and should be examined critically". ;)

Tirdun

9th February 2006, 02:58 AM

----------------------------------------
| Like Evolution, Gravity is only a Theory. |
------------------------------------------

Rufo

9th February 2006, 03:02 AM

I'm wondering if they would accept a similar ruling that required all Bibles to have a sticker saying, "The events and entities described in this book are not proven, and should be examined critically". ;)

All Bibles used as sources for history/science research should have such a sticker... not that I'd know why people would like to use a Bible for science research... :rolleyes:

CFLarsen

9th February 2006, 03:36 AM

brettDbass

9th February 2006, 05:12 AM

I'm wondering if they would accept a similar ruling that required all Bibles to have a sticker saying, "The events and entities described in this book are not proven, and should be examined critically". ;)

I reckon the disclaimer used for the film Anastasia would make a good addition to the cover of every bible or other religious tome...

"While some of the characters and events depicted in this book were inspired by well-known historical figures and events, the portrayal of such characters and the depiction of such events are fictional. All other characters and incidents portrayed and names used were created for the purpose of fictitious dramatization and any similarity to the names, characters, and history of actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental and unintentional." source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasia_(1997_film))

It should, of course, be printed in the style of the warnings on a box of cigarettes and preferably contain references to endangering your health too.

Diabolos

9th February 2006, 06:22 AM

Something like this...?

Belz...

9th February 2006, 09:33 AM

Something like this...?

I. Love. You.

Can I get one of those (no, not YOU, the sticker !) ? :D

Lukretius

9th February 2006, 09:38 AM

Something like this...?
Uhhh, I like that one.

Pauliesonne

9th February 2006, 09:49 AM

If Jon Stewart made a joke about that bible, I swear I would literally die laughing.

I've come close before while watching him.

Vitriolis

9th February 2006, 09:51 AM

Something like this...?

Diabolos you've inspired me. I screen print for a living..signs, decals, control panels etc. I'm going to talk to my friend in the art department when I go in tonight and see if he'll do up some artwork for me. We have tons of offcuts lying around that I can use. Great stuff!

Chanileslie

9th February 2006, 10:13 AM

I have no problem with the "Evolution is just a theory" stickers, or at least I wouldn't, if they also explained what a theory really is, although, these stickers are deceptive because the wording implies that a theory is equivalent to "wild guess submitted at TRUTH".

If I were teaching a science class in a school district that required these stupid stickers, I would be forced to spend a day or two, explaining exactly what a scientific theory is, and what it is based on. And then I would be really mean, and make the kids write a several page paper on what a scientific theory is (depending on the age range, of course).

I think it is a great lapse in our education that most people really have no clue what a theory really is, and in our culture is often used in to mean, "My wild idea that I pulled out of my butt".

pgwenthold

9th February 2006, 10:49 AM

----------------------------------------
| Like Evolution, Gravity is only a Theory. |
------------------------------------------

Personally, I like atomic theory as a better example. Not only is it only a theory, it's still only _called_ a theory. With gravity, some will claim that it is a law, so it doesn't count.

But there is no atomic _law_.

ceo_esq

9th February 2006, 10:52 AM

BLING!

Exccellent idea.

We should make those stickers and put them in the bibles we find in our hotel rooms. Especially at TAMs.....

I doubt it's a good idea to place stickers on anything in a hotel room, or for that matter, on any book except for copies in one's personal library.

Quinn

9th February 2006, 11:45 AM

Personally, I like atomic theory as a better example. Not only is it only a theory, it's still only _called_ a theory.

Ah, good call! Germ theory and color theory were my favorites to bring up, for that very reason. ("Do we also need stickers claiming that no one really knows for sure whether yellow and blue make green?") A third one will round them out nicely.

Quinn

9th February 2006, 11:47 AM

I doubt it's a good idea to place stickers on anything in a hotel room, or for that matter, on any book except for copies in one's personal library.

Also, I'd be hard pressed to think of anyplace where hotel bibles are less read than Vegas.

Hutch

9th February 2006, 11:55 AM

Jas

9th February 2006, 11:59 AM

I doubt it's a good idea to place stickers on anything in a hotel room, or for that matter, on any book except for copies in one's personal library.
But the Bible's aren't owned by the hotel. They're donated by the Gideon society, and free for you to take. So you won't get in trouble for stickering them. I believe that there are some Gideon stickers made just for that purpose, at www.evolvefish.com

One of my favourite TAM4 souvenirs is the Bible from my hotel, defaced by Penn.

c4ts

9th February 2006, 01:36 PM

I want to put stickers on Gideon Bibles that say things like "HIDDEN MICROPHONE INSIDE!" Not that I actually believe it, I just want to make everyone paranoid.

Arkan_Wolfshade

9th February 2006, 02:02 PM

-----------------------------
| Evolution is only a theory, |
| The bible is pure fantasy. |
-----------------------------

ceo_esq

9th February 2006, 02:41 PM

But the Bible's aren't owned by the hotel. They're donated by the Gideon society, and free for you to take. So you won't get in trouble for stickering them.

Sorry to shift into lawyer mode, but being free for you to take is not the same as being free for you to deface and leave for the next guest. Now that I think of it, I spend a fair amount of time in hotels, and I don't recall ever reading anything on that Bible that would indicate it is unconditionally free for you to take. I could be wrong; you apparently took one, so maybe you could verify this. I suspect that the Bible in the hotel still belongs to the Gideons, who may or may not allow people to take it home with them, but who are likely entitled not to have the Bible stickered and put back where it was originally placed.

TragicMonkey

9th February 2006, 02:47 PM

If the Gideons cared about their Bibles, would they abandon them in other people's property?

ceo_esq

9th February 2006, 03:06 PM

If the Gideons cared about their Bibles, would they abandon them in other people's property?

Those Bibles don't constitute abandoned property. They are made available by the Gideons through arrangements with the hotel owners, who request them, and the society periodically consults with the hotels to replace worn, missing or stolen Bibles. My further research indicates, incidentally, that the Gideons do not, in fact, encourage people to take the Bibles.

TragicMonkey

9th February 2006, 03:14 PM

Those Bibles don't constitute abandoned property. They are made available by the Gideons through arrangements with the hotel owners, who request them, and the society periodically consults with the hotels to replace worn, missing or stolen Bibles. My further research indicates, incidentally, that the Gideons do not, in fact, encourage people to take the Bibles.

Hmm. I'm somewhat surprised they don't encourage people to take them. Surely someone motivated enough by browsing in a hotel room to actually take it with him is a surer chance for a conversion than relying on people getting exposure merely while in the room? Okay, that was an iffy sentence. But you know what I mean. If your purpose was conversion, the guy who actually takes the book away with him is a better bet than what you'd get from having the book in there for the next hundred disinterested hotel customers.

Jon.

9th February 2006, 03:27 PM

ceo_esq

9th February 2006, 04:04 PM

I thought the frontispiece said you could take it.

That frontispiece was probably just a sticker placed by some practical joker. :D

ceo_esq

9th February 2006, 04:14 PM

Hmm. I'm somewhat surprised they don't encourage people to take them.

It's due to the resulting expense, perhaps?

If your purpose was conversion, the guy who actually takes the book away with him is a better bet than what you'd get from having the book in there for the next hundred disinterested hotel customers.

I don't know that conversions are necessarily a major thrust of the effort; hotel guests in the United States are overwhelmingly Christian. I think they just want to provide some spiritual solace for travelers on the road. Have you ever noticed that the Gideon Bible has an introduction that proposes specific readings to provide comfort for various forms of trouble or need (loneliness, fear, etc.)?

Quinn

9th February 2006, 04:17 PM

Also, I'd be hard pressed to think of anyplace where hotel bibles are less read than Vegas.
True, but you'd be surprised at the amount of prayer I hear at the Blackjack table ("c'mon God, gimme a 10 on that double down...) ;) :D

I also didn't consider the number of people who suddenly turn to religion after gambling away their house, car, and children's college fund. So upon further thought, I retract my statement.

Maybe the sticker should read: "WARNING: If you've just gambled away your house, car, and children's college fund, the help you need IS NOT contained within this collection of loosely-related short fiction."

Genesius

9th February 2006, 05:41 PM

A friend sent me this in an email a long time ago. I'd love to have it printed on stickers and stuck in every Bible I could get my hands on:

They recently discovered a smaller scroll hidden in the cylinder of the first scroll of the ancient Biblical scriptures, believed to be the actual "first page" of the Bible. When deciphered, it read:
"Copyright (c) 300 B.C. God. All Rights Reserved First scrawling First-Sunrise-After-Stonehenge-Keystone-Is-Shadowed, 300 B.C.
All beings, places and events depicted in this work are fictional, and any resemblance to actual beings, places and events past, present or future is purely coincidental.
WARNING: Some of the actions performed in this work are dangerous and should only be attempted by professionals familiar with the action in question.
NOTE: Those tiny points of light in the sky when it gets dark are called 'stars'. Some of them do blow up on occasion. In no way should this be construed as a sign that there is, beneath such an explosion, any form of savior responsible for the avalanche of arrogance, zeal, bigotry, humanocentricity and other vile acts which will surely follow the residents of the planet into time eternal until someone sees fit to erase the denizens of the world and let the author start over.
DSBN 0-000000-0000-1
Suggested retail: 1 sheep."

pgwenthold

9th February 2006, 05:55 PM

Ah, good call! Germ theory and color theory were my favorites to bring up, for that very reason. ("Do we also need stickers claiming that no one really knows for sure whether yellow and blue make green?") A third one will round them out nicely.

Add graph theory and you have a good set.

I mean, graphs don't really exist, they are just a theory...

kmortis

9th February 2006, 05:59 PM

has anyone mentioned Information Theory?

Just saying....

Dr Adequate

10th February 2006, 01:09 AM

Ever heard of Knot Theory?

I want stickers on Boy Scout manuals, just so they don't go thinking that knots are a fact. We must protect our children from being brainwashed by by knotists!

Knotism is a religion, y'know.

brettDbass

10th February 2006, 01:29 AM

Something like this...?
Heh heh heh!

:D

CFLarsen

10th February 2006, 01:33 AM

I doubt it's a good idea to place stickers on anything in a hotel room, or for that matter, on any book except for copies in one's personal library.
Why not?

If they shove their beliefs in my face, I have a right to shove mine in theirs.

hurdygurdy

10th February 2006, 08:17 AM

Something like this...?

Perfect! It also works for the Coran!

Er... My first post here, cheers from a grateful lurker from Spain

Tirdun

10th February 2006, 08:30 AM

Do we also need stickers claiming that no one really knows for sure whether yellow and blue make green?

But your theory is wrong!
Yellow (#FFFF00) plus Blue (#0000FF) make WHITE (#FFFFFF).

SixSixSix

10th February 2006, 09:18 AM

Perfect! It also works for the Coran!

Er... My first post here, cheers from a grateful lurker from Spain
Welcome to the boards, and I feel honoured that your first post is on my thread. :)

Well, it was my thread... it appears to have been hijacked by dog gawn varmints... ;)

HeyLeroy

10th February 2006, 09:45 AM

All Bibles used as sources for history/science research should have such a sticker... not that I'd know why people would like to use a Bible for science research... :rolleyes:

They work well if one leg of your desk is about two inches shorter than the others...

ceo_esq

10th February 2006, 04:37 PM

Why not?

If they shove their beliefs in my face, I have a right to shove mine in theirs.

It's not exactly "in your face"; it's in the book in the nightstand drawer. But anyhow, I already explained the reasons why you probably are not entitled to do this.

You know, the hotels want to make these Bibles available to guests, as well. It's a collaborative effort with the Gideons, even if most of the initiative comes from the Gideons' side. (Hotels even specifically request Bibles with covers in a color that goes well with the room decor - supposedly many in Las Vegas opt for the gold edition.) I'm sure you're welcome to ask the hotel if you can make your own written material available for guests as well, but that seems to me to be the extent of your entitlement in this situation.

Zbu

10th February 2006, 04:53 PM

Something tells me that a Gold Vegas Bible would be a neat souvenir, especially if you get Wayne Newton or Penn & Teller to sign it with the aforementioned warning labels. ;)

Dylab

10th February 2006, 05:01 PM

You're such a downer ceo esq.

T'ai Chi

10th February 2006, 05:02 PM

If they shove their beliefs in my face, I have a right to shove mine in theirs.

Just don't fall in the trap of viewing everything you disagree with as shoving beliefs in one's face.

T'ai Chi

10th February 2006, 05:04 PM

It's not exactly "in your face"; it's in the book in the nightstand drawer.

It is also arguably the world's most influential book, found not only in nightstand drawers but in museums.

If, say, Flim-Flam somehow had that honor, that might be found in hotel room nightstand drawers.

Mercutio

10th February 2006, 05:09 PM

I would much prefer to find Shakespeare's collected works in my hotel room. But shakespearians tend not to be evangelical...

ceo_esq

10th February 2006, 09:50 PM

I would much prefer to find Shakespeare's collected works in my hotel room. But shakespearians tend not to be evangelical...

That would be nice. Maybe Shakespeare doesn't play as well in the Owensboro Motel 6, just off the bypass.

Of course, one suspects that the Bard himself would have been content with a Bible in the nightstand.

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 12:32 AM

It's not exactly "in your face"; it's in the book in the nightstand drawer. But anyhow, I already explained the reasons why you probably are not entitled to do this.

You know, the hotels want to make these Bibles available to guests, as well. It's a collaborative effort with the Gideons, even if most of the initiative comes from the Gideons' side. (Hotels even specifically request Bibles with covers in a color that goes well with the room decor - supposedly many in Las Vegas opt for the gold edition.) I'm sure you're welcome to ask the hotel if you can make your own written material available for guests as well, but that seems to me to be the extent of your entitlement in this situation.

Disagree. I visit the hotel to get a place to sleep, not have religion shoved down my throat.

When I book my room, I don't see any indication that I will be presented with a religious text, and especially a specific one.

c4ts

11th February 2006, 01:10 AM

Disagree. I visit the hotel to get a place to sleep

And should you need some help falling asleep, the Gideons have you covered.

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 03:03 AM

And should you need some help falling asleep, the Gideons have you covered.
True, true....

There's also violence, porn and fairytales in it.

Complexity

11th February 2006, 05:41 AM

Of course, one suspects that the Bard himself would have been content with a Bible in the nightstand.

Evidence?

TragicMonkey

11th February 2006, 10:50 AM

Disagree. I visit the hotel to get a place to sleep, not have religion shoved down my throat.

When I book my room, I don't see any indication that I will be presented with a religious text, and especially a specific one.

It's in a drawer, Claus. You don't have to touch it if you don't want to.

I like the Gideon Bibles because in the front they usually have one passage, I forget which, translated into bunches of languages. I like to admire the funny foreign writing. Some of it's quite pretty.

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 10:58 AM

It's in a drawer, Claus. You don't have to touch it if you don't want to.

The point is that it is there. They are sending a clear message: We want you to read this.

TragicMonkey

11th February 2006, 11:15 AM

The point is that it is there. They are sending a clear message: We want you to read this.

I don't use the little shampoos, either. I bring my own. Despite the fearful intimidation of the ukase from the Mighty Hotel Cartel: you will use these little shampoos.

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 11:21 AM

I don't use the little shampoos, either. I bring my own. Despite the fearful intimidation of the ukase from the Mighty Hotel Cartel: you will use these little shampoos.

There's a hell of a difference between offering complementary sanitary products and forcing customers to consider a specific religion.

Too bad you can't see that.

TragicMonkey

11th February 2006, 11:36 AM

There's a hell of a difference between offering complementary sanitary products and forcing customers to consider a specific religion.

Too bad you can't see that.

Too bad you think the presence of a book in a drawer is "forcing" you to consider anything. Do you recoil in horror and outrage when you approach the cash desk at a Chinese restaurant if they have the little shrine up on the wall behind it? Good heavens, what if they seat you beside a Buddha, or a scroll depicting Green Tara? Oh my god, don't go into that dry cleaner's! The owner is Greek and there's an icon on the wall!! It might soil your eyes!

I pity you if your lack of faith is so weak that you burst into tears because the hotel let the Gideons stick a book in the room. Are you so easily influenced?

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 11:48 AM

Too bad you think the presence of a book in a drawer is "forcing" you to consider anything. Do you recoil in horror and outrage when you approach the cash desk at a Chinese restaurant if they have the little shrine up on the wall behind it? Good heavens, what if they seat you beside a Buddha, or a scroll depicting Green Tara? Oh my god, don't go into that dry cleaner's! The owner is Greek and there's an icon on the wall!! It might soil your eyes!

I pity you if your lack of faith is so weak that you burst into tears because the hotel let the Gideons stick a book in the room. Are you so easily influenced?

I didn't say I was influenced, nor did I say I burst into tears. Hyperbole will get you nowhere. Not with me, you should know that.

I said that I object to being exposed to a specific religion. Why do they assume that I am interested in the Christian religion?

When I go to a Chinese restaurant, I can expect Chinese things to be displayed. If I go to a Christian hotel, I can expect Christian things to be displayed.

But when I go to a generic hotel, that caters to everyone, I don't want to be forced to even think about one specific religion.

Would you accept it if the only available channels on your generic hotel TV were Christian preacher shows? The only thing they offer you to read is the bible, the only thing they offer you to read is Christian preacher shows?

TragicMonkey

11th February 2006, 12:06 PM

I didn't say I was influenced, nor did I say I burst into tears. Hyperbole will get you nowhere. Not with me, you should know that.

I said that I object to being exposed to a specific religion. Why do they assume that I am interested in the Christian religion?

You said "forcing" you to "consider a specific religion. If anyone's hyperbolic, it's you. The presence of a Bible in a drawer of a hotel room is no more "forcing" you to consider it than the presence of little shampoos is forcing you to use them.

When I go to a Chinese restaurant, I can expect Chinese things to be displayed. If I go to a Christian hotel, I can expect Christian things to be displayed.

So, if the owners of the Chinese restaurant happened to be devout Catholics, and had a statue of Mary instead of Buddha, then you'd object? Because it violates your expectations? What religions are displayed where is up to your expectations?

But when I go to a generic hotel, that caters to everyone, I don't want to be forced to even think about one specific religion.

Who decides if a hotel is supposed to "generic" or not? You? What right do you have to decide what is and isn't an appropriate venue for religion?

You really don't get it, do you? As long as the government stays out of religion, it's all good. If you don't like the Sacred Heart of Jesus picture in your hotel room, you can complain, turn it to face the wall, or go to another hotel. But whining about such things "forcing" you to think anything is ridiculous. That's not being a skeptic. That's being a primadonna.

Would you accept it if the only available channels on your generic hotel TV were Christian preacher shows? The only thing they offer you to read is the bible, the only thing they offer you to read is Christian preacher shows?

Accept it? What's the alternative? Call the police? Complain to my congressman? It's a private business. They can offer whatever they like. Maybe such practices help their business, which is the only reason they'd be doing them at all. If I don't like it, I can find another hotel, or put up with it because it's no big deal. It doesn't hurt me. I don't have to watch the television, or read the books they provide.

curt

11th February 2006, 12:07 PM

I think it is a great lapse in our education that most people really have no clue what a theory really is, and in our culture is often used in to mean, "My wild idea that I pulled out of my butt".
I agree, I'm sure most people don't (not sure about can't) distinguish between theory, hypothesis, and idea. One class I teach is research methods at a university so I'm a little sensitive to this usage. My wife (who does understand what a theory is) commonly uses it to mean "plan." For example, "ok, my theory is we should go to the Greek place because we had Thai a couple days ago" or "I think we should put roses alongside the driveway. That's my theory!" It used to bug me. Not I think it's charming. But only from her.

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 12:32 PM

You said "forcing" you to "consider a specific religion. If anyone's hyperbolic, it's you.

How is this hyperbole? Do they offer the Koran? No. Why don't you find that offensive? Why do you give the Christian faith so much leverage? What is so acceptable about the Christian faith?

The presence of a Bible in a drawer of a hotel room is no more "forcing" you to consider it than the presence of little shampoos is forcing you to use them.

Only if you equate a hygiene products to religion. Religion is somewhat more than a mere product.

So, if the owners of the Chinese restaurant happened to be devout Catholics, and had a statue of Mary instead of Buddha, then you'd object? Because it violates your expectations? What religions are displayed where is up to your expectations?

I would be surprised, sure. But I wouldn't object, because when I walked through the door, I had an expectation that I would be submitted to some form of belief.

When I book a room at a generic hotel, I don't.

Who decides if a hotel is supposed to "generic" or not? You? What right do you have to decide what is and isn't an appropriate venue for religion?

When a hotel caters to the general public, they are generic. If they cater to a specific religious belief, they are not.

You really don't get it, do you?

No, I'm so stupid. I'm a blabbering idiot. Everyone who has met me says so. Good of you to point it out.

As long as the government stays out of religion, it's all good. If you don't like the Sacred Heart of Jesus picture in your hotel room, you can complain, turn it to face the wall, or go to another hotel. But whining about such things "forcing" you to think anything is ridiculous. That's not being a skeptic. That's being a primadonna.

Not at all. If you cater to the general public, you should not put a Christian bible in the rooms, if you respect their beliefs - or lack of same. It's that simple.

Accept it? What's the alternative? Call the police? Complain to my congressman? It's a private business. They can offer whatever they like. Maybe such practices help their business, which is the only reason they'd be doing them at all. If I don't like it, I can find another hotel, or put up with it because it's no big deal. It doesn't hurt me. I don't have to watch the television, or read the books they provide.

You don't find it objectionable. I do. Now, what? How do you think a Muslim feels, when he finds a bible in his hotel room?

TragicMonkey

11th February 2006, 12:49 PM

How is this hyperbole? Do they offer the Koran? No. Why don't you find that offensive? Why do you give the Christian faith so much leverage? What is so acceptable about the Christian faith?

So, now you're back to being forced, eh? A book is a book is a book. Just because other people think it's divine doesn't mean I do, and just because I don't think it's divine means its existence, or its presence, hurts me.

As for Christianity, it's no better or worse than other religions. It does have aspects to it that would make it less unreasonable for its book to be present:
the majority of the population in my country are some variety of Christian. If I'm staying in an American hotel, I can expect they're going to try to cater to the majority a little bit. Just like I expect that the porno channels are going to be mostly aimed at straight people.

Only if you equate a hygiene products to religion. Religion is somewhat more than a mere product.

You're right. Hygiene products are far more important than religion. I use them, and so ought everbody.

It's you who are placing so much importance on a religious book. To me, as an atheist, it's just a book. A book with a history, and something of a cultural landmark, but still just a book. You seem to regard it as something vastly more. Funnily enough, so do the people who believe in it. Atheism is the lack of religion, not the opposite of religion.

I would be surprised, sure. But I wouldn't object, because when I walked through the door, I had an expectation that I would be submitted to some form of belief.

So, restaurants are okay to have religious stuff, but hotels aren't? Why is that? Don't they both cater to the public?

When I book a room at a generic hotel, I don't.

When a hotel caters to the general public, they are generic.

So, are you suggesting a Chinese restaurant caters to the Chinese, and therefore they can display religion? Oh dear, that would seem to be a bit racist, because it's suggesting that a) the Chinese are not members of the "general public", and b) "generic" = "non-ethnic" in some fashion. Not to mention that conflating ethnicity with religion or lack of it is just absurd.

If they cater to a specific religious belief, they are not.

How much "catering" is putting a book in a drawer? Not even that: they allow other people to put a book in a drawer. If hotels carry a Spanish language television station are they catering to Spanish speakers?

No, I'm so stupid. I'm a blabbering idiot. Everyone who has met me says so. Good of you to point it out.

You just seem awfully irrational on the subject of religion. See above, re: primadonna.

Not at all. If you cater to the general public, you should not put a Christian bible in the rooms, if you respect their beliefs - or lack of same. It's that simple.

So you get to decide what is and isn't appropriate for the general public, eh? You have decided that religion isn't, that the default should be no religion? Despite the fact that in both your country and mine, the majority of that general public is some variety of Christian?

You don't find it objectionable. I do. Now, what? How do you think a Muslim feels, when he finds a bible in his hotel room?

I would imagine he feels the same way I do: "Silly Christians!" and pulls out his own book. He probably doesn't get outraged about it, and complains about people "forcing" their beliefs on him, because there's a book in the room he doesn't believe in. He might even realize that he's in a minority, just like atheists, and it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to indulge his beliefs instead of those of others.

TragicMonkey

11th February 2006, 01:07 PM

Let me put it this way: religion can be interesting. I like studying them. Not because I believe in them, but because they can tell you a lot about history and human psychology. Not to mention how they enrich art and literature. Sitting here at my computer, I, the atheist, without getting up can observe the following religious things in my own house:

a Mexican miniature nativity scene of painted wood, about one cubic inch big
a hand of Fatima
a small Our Lady of Perpetual Help icon
a small photo of Pope John Paul II
a lunchbox depicting the god Vishnu on one side and Hanuman on the other
a peculiar wooden icon depicting God the Father with a triangular halo
four big candles: one Sacred Heart of Jesus, two voodoo, and one Santeria
a wooden Egyptian sacred cat statue. It's poseable!

Not to mention the following books: the Bhagavad Gita, a Children's Catholic Bible, the Encyclopedia of the Occult, the Golden Bough, the Cloud of Unknowing, the Narnia books, Psychic Pets, a book of the Taoist writings of Chuang-tzu, a book by Chaim Potok, and assorted Nietzsche, Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz. (Yes, my bookcases are disorganized.) Somewhere else in the house I have Wallis Budge's Book of the Dead, lots of works on mythology, and probably even a copy of that Bible that would haunt you so if I put it in your hotel room.

And does having all of this religious stuff hurt me? No. It educates me.

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 01:14 PM

So, now you're back to being forced, eh?

I haven't changed my argumentation one bit. Don't try that cheap trick. Not with me. It won't work.

A book is a book is a book. Just because other people think it's divine doesn't mean I do, and just because I don't think it's divine means its existence, or its presence, hurts me.

As for Christianity, it's no better or worse than other religions. It does have aspects to it that would make it less unreasonable for its book to be present: the majority of the population in my country are some variety of Christian. If I'm staying in an American hotel, I can expect they're going to try to cater to the majority a little bit.

You can expect it, yes. But why do you accept it?

Just like I expect that the porno channels are going to be mostly aimed at straight people.

I don't know. I don't have your experience, since I don't watch the porn channels.

You're right. Hygiene products are far more important than religion. I use them, and so ought everbody.

And for good, rational reasons. There are no rational reasons why people should read the bible.

It's you who are placing so much importance on a religious book. To me, as an atheist, it's just a book. A book with a history, and something of a cultural landmark, but still just a book. You seem to regard it as something vastly more. Funnily enough, so do the people who believe in it. Atheism is the lack of religion, not the opposite of religion.

You bet I view it as something vastly more. Putting a bible in my hotel room isn't just putting a book there. It is showing me that the hotel wants me to consider a specific religion. I am not seeing a Koran there, or a Torah. I am seeing a Christian Bible. They send a clear message to me, one I haven't expressed any interest in, and one I don't expect.

So, restaurants are okay to have religious stuff, but hotels aren't? Why is that? Don't they both cater to the public?

Yes, but they send different signals. Hotels generally don't send a signal that they are Christian hotels.

So, are you suggesting a Chinese restaurant caters to the Chinese, and therefore they can display religion? Oh dear, that would seem to be a bit racist, because it's suggesting that a) the Chinese are not members of the "general public", and b) "generic" = "non-ethnic" in some fashion. Not to mention that conflating ethnicity with religion or lack of it is just absurd.

Oh, that's cute. But wrong. You see, my ex-wife was Chinese. I am very familiar with other "races", especially the Chinese. So, there is no way you can paint me as a racist, especially not when it comes to Chinese.

Dang, that backfired. What will you come up with next? I'm a Nazi?

How much "catering" is putting a book in a drawer? Not even that: they allow other people to put a book in a drawer. If hotels carry a Spanish language television station are they catering to Spanish speakers?

The Stardust allow people to put Korans in the drawers? Care to back that up with evidence?

You just seem awfully irrational on the subject of religion. See above, re: primadonna.

Gee, is there no end to what issues I am irrational about? Politics, religion.... Heck, you wouldn't think I would be skeptical about anything!

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I am non-skeptical about a certain issue, just because you disagree with me on that particular issue. It could also be because you don't like what I am saying. You don't hold the patent on what is skeptical or not.

So you get to decide what is and isn't appropriate for the general public, eh? You have decided that religion isn't, that the default should be no religion? Despite the fact that in both your country and mine, the majority of that general public is some variety of Christian?

I have decided that I feel that the default should be no religion. What is wrong with that, considering what you propose: That the majority should decide what I am subjected to?

If we follow your logic, Creationism should definitely be taught in science classes, and evolution should be banned. Is that really what you want?

I would imagine he feels the same way I do: "Silly Christians!" and pulls out his own book. He probably doesn't get outraged about it, and complains about people "forcing" their beliefs on him, because there's a book in the room he doesn't believe in. He might even realize that he's in a minority, just like atheists, and it would be unreasonable to expect everyone to indulge his beliefs instead of those of others.

Why should a Muslim even have to put up with this? Why should a skeptic?

And yes, you are suggesting that, because a majority believes in a certain religion, religion should permeate all aspects of society, yet people are free to discard it. But they can't escape it.

You want the majority to tell minorities what is the true religion or not. I don't.

CFLarsen

11th February 2006, 01:15 PM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

11th February 2006, 01:31 PM

Knotism is a religion, y'know.
Yes, obviously. But what about aknotism?

~~ Paul

TragicMonkey

11th February 2006, 01:47 PM

I haven't changed my argumentation one bit. Don't try that cheap trick. Not with me. It won't work.

It's not about tricks. I'm not playing the Who's Going To Win Game that you like to play.

You can expect it, yes. But why do you accept it?

Because only a fool refuses to accept the inexorable. Especially when it doesn't hurt him and isn't a big deal.

I don't know. I don't have your experience, since I don't watch the porn channels.

Neither do I, actually. They want you to pay extra. And from what I've heard, the quality isn't that great.

And for good, rational reasons. There are no rational reasons why people should read the bible.

That is your opinion. Not everyone agrees. I don't, as it happens. The Bible is a big influence on my civilization. History, art, and literature are riddled with references to it. The only influence bigger than the Christian mythology insofar as literature and art go is Greek mythology. Which I also read, without believing in.

You bet I view it as something vastly more. Putting a bible in my hotel room isn't just putting a book there. It is showing me that the hotel wants me to consider a specific religion. I am not seeing a Koran there, or a Torah. I am seeing a Christian Bible. They send a clear message to me, one I haven't expressed any interest in, and one I don't expect.

And so? Do you have to give weight to religious messages endorsed by a hotel management? Who cares? I care about what a hotel might tell me about billing rates, and the pool usage, and how to get more towels. Its opinions on metaphysics, the origin of the universe, ethics, and how many angels can dance on a pin are irrelevant.

Yes, but they send different signals. Hotels generally don't send a signal that they are Christian hotels.

Maybe they didn't think they had to. Gideon Bibles are pretty universal in hotel rooms. I'd be more surprised to not find one.

Oh, that's cute. But wrong. You see, my ex-wife was Chinese. I am very familiar with other "races", especially the Chinese. So, there is no way you can paint me as a racist, especially not when it comes to Chinese.

Dang, that backfired. What will you come up with next? I'm a Nazi?

Oh, my. Well, that proves you can't be racist, eh? You created an allowance for a Chinese restaurant to display a Buddha because it's Chinese, then graciously extended that to allow it to display the Virgin Mary, "because when I walked through the door, I had an expectation that I would be submitted to some form of belief." Why was that? Are Chinese restaurants inherently religious in some form, in your expectations? Why would a private business like a restaurant be allowed to display religion, in your ruling, while a hotel should not? Hmmm? Why would you object to one and not the other? I could only assume your "expectation of some form of belief" comes from one business being "generic" and the other "Chinese". Or will you now say that you would "expect some form of belief" displayed in any other kind of restaurant? An Intenational House of Pancakes with a Buddha? A Denny's with a Hanuman statue? A McDonald's with Chango candles?

"Some of my best friends are X!" isn't evidence of anything.

The Stardust allow people to put Korans in the drawers? Care to back that up with evidence?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Gee, is there no end to what issues I am irrational about? Politics, religion.... Heck, you wouldn't think I would be skeptical about anything!

Don't make the mistake of thinking that I am non-skeptical about a certain issue, just because you disagree with me on that particular issue. It could also be because you don't like what I am saying. You don't hold the patent on what is skeptical or not.

It just seems that your hatred of religion is blinding you to common sense.

I have decided that I feel that the default should be no religion. What is wrong with that, considering what you propose: That the majority should decide what I am subjected to?

Firstly, a Bible in a hotel room is not "subjecting" you to anything. You don't have to read it, or believe it.

Secondly, the minority has no more right to force its lack of belief on the majority than the majority has to force its belief on the minority. If most hotels, which are private businesses, feel like having Gideon Bibles in the room, why shouldn't they? It's their hotels, not yours.

If we follow your logic, Creationism should definitely be taught in science classes, and evolution should be banned. Is that really what you want?

This is quite laughable. Hotel room <> public schools. A Bible in a drawer <> conspiracy to teach Intelligent Design. The Gideons <> all that is evil and wicked done in the name of religion.

Why should a Muslim even have to put up with this? Why should a skeptic?

Because

a) it's private property and therefore the right of the hotel to furnish as they wish. If they want to paint scenes from the Book of Revelations on the ceiling, or have Tibetan Buddhist mandalas in the bathroom, that's their right.

b) Because it's not a big deal. It's a book in a drawer. You seem to feel that putting a book in a hotel drawer means the Mighty Hotel has extended it's Endorsement Of This Religion. Holy crap! Days Inn endorses the Bible! Let's convert!! WTF? Who cares what the hotel thinks? Who cares what it endorses? Did you convert to pseudo-Kabbalah because Madonna endorses it? Why should you care, even enough to object, to what a hotel does? And

c) it's not an endorsement. The hotels exist to make money. They don't give a flying fish what you believe, as long as you pay your bill and don't steal the towels. They let the Gideons do their thing because it doesn't hurt anybody, and it might be something many guests will ask for if its not there. I remember the days when every hotel room came with ashtrays. Did everyone smoke? Was the hotel encouraging, endorsing, forcing people to smoke? No. It provided, as part of its service, something that many guests might want and need. The rest could ignore them.

And yes, you are suggesting that, because a majority believes in a certain religion, religion should permeate all aspects of society, yet people are free to discard it. But they can't escape it.

Religion is one aspect of culture. Expecting to escape it is silly. If you don't believe it, and you don't like it, fight the battles that matter: stop government endorsement, stop creeping religous agenda in law, stop censorship and the like. But bugging out over Gideon Bibles in hotels? Sheesh.

You want the majority to tell minorities what is the true religion or not. I don't.

What I want is for individuals to make up their own minds about religion. Deciding for them what they should and shouldn't be exposed to, and in what venues, is not the right way to do that. That's the sort of tactic a religion would use.

Hell, haven't you realized that the best argument against Christianity is the Bible? Have you ever read the thing? If you really wanted people to turn skeptical, you'd encourage them to!

ceo_esq

11th February 2006, 10:57 PM

Evidence?

Are you being serious or silly? You want evidence regarding my comment about Shakespeare?

I don't know what kind of evidence you have in mind. Yet given that Shakespeare lived in a culture that was immersed in the Bible, that he must have read the Bible many times (probably in more than one English translation), that he alluded to it more than a thousand times in his works and obviously found it to be a rich literary source, and that the Bible - along with the Book of Common Prayer - was generally considered an essential fixture in respectable households in Shakespeare's day, I think my remark was reasonably well-founded.

CFLarsen

12th February 2006, 02:04 AM

It's not about tricks. I'm not playing the Who's Going To Win Game that you like to play.

Sure, it's a trick: Claim that I am waffling in my argumentation. I'm not.

Because only a fool refuses to accept the inexorable. Especially when it doesn't hurt him and isn't a big deal.

Argument from popularity: We must accept it because it is so predominant. Sorry, but I won't.

That is your opinion. Not everyone agrees. I don't, as it happens. The Bible is a big influence on my civilization. History, art, and literature are riddled with references to it. The only influence bigger than the Christian mythology insofar as literature and art go is Greek mythology. Which I also read, without believing in.

The bible is first and foremost a religious document. It is one of the cornerstones in the biggest religion on Earth. It is the most printed book in the world.

And so? Do you have to give weight to religious messages endorsed by a hotel management? Who cares? I care about what a hotel might tell me about billing rates, and the pool usage, and how to get more towels. Its opinions on metaphysics, the origin of the universe, ethics, and how many angels can dance on a pin are irrelevant.

Would you accept crucifixes? Pictures of Jesus?

Maybe they didn't think they had to. Gideon Bibles are pretty universal in hotel rooms. I'd be more surprised to not find one.

Again, argument from popularity.

Oh, my. Well, that proves you can't be racist, eh?

It means that your cheap shot backfired. You can act all huffy about it, though.

You created an allowance for a Chinese restaurant to display a Buddha because it's Chinese, then graciously extended that to allow it to display the Virgin Mary, "because when I walked through the door, I had an expectation that I would be submitted to some form of belief." Why was that? Are Chinese restaurants inherently religious in some form, in your expectations? Why would a private business like a restaurant be allowed to display religion, in your ruling, while a hotel should not? Hmmm? Why would you object to one and not the other? I could only assume your "expectation of some form of belief" comes from one business being "generic" and the other "Chinese". Or will you now say that you would "expect some form of belief" displayed in any other kind of restaurant? An Intenational House of Pancakes with a Buddha? A Denny's with a Hanuman statue? A McDonald's with Chango candles?

You are so busy finding faults in my argumentation that you don't read and understand it. They can run their business every which way they see fit. When you walk into a Chinese restaurant, you expect a specific product: You get the red walls, the Chinese paintings, the incense sticks, the small shrine, etc. When you walk into a generic hotel, you don't expect a religious lecture.

"Some of my best friends are X!" isn't evidence of anything.

Having a Chinese family makes it a bit harder for you to claim I have anything against Chinese.

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

You said that they allow other people to put a book in a drawer. Do the hotels cater to Muslims? Yes? Why aren't there a Koran, too?

It just seems that your hatred of religion is blinding you to common sense.

I don't hate religion, I just don't like it or the influence it has on my life. When I go to a generic hotel, I don't want to see a specific religion endorsed. It's that simple.

Firstly, a Bible in a hotel room is not "subjecting" you to anything. You don't have to read it, or believe it.

I have to consider if I want to read it or not. I don't want to be reminded of religion in a generic hotel. They are designed to be as accommodating to all people.

Secondly, the minority has no more right to force its lack of belief on the majority than the majority has to force its belief on the minority. If most hotels, which are private businesses, feel like having Gideon Bibles in the room, why shouldn't they? It's their hotels, not yours.

Again, you don't understand what I write. They can do what they want, they should just be upfront about it, so I know, as a consumer, what to expect.

This is quite laughable. Hotel room <> public schools. A Bible in a drawer <> conspiracy to teach Intelligent Design. The Gideons <> all that is evil and wicked done in the name of religion.

Since the majority of that general public is some variety of Christian, and they decide, then your argumentation means they can teach Creationism in science classes.

Because

a) it's private property and therefore the right of the hotel to furnish as they wish. If they want to paint scenes from the Book of Revelations on the ceiling, or have Tibetan Buddhist mandalas in the bathroom, that's their right.

Sure. But if they want to support a specific religion, they should tell me, so I can make an informed choice.

b) Because it's not a big deal. It's a book in a drawer. You seem to feel that putting a book in a hotel drawer means the Mighty Hotel has extended it's Endorsement Of This Religion. Holy crap! Days Inn endorses the Bible! Let's convert!! WTF? Who cares what the hotel thinks? Who cares what it endorses? Did you convert to pseudo-Kabbalah because Madonna endorses it? Why should you care, even enough to object, to what a hotel does? And

You care what the hotel thinks, the same way you care if some other business were selling you something. Would you like it, if they offered you the bible at the reception desk?

c) it's not an endorsement. The hotels exist to make money. They don't give a flying fish what you believe, as long as you pay your bill and don't steal the towels. They let the Gideons do their thing because it doesn't hurt anybody, and it might be something many guests will ask for if its not there. I remember the days when every hotel room came with ashtrays. Did everyone smoke? Was the hotel encouraging, endorsing, forcing people to smoke? No. It provided, as part of its service, something that many guests might want and need. The rest could ignore them.

It is most definitely an endorsement. They have willingly and knowingly made the decision that their customers would, by default, be Christians. I find that offensive.

Religion is one aspect of culture. Expecting to escape it is silly. If you don't believe it, and you don't like it, fight the battles that matter: stop government endorsement, stop creeping religous agenda in law, stop censorship and the like. But bugging out over Gideon Bibles in hotels? Sheesh.

Boy, if I had a nickel for each time I had heard that one: "I disagree with you, so why don't you go elsewhere and stop arguing with me? You can do better in other areas....."

What I want is for individuals to make up their own minds about religion. Deciding for them what they should and shouldn't be exposed to, and in what venues, is not the right way to do that. That's the sort of tactic a religion would use.

Hell, haven't you realized that the best argument against Christianity is the Bible? Have you ever read the thing? If you really wanted people to turn skeptical, you'd encourage them to!

Then, we are back to square 1.

You want them to read the bible to turn them off religion. Do you think that is effective? Perhaps if they could also see why it is crap, e.g. by putting a small pamphlet beside the bible with some valid points?

T'ai Chi

12th February 2006, 08:10 AM

There's a hell of a difference between offering complementary sanitary products and forcing customers to consider a specific religion.

Who's "forcing" you to consider anything?

You must feel very threatened at a library, where even more books are being forced upon you to consider!

Hawk one

12th February 2006, 08:12 AM

Who's "forcing" you to consider anything?

You must feel very threatened at a library, where even more books are being forced upon you to consider!

Does your average public library contain the Coran, the Torah, and other religious and spiritual texts? Or does it only contain the bible?

CFLarsen

12th February 2006, 08:27 AM

Does your average public library contain the Coran, the Torah, and other religious and spiritual texts? Or does it only contain the bible?

Precisely.

As usual, T'ai Chi misses the point completely.

T'ai Chi

12th February 2006, 08:34 AM

Does your average public library contain the Coran, the Torah, and other religious and spiritual texts? Or does it only contain the bible?

It contains a lot of books, certainly all of those.

The key word is "forcing".

There's a hell of a difference between offering complementary sanitary products and FORCING customers to consider a specific religion.

Again, who is "forcing" Claus to consider the Bible, to flip to the porn channel, to use the ironing board, to eat from the mini-bar, or to do anything else in his hotel room?

Not sure why he thinks having the most influential book in the world, that a large % of people like, merely being available in his hotel room is the same as "forcing". I'm sure he'll duc.. I mean explain.

Hawk one

12th February 2006, 08:49 AM

It contains a lot of books, certainly all of those.

The key word is "forcing".

If a public library contains only religious text for one specific religion and no other, then said library can certainly be argued to force one specific viewpoints on the reader. Any library I go into, I'll expect to see religious text for -all- the major religions, and plenty of the minor, not one.

If you fail to see why this is logical, then that's your problem.

Again, who is "forcing" Claus to consider the Bible, to flip to the porn channel, to use the ironing board, to eat from the mini-bar, or to do anything else in his hotel room?

Not sure why he thinks having the most influential book in the world, that a large % of people like, merely being available in his hotel room is the same as "forcing". I'm sure he'll duc.. I mean explain.

He already did. You just didn't read it. As for your last sentence, I see you still enjoy being hyopcritical.

Mercutio

12th February 2006, 08:54 AM

When you walk into a Chinese restaurant, you expect a specific product: You get the red walls, the Chinese paintings, the incense sticks, the small shrine, etc. When you walk into a generic hotel, you don't expect a religious lecture.
And I generally don't get one. I do, however expect to find the Gideon Bible. It is as expected as any of the Chinese restaurant icons you list.

Now Rocky Raccoon he fell back in his room
Only to find Gideon's bible
Gideon checked out and he left it no doubt
To help with good Rocky's revival.

I find it a very helpful thing to have--the hotel's table usually has one leg that is a bit too short.

CFLarsen

12th February 2006, 09:04 AM

And I generally don't get one. I do, however expect to find the Gideon Bible. It is as expected as any of the Chinese restaurant icons you list.

That's what I object to.

T'ai Chi

12th February 2006, 09:15 AM

If a public library contains only religious text for one specific religion and no other, then said library can certainly be argued to force one specific viewpoints on the reader. Any library I go into, I'll expect to see religious text for -all- the major religions, and plenty of the minor, not one.

If you fail to see why this is logical, then that's your problem.

Ok, that is not being disputed.

What is being disputed is that if a hotel (people generally don't go there to read, which is why your library analogy is highly flawed) only had 1 religious text, is that "forcing" you to read it, or to even consider it?

T'ai Chi

12th February 2006, 09:26 AM

Claus wrote

If they shove their beliefs in my face, I have a right to shove mine in theirs.

What beliefs of yours specifically?

CFLarsen

12th February 2006, 09:37 AM

What beliefs of yours specifically?
Irrelevant. I am talking principles here.

T'ai Chi

12th February 2006, 09:55 AM

Irrelevant. I am talking principles here.

You didn't say principles. You said

If they shove their beliefs in my face, I have a right to shove mine in theirs.

So what "beliefs" of yours do you have the right to shove in their face?

CFLarsen

12th February 2006, 10:05 AM

You didn't say principles. You said

So what "beliefs" of yours do you have the right to shove in their face?

Troll.

TragicMonkey

12th February 2006, 11:12 AM

Troll.

Wow. Just...wow.

Tricky

12th February 2006, 01:52 PM

You didn't say principles. You said

So what "beliefs" of yours do you have the right to shove in their face?
The "principle" is that if someone is allowed to shove their beliefs (any beliefs) in your face you are allowed to shove your beliefs (any beliefs) in theirs.

And while this may be true in principle, in real life it is not always the best idea. Sort of like "an eye for an eye until everyone is blind."

T'ai Chi

12th February 2006, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by CFLarsen :

Irrelevant. I am talking principles here.

You didn't say principles. You said

If they shove their beliefs in my face, I have a right to shove mine in theirs.

So what "beliefs" of yours do you have the right to shove in their face?

Seems like an easy question to answer by just listing your beliefs you have a right to shove in peoples' faces.

Silly Green Monkey

12th February 2006, 03:03 PM

Should there be bible and non-bible rooms then, as there are smoking (ashtrays present) and non-smoking (no ashtrays) rooms?

CFLarsen

12th February 2006, 03:11 PM

Should there be bible and non-bible rooms then, as there are smoking (ashtrays present) and non-smoking (no ashtrays) rooms?

Perhaps. Or even better, bible and non-bible hotels. I think we still have a few teetotaler hotels left in DK, run by Christians.

Imrational

12th February 2006, 04:00 PM

I've spent a far amount of time in hotel rooms. I've seen several Gideon Bibles that had an introductory page that listed several "personal issues" and the bible passage that could help you with said issue. On that page was a statement that said if the bible was of interest to you, you could take it.

On several boring nights, I've went through and listed some more passages to that introductory page, pointing out some of the things that most xians try and forget. Yes, it is petty, but I do get a chuckle out of it. I would love to put some bible warning stickers on those bibles. Childish? Yup. Guilty.

Do the hotels have the right to put bibles in their rooms? Yup. Do we have the right to leave stickers? If the bibles are complementary, yup! Otherwise, no.

T'ai Chi

12th February 2006, 04:06 PM

Every hotel I stayed in, I didn't believe that someone was forcing me to read or consider anything.

Some people must view everything they disagree with as a threat of Biblical proportions?

ceo_esq

12th February 2006, 08:19 PM

Do we have the right to leave stickers? If the bibles are complementary, yup!

Perhaps I have an unusual way of looking at rights, but as I suggested before, an offer to let you take the Bible home with you would not be equivalent to an offer to let you place a sticker in the Bible and leave it for the next person. Do you think you'd have the right to place a sticker over the label of a bottle of complimentary shampoo and leave it where the hotel staff might possibly overlook the fact that it was no longer hotel property but a piece of your abandoned property? Both the hotel and the Gideons would have legitimate grounds for objecting to our leaving stickers in the Bibles without express permission.

SixSixSix

12th February 2006, 09:11 PM

I think that it is possible to get too worked up about these things.

From a purist point of view, Claus is absolutely right - the Gideon organisation should not have the right to pollute atheist hotel rooms with their infernal propoganda. (On the other hand, hotels certainly have the right to fill their rooms with whatever legal items they wish - it is, after all, private property).

However, how far do we take this? Should the Amish conference attendees get upset at the broadband internet connections available? Should teetotallers (like me, say) be angered by the alcohol in the minibar? Should diabetics be incensed that the minibar is filled with tempting-but-dangerous chocolate?

These are all reasonable questions. The answer isn't by any means clearly "no", but it is likely that most people are not going to react in an extreme fashion even if they are an Amish diabetic teetotalling atheist. With that said, it's certainly everyone's right to be offended, but I would suggest the most appropriate reaction is to fill out the little "how did you enjoy your stay?" forms that the hotels have. Presumably if enough atheists said that they'd prefer a room without a Bible in it, the option would be presented.

CFLarsen

12th February 2006, 10:30 PM

even if they are an Amish....atheist.

OK, how would that work? ;)

SixSixSix

12th February 2006, 11:07 PM

OK, how would that work? ;)
An Amish atheist? Well, I'm guessing that since there have been atheists amongst even the most theocratic historical societies, that there must be one or two amongst our technologically challenged friends.

Then again, I'm an Aussie. I've never even thrown an icecream at an Amish, and I suspect watching Harrison Ford in "Witness" doesn't really constitute education. :)

Imrational

12th February 2006, 11:56 PM

Do you think you'd have the right to place a sticker over the label of a bottle of complimentary shampoo and leave it where the hotel staff might possibly overlook the fact that it was no longer hotel property but a piece of your abandoned property? Both the hotel and the Gideons would have legitimate grounds for objecting to our leaving stickers in the Bibles without express permission.
What, if you don't use the complimentary shampoo it's reused for the next visitor :eek:?!? Man, I wonder what gross things previous occupants put in there!:o

But yes, I think you could say that placing a sticker on/inside the book makes it your abandoned property. If the hotel wishes to remove it, they can. Waste of a good sticker though:D

Apex Rogers

13th February 2006, 12:59 AM

Something like this...?

That's awesome. :th:

c4ts

13th February 2006, 07:55 AM

True, true....

There's also violence, porn and fairytales in it.

Mostly in the OT, anyway.

sphenisc

13th February 2006, 08:25 AM

What I hate is they way they always leave wardrobes in the room. Like we're all Narnianists or something.

HarryKeogh

13th February 2006, 08:32 AM

Why not?

If they shove their beliefs in my face, I have a right to shove mine in theirs.

Perhaps you should do what the Gideons do (instead of damaging someone else's property by placing a sticker in it...no matter how witty that sticker is); purchase or acquire thousands of copies of your favorite book on skepticism and ask hotel chains to place the book in their nightstands. It may take a tremendous amount of effort and you may not succeed but if it's that important to you that a business not have religious material in a drawer (or at least present other points of view) you should try.

Genesius

13th February 2006, 08:55 AM

An Amish atheist? Well, I'm guessing that since there have been atheists amongst even the most theocratic historical societies, that there must be one or two amongst our technologically challenged friends.

Then again, I'm an Aussie. I've never even thrown an icecream at an Amish, and I suspect watching Harrison Ford in "Witness" doesn't really constitute education. :)

Speaking as one who has lived around Amish and Mennonites his whole life, I highly doubt there's any such thing as an "Amish atheist". To the Amish there is no seperation between religious and secular - everything has religious connotations. An atheist would choose to leave the community rather than live plain.

For example: everyone knows that the Amish don't use buttons, but do you know why? It's because buttons can be ornamental as well as functional, and to wear anything ornamental would tempt the wearer into the sins of vanity and pride. An atheist would have to forsake everything he considered true and live his whole life in the closet (so to speak) to remain within the Amish community.

ceo_esq

13th February 2006, 11:54 AM

But yes, I think you could say that placing a sticker on/inside the book makes it your abandoned property. If the hotel wishes to remove it, they can.

In that case, you ought to bring to the hotel's attention that you've claimed (assuming this can rightfully be done) and abandoned the copy of the Bible, which has now been defaced by a sticker. Otherwise they are likely to overlook the fact that it's yours and needs to be replaced, just as if you had tampered unobtrusively with another replaceable amenity, or left personal property in a hard-to-notice place (say, rubbish wedged behind the headboard). One way or another, the hotel is entitled to reasonably fair notice (where not otherwise obvious to a casual observer) of what's going on.

SixSixSix

13th February 2006, 06:40 PM

Speaking as one who has lived around Amish and Mennonites his whole life, I highly doubt there's any such thing as an "Amish atheist". To the Amish there is no seperation between religious and secular - everything has religious connotations. An atheist would choose to leave the community rather than live plain.

As I say, my entire knowledge of the Amish is based on a few scenes from Witness, so I'm happy to bow to superior knowledge here.

At the risk of inciting ire, I recall a thread previously on whether or not the term "atheist Jew" was an oxymoron. The basis was that some people regard Jewishness as a racial description (in which case you can be a Christian Jew, Hindu Jew, or whatever) and others as a religious description (in which case you can only be a "Jewish Jew"). I am aware that I am oversimplifying this - my point is merely to get to this question: do any people formerly part of an Amish community refer to themselves as Amish after leaving it? Or would they be ex-Amish instead?

chance

13th February 2006, 07:02 PM

Perhaps. Or even better, bible and non-bible hotels. I think we still have a few teetotaler hotels left in DK, run by Christians.

I think I side with you on this issue (not the segregated hotels bit).

I can’t quite put my finger on it, but there is something slightly irritating about a bible in the desk draw of a hotel.
Perhaps it the presumption, or some sort of stealth evangelism, it just does not feel quite right.
It has similar issues to the 10 commandments monument in the court house, i.e. in a public place, (and a hotel should qualify as such) one has the expectation of equality, and it feels diminished.

Genesius

14th February 2006, 08:06 AM

As I say, my entire knowledge of the Amish is based on a few scenes from Witness, so I'm happy to bow to superior knowledge here.

At the risk of inciting ire, I recall a thread previously on whether or not the term "atheist Jew" was an oxymoron. The basis was that some people regard Jewishness as a racial description (in which case you can be a Christian Jew, Hindu Jew, or whatever) and others as a religious description (in which case you can only be a "Jewish Jew"). I am aware that I am oversimplifying this - my point is merely to get to this question: do any people formerly part of an Amish community refer to themselves as Amish after leaving it? Or would they be ex-Amish instead?

Being Amish isn't a racial description. You're not born Amish, when you become an adult you make a conscious decision to live the plain life. If you decide not to go plain, you're not Amish. For those who choose to go plain and later leave, I'm not sure if "former Amish" or "ex-Amish" is the preferred term.

Zbu

14th February 2006, 09:02 AM

I have a question: if you're religious and on the road, then why the heck can't you bring a Bible with you? Putting them into hotel rooms makes a lot of presumptions about the inhabitants and becomes more shilling for a religion than it does honestly helping people.

But seriously, why the heck wouldn't someone who needs the Bible not bring it along? Why not sell Bibles and other articles of faith in a vending machine to prevent this intrusion (as well as disease, in case of hospitals)? All this reasoning for keeping a silly book in a drawer just seems to be justification for religious crap.

Complexity

14th February 2006, 09:12 AM

CFLarsen

14th February 2006, 09:22 AM

Being Amish isn't a racial description. You're not born Amish, when you become an adult you make a conscious decision to live the plain life. If you decide not to go plain, you're not Amish. For those who choose to go plain and later leave, I'm not sure if "former Amish" or "ex-Amish" is the preferred term.
There are no Amish children?

Genesius

14th February 2006, 09:49 AM

My fault for not expressing myself clearly - I was not sufficently clear when I said "You're not born Amish". :footinmou While Amish people do have children, and they take their children to church, the children are not members of the church. That takes place as an adult. So the children are part of the Amish community, but not the Amish church.

<sigh> That still reads as clear as mud. Some days it's just not worth firing up the ol' computer.

For more info that you could ever want on the subject, see http://www.amishnews.com/amishseries.htm. The articles on this site are fact-checked with local Amish, so they should qualify as an authoritative source.

Mercutio

14th February 2006, 10:05 AM

There are no Amish children?
They are anabaptists; they are baptised into the church not as infants, but only after making the conscious decision to enter. Quakers, Mennonites, Old Order Brethren (and perhaps more) share this characteristic. My church, back when I was christian, was this way. So, there are children in the community, but they are not truly members of the church until they decide to be baptised into it.

CFLarsen

14th February 2006, 10:18 AM

Genesius

14th February 2006, 10:22 AM

Do they have to follow the religious rules?

They have to follow their parents' rules. I would think allowances are made since children are not generally as responsible as adults.

CFLarsen

14th February 2006, 10:51 AM

Don't "think". (Well, in this case....;))

Genesius

14th February 2006, 11:07 AM

Don't "think". (Well, in this case....;))

Sorry, I don't have an Amish right at hand to ask. I could convert and get a message back to you if you're willing to wait.

Geez, these Danes. . . I thought Missouri folks had the patent on the "Show me" attitude, but they're just amateurs.

:p

SixSixSix

14th February 2006, 06:20 PM

They are anabaptists; they are baptised into the church not as infants, but only after making the conscious decision to enter. Quakers, Mennonites, Old Order Brethren (and perhaps more) share this characteristic. My church, back when I was christian, was this way. So, there are children in the community, but they are not truly members of the church until they decide to be baptised into it.

Interesting. I think that's a far more "moral" type of religion than many mainstream sects, as it does not assume that the child will join the community until they are old enough to make this decision themselves. (I am somewhat cynical that it actually works out as purely as that, but the theory is nice).

While a staunch atheist myself, my attitude has always been that should a child of mine express a desire to go to church, it will be denied until they reach the age of about 13 to 16 (based on my assessment of their maturity). Should they still want to do so then, I will drive them to and from their selected place of worship myself.

Mercutio

14th February 2006, 06:27 PM

Interesting. I think that's a far more "moral" type of religion than many mainstream sects, as it does not assume that the child will join the community until they are old enough to make this decision themselves. (I am somewhat cynical that it actually works out as purely as that, but the theory is nice).

While a staunch atheist myself, my attitude has always been that should a child of mine express a desire to go to church, it will be denied until they reach the age of about 13 to 16 (based on my assessment of their maturity). Should they still want to do so then, I will drive them to and from their selected place of worship myself.
In my case, the pastor of our church (and the adults in general) encouraged us to question, to be skeptical; they had the courage of their convictions, and believed confidently that critical analysis would lead anyone to agree with the church teachings. For quite a while (in my own life), it did.

I agree with your cynical side, even though in my own experience I must say that it worked out pretty much as it was supposed to.

Mercutio

14th February 2006, 06:27 PM

Do they have to follow the religious rules?
They don't have to; they get to.

Kiless

14th February 2006, 07:30 PM

666, I'll give you two documentaries on the Amish experience and two non-fiction texts (in fact, one is in a magazine in the lounge) if you're genuinely interested in them. We teach one of the documentaries for Year 12 English. 'Witness' is not very accurate, as you may have figured out.

Kiless

14th February 2006, 07:32 PM

SixSixSix

14th February 2006, 07:45 PM

Kiless

14th February 2006, 08:26 PM

And you couldn't have just told me that tonight? :)

TOLD you that you were a stalker.

Who are you again? Some newbie. Not worth my regard. *clicks ignore, wanders off to the politics forum*

CFLarsen

15th February 2006, 01:05 AM

Sorry, I don't have an Amish right at hand to ask. I could convert and get a message back to you if you're willing to wait.

Geez, these Danes. . . I thought Missouri folks had the patent on the "Show me" attitude, but they're just amateurs.

:p

You ain't seen nothin' yet....

They don't have to; they get to.

Can they get out of it?

Mercutio

15th February 2006, 05:59 AM

Can they get out of it?
About the same as they can "get out of" any of the other daily or weekly routines of life. In practice, in my experience, what you are asking is whether they can "get out of" a chance to interact with their friends, in a positive environment, where they are respected and cherished by adults who have their welfare in interest. There were times when I wanted to sleep in, and some times when I did so successfully, but most times I looked forward to Sunday. Your question is, in the context of a well-functioning church community, the equivalent of asking whether they can "get out of" a trip to the ice cream store. The answer will always depend on the family dynamic (are you meeting grandma at the store? Then you cannot get out of it...), and does not really rely on official rules. You are imposing your view on theirs in simply asking the question. Could you "get out of" the TAM chocolate challenge? Sure, but why would you?

SixSixSix

15th February 2006, 06:07 AM

Mercutio

15th February 2006, 06:29 AM

Yes and no, Merc. (You don't mind if I call you Merc?)

I suppose that somewhere, someone has a cult devoted to the attainment of icecream, but generally speaking denying your children their every whim is called discipline, whilst forcing a religious mindset upon them could be called indoctrination. (Obviously only in the extreme case; you seem to be describing a Sunday School experience that was not, on the whole, largely different from just a babysitting trip). ("Merc" is just fine.)

I do not mean to speak for anyone but myself. I agree with you, especially when we look from the outside. The trick is, virtually everyone I know has convinced themselves that the way they themselves were raised "feels normal*", and the way another group might be raised is brainwashing.

*as an extreme example...one student of mine who was abused as a child, and who later married an abusive man, and who after many years of therapy had come to realize that her upbringing was not normal at all, uses the following analogy: When you are young, you learn the steps of the dance that is "how a family behaves". You may not like that dance, but you know it. When you grow up, you hear different music, and you are afraid to try a dance you do not know--when you hear the familiar music, even if it is not a dance you like, it is a dance you know, so you join in. For her, an abusive relationship "felt right" because it was what she had grown up in. It was very wrong, but from the inside of it she felt like she had grown up normally.

The sunday school experience was just one facet of a community's life, but it could be extended to more. (I would argue that it was, in fact, indoctrination, but that so is any child's upbringing. We were, recall, encouraged to be skeptical and to ask tough questions; there was no attempt to block other views from us, because it was believed that the proper views that would be shown to be proper...were the ones we held. This is very different from a typical cult...but I would argue that it is different only in degree of heavy-handedness.)

I just think it is very easy to point to a group, from the outside, and say that what they are doing is indoctrination or brainwashing, but very difficult to then point that same finger at ourselves and recognise that we (in any society) do the same.

SixSixSix

15th February 2006, 06:31 AM

Sage wisdom, for certain.

Jekyll

15th February 2006, 06:44 AM

Yes, obviously. But what about aknotism?

~~ Paul
Bah. False dicotomy. I'm not falling into the trap left by you string theologians.

CFLarsen

15th February 2006, 07:01 AM

About the same as they can "get out of" any of the other daily or weekly routines of life. In practice, in my experience, what you are asking is whether they can "get out of" a chance to interact with their friends, in a positive environment, where they are respected and cherished by adults who have their welfare in interest. There were times when I wanted to sleep in, and some times when I did so successfully, but most times I looked forward to Sunday. Your question is, in the context of a well-functioning church community, the equivalent of asking whether they can "get out of" a trip to the ice cream store. The answer will always depend on the family dynamic (are you meeting grandma at the store? Then you cannot get out of it...), and does not really rely on official rules. You are imposing your view on theirs in simply asking the question. Could you "get out of" the TAM chocolate challenge? Sure, but why would you?
Because I am free to make my own choices, regardless of religion?

CFLarsen

15th February 2006, 07:02 AM

("Merc" is just fine.)

As in Mercury. Dense, you know... ;)

Mercutio

15th February 2006, 07:07 AM

Because I am free to make my own choices, regardless of religion?
As a good behaviorist, following the evidence, I would have to say that this feeling of yours is illusory. Recognising that you are subject to the contingencies of your environment, just as anyone else is, is the first step on the way to accepting our responsibility to make that environment the best we can. By acknowledging that we are not free, we can make life less aversive for more people. The irrational belief in free will prevents us from examining the real influences on our choices, and manipulating our environments to make life easier.

Your choices were and are shaped by your environment. Same as anyone brought up in a religious environment. You feel you make your choices freely; so do they.

Mercutio

15th February 2006, 07:07 AM

As in Mercury. Dense, you know... ;)
As in the origin of the term "mad as a hatter..."

SixSixSix

15th February 2006, 07:25 AM

The irrational belief in free will prevents us from examining the real influences on our choices, and manipulating our environments to make life easier.
On the other appendage, lack of belief in free will can be used to excuse responsibility for even heinous actions.

My materialist leanings tend to lead me to believe that free will is an illusion, but it is probably best if we act as if it is real.

Mercutio

15th February 2006, 07:33 AM

On the other appendage, lack of belief in free will can be used to excuse responsibility for even heinous actions.

My materialist leanings tend to lead me to believe that free will is an illusion, but it is probably best if we act as if it is real.
Belief in free will forces us to attend to the consequences of our actions rather than to the antecedents. As such, it amplifies "individual responsibility" at the cost of collective responsibility. Yes, it can be (improperly, IMO) used to excuse individual responsibility for actions. But the flip side of this, of course, is that "free will" absolves everybody else of their responsibility. If we have contributed to an environment which leads an individual to heinous actions, why should our responsibility be ignored? The illusion of free will allows us to shirk our blame and pin it on the individual scapegoat.

The trick is, the deterministic view does not absolve the individual of responsibility at all. It simply recognises the responsibility of the community as well. The difference here is that the community's influence can be brought to bear before the next heinous act, to prevent it rather than simply to punish someone after the fact. If we maintain our belief in free will, even celebrate it as a right to freedom of expression, we cannot (or at least, in practice, do not) intervene until after someone has gone too far. After all, we are not to blame; it was the individual's free choice to act that way.

CFLarsen

15th February 2006, 07:36 AM

As a good behaviorist, following the evidence, I would have to say that this feeling of yours is illusory. Recognising that you are subject to the contingencies of your environment, just as anyone else is, is the first step on the way to accepting our responsibility to make that environment the best we can. By acknowledging that we are not free, we can make life less aversive for more people. The irrational belief in free will prevents us from examining the real influences on our choices, and manipulating our environments to make life easier.

Your choices were and are shaped by your environment. Same as anyone brought up in a religious environment. You feel you make your choices freely; so do they.
They are children, not adults. They can break out as little as any child being reared in a religious community can.

Mercutio

15th February 2006, 07:38 AM

They are children, not adults. They can break out as little as any child being reared in a religious community can.
Or any other community.

SixSixSix

15th February 2006, 05:27 PM

Belief in free will forces us to attend to the consequences of our actions rather than to the antecedents. As such, it amplifies "individual responsibility" at the cost of collective responsibility. Yes, it can be (improperly, IMO) used to excuse individual responsibility for actions. But the flip side of this, of course, is that "free will" absolves everybody else of their responsibility. If we have contributed to an environment which leads an individual to heinous actions, why should our responsibility be ignored? The illusion of free will allows us to shirk our blame and pin it on the individual scapegoat.

(In danger of derailing here, but this is interesting).

My first blush at reading this is that you think you can have no belief in free will at the individual level, but that societies can have free will. I must confess this seems paradoxical to me, since societies are formed from individuals. Presumably this is a "whole is greater than sum of its parts" thing.

I am not of the opinion that environment has no influence on our behaviour. On the other hand, there is a danger to the idea that it is the only (or even major) factor. We see a symptom of this in the increasingly litigious society in which we live - many frivolous law suits come down to a basic lack of ability to admit fault. Insurance companies advise their clients never to admit fault in the case of a car accident. Defense attorneys usually advise their clients to plead not guilty.

One must strive for balance, of course. But I fear the pendulum has already swung a little too far in the "it's a fair cop, but society's to blame" direction. It should be OK to be wrong; it should be OK to admit when you screw up. It should definitely be OK to take responsibility and say, "That was my fault. Sorry."

Mercutio

15th February 2006, 06:06 PM

(In danger of derailing here, but this is interesting).

My first blush at reading this is that you think you can have no belief in free will at the individual level, but that societies can have free will. I must confess this seems paradoxical to me, since societies are formed from individuals. Presumably this is a "whole is greater than sum of its parts" thing.
No, just a misunderstanding on your part. :D (I posted only a very abbreviated version, addressing a fairly narrow point, and so did not flesh out this part. My fault entirely; you are blameless...it was your environment.) Of course society, as an emergent property of individuals, is constrained by environment. (I was going to write more here, but instead I will refer you, conveniently enough, to a book your better half happens to own; take a look at Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism". My copy is at the office, or I'd tell you specifically what parts to read, but I am sure Kiless can help, or just read the whole thing.

I am not of the opinion that environment has no influence on our behaviour. On the other hand, there is a danger to the idea that it is the only (or even major) factor. We see a symptom of this in the increasingly litigious society in which we live - many frivolous law suits come down to a basic lack of ability to admit fault. Insurance companies advise their clients never to admit fault in the case of a car accident. Defense attorneys usually advise their clients to plead not guilty.
Part of this, of course, is our focus on "fault" or "blame" rather than simply searching for causal or contributing factors. The assumption of free will is built into these social institutions. It is much easier to find "a cause" than to find several causes; an insurance company only needs to find one with deep pockets...life is more complex than that.

One must strive for balance, of course. But I fear the pendulum has already swung a little too far in the "it's a fair cop, but society's to blame" direction. It should be OK to be wrong; it should be OK to admit when you screw up. It should definitely be OK to take responsibility and say, "That was my fault. Sorry."I think you are right. But I must say, the stereotype of "if you blame society, you let the victim off the hook" is an unfair exaggeration of what behaviorism would recommend. (eta: sorry, computer died on me) Remember that we learn through exposure to our environmental contingencies--this cannot happen if we are not exposed to them. If we break the rule, the appropriate contingencies must be applied.

SixSixSix

15th February 2006, 07:16 PM

No, just a misunderstanding on your part. :D (I posted only a very abbreviated version, addressing a fairly narrow point, and so did not flesh out this part. My fault entirely; you are blameless...it was your environment.) Of course society, as an emergent property of individuals, is constrained by environment. (I was going to write more here, but instead I will refer you, conveniently enough, to a book your better half happens to own; take a look at Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism". My copy is at the office, or I'd tell you specifically what parts to read, but I am sure Kiless can help, or just read the whole thing.

Okey dokey, I'll edumacate meself and get back to you with some more well-reasoned arguments. :)

Stay tuned.

Kiless

16th February 2006, 12:14 AM

(I was going to write more here, but instead I will refer you, conveniently enough, to a book your better half happens to own; take a look at Baum's "Understanding Behaviorism". My copy is at the office, or I'd tell you specifically what parts to read, but I am sure Kiless can help, or just read the whole thing.

666 - education bookcase, second landing, next to the book 'Consciousness : An Introduction'. Black cover, b/w photo, yellow title. You can also 'read' it on Amazon.com and use their search engine to seek out particular references; I did this for the term 'love' on another thread. If you don't see it, I'll dig it out tomorrow.

You might also want to look at the videos I got you to download from the 'Mind, Brain...' conference.

*ignore*

CFLarsen

16th February 2006, 12:29 AM

Or any other community.
Of course. But then, they are not Amish.

So, Amish children can't get out of being Amish.

Genesius

16th February 2006, 04:56 AM

Of course. But then, they are not Amish.

So, Amish children can't get out of being Amish.

Nope. No more so than Catholic children can get out of being Catholic, or Mormon children can get out of being Mormon.

So what's your point?

Mercutio

16th February 2006, 05:23 AM

Nope. No more so than Catholic children can get out of being Catholic, or Mormon children can get out of being Mormon.

So what's your point?
Or Danish children get out of being Danish. We need not limit our discussion to religious groups. The social rules are easier to see there, certainly (especially from the outside), but it is a difference of degree rather than kind, and a difference where there is substantial overlap in "amount of blatant indoctrination" between types of group.

CFLarsen

16th February 2006, 06:29 AM

Nope. No more so than Catholic children can get out of being Catholic, or Mormon children can get out of being Mormon.

So what's your point?
That there are no Amish children who don't live Amish...ish.

SixSixSix

16th February 2006, 06:32 AM

That there are no Amish children who don't live Amish...ish.
Which means no Nintendo, no PlayStation, not even any Xbox.

Frankly, I'm surprised the UN hasn't flagged this as a human rights violation.

Won't somebody please think of the children?

Genesius

16th February 2006, 06:39 AM

That there are no Amish children who don't live Amish...ish.

I'm sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out why it took multiple posts to make this point. They're children of Amish parents, living in Amish communities - wouldn't you expect them to live "Amish...ish"?;)

Seriously, is there something I'm missing here?

CFLarsen

16th February 2006, 06:48 AM

It leads back to the "Amish atheist" point.

Genesius

16th February 2006, 06:52 AM

OK. I don't know why, but I had a feeling you were working up to calling the Amish a cult.

Guess that shows why I haven't applied for the million, huh? My mind-reading skills leave much to be desired.

CFLarsen

16th February 2006, 07:06 AM

sphenisc

16th February 2006, 07:09 AM

You're just like everyone else, then. ;)

I knew you were going to say that... :)

Abbyas

16th February 2006, 07:51 AM

But I just wrote a very tiny piece on these stickers yesterday.

Here's the original:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4112/1143/1600/evolution%20sticker.0.jpg

Here's mine:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4112/1143/1600/newsticker.jpg

And here's what the original probably looks like:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4112/1143/1600/graffiti.0.jpg

Zbu

16th February 2006, 11:56 AM

That's perfect, Abbyas!

And after reading the original sticker, does it strike anybody as odd that in order to knock down science to foster disguised religion these people have to rely on a shadow of skepticism? If they expect their children to take those words at face value and question everything, wouldn't that lead to asking those uncomfortable about the nature of the Invisible Friend and hence lead them eventually to skepticism?

TragicMonkey

16th February 2006, 12:12 PM

And after reading the original sticker, does it strike anybody as odd that in order to knock down science to foster disguised religion these people have to rely on a shadow of skepticism? If they expect their children to take those words at face value and question everything, wouldn't that lead to asking those uncomfortable about the nature of the Invisible Friend and hence lead them eventually to skepticism?

It's the same problem with Sith Lords. You train someone to be a ruthlessly efficient murderous sorcerer with a kickass weapon and limitless ambition, and what does he do? He freaking kills you! Out of nowhere! What's with that!

hankalme

16th February 2006, 01:04 PM

And after reading the original sticker, does it strike anybody as odd that in order to knock down science to foster disguised religion these people have to rely on a shadow of skepticism?

This is one arrow in the latest creationist quiver. I would say it is no "shadow" of skepicism, rather it is an open tactic. "We are only trying to apply a healthy dose of skeptisism to this mere theory...".

It is only a conicidence -- I am sure -- that this outburst of intellectual vigor is saved for a theory that we fel threatens our beliefs. And that they raise the bar for "truth" to unattainable, unreasonable heights. And that they apply any number of logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, genetic fallacy, flase dichotomy) to their "critical thinking"

The skepticism of the creationist cadre has less to do witht actual critical thinking than it does with disguising true intent.

If they expect their children to take those words at face value and question everything, wouldn't that lead to asking those uncomfortable about the nature of the Invisible Friend and hence lead them eventually to skepticism?

One can only hope...

Hank

CFLarsen

16th February 2006, 01:13 PM

The skepticism of the creationist cadre has less to do witht actual critical thinking than it does with disguising true intent.

In which case, it's hardly "skepticism".

Zbu

16th February 2006, 01:34 PM

This is one arrow in the latest creationist quiver. I would say it is no "shadow" of skepicism, rather it is an open tactic. "We are only trying to apply a healthy dose of skeptisism to this mere theory...".

It is only a conicidence -- I am sure -- that this outburst of intellectual vigor is saved for a theory that we fel threatens our beliefs. And that they raise the bar for "truth" to unattainable, unreasonable heights. And that they apply any number of logical fallacies (argument from ignorance, genetic fallacy, flase dichotomy) to their "critical thinking"

Ah, okay. Still, it seems a bit too close to going wrong to their intentions than going right. They must be incredibly stupid, incredibly arrogant, or plain desperate.

Very sad what some idiots will do to keep power, even to the point of believing in an Invisible Friend or just using that to manipulate people. :(

Mercifull

17th February 2006, 02:05 AM

I need to make myself some of those "religone isnt even a theory" stickers and put em on all the Gideons in any hotel rooms i go to hehe. They take up valuable sock space in drawers and they shoudl all be removed imo.

Just thinking

17th February 2006, 01:35 PM

| Science gives us Theories |
| Fantasy gives us Religions |