m_csquare said: Yt comment section is killing me. Yesterday, they said obama is a muslim. Now, he's an atheist. What's next? Obama's an alien? |
Obama is a Changeling that has the power to morph into everything people dislike, hate and fear.
SkepticallyMinded said: I don't think anyone would be upset with Christians in America were they not so stalwartly ignorant when it comes to scientific matters. The delusional mentality that evolution is not established, that mankind and dinosaurs coexisted, and that the Earth is flat is truly troublesome. |
You'd think that in this day and age having someone believing the Earth is flat would be out of the question but then look at this example of a rapper thinking that because in his "opinion" it didn't make sense then the Earth shouldn't be round:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/01/29/entertainment/neil-degrasse-tyson-bob-flat-earth-twitter-spat/
Fortunately Mr. Tyson schooled this guy.
Education is key and sometimes it is lacking. I remember I had to get around knowing about evolution after watching a movie when I was a kid and wasn't informed of it at all in school.
mutantsushi said: Well that was a nice softball pitch of Bill Maher, neglecting to discuss the HRC campaign's attempt to use the atheism of her primary competitor Sanders as a weapon against him, based on anti-atheist hostility. Atheism and perceived leftism apparently being bigger evils than Trump for HRC, given Sanders was polling better than her vs. Trump at the time. Obama bringing up the "but at least atheists are rarely overtly oppressed or harmed, outside of politics" is obviously sidestepping the gross assymettry of the situation, honestly in a way that could be compared to many other political issues. E.g., "blacks are no longer enslaved or officially segregated, so there is no problem", "everybody has 1 vote and free speech, so there is no problem with political representation or structure of politics", etc. Obviously it is good to not have the worst case scenario, but how does that obviate the need to address more nuanced issues? And like all these topics, it isn't even about one "side" or group winning or losing, but about the process of engagement. The media personality Maher seemed to engage Obama on this issue thru noting Obama actually mentioned the existence of atheists in public speech, which is an utter rarity despite atheists being part of civil society for many centuries, better forgotten than to bring up what is uncomfortable to some. Obviously nobody actually forgets atheists existence, but it is easier for some to avoid thinking of them, then feel stress when pushed "how to create a possitive narrative about the existence of atheists and my co-existence with them".
|
1) It's true. Bill Maher went easy on Obama about DNC trying to hold Bernie Sanders' beliefs (whatever they were cuz I still don't know what he beliefs or not) against him.
2) This:
"I think it is about people's comfort zone, and a differing philosophical belief which is perceived to challenge their own makes some people feel uncomfortable. Obviously, most people would prefer to back politicians whose philosophical/religious beliefs exactly match theirs... of course since that isn't possible for the vast majority of people the vast majority of the time, most implicitly do accept difference by focusing on core values which are most important to them. So the question is whether the mere distinction of religion vs. atheism is really the primary core value for them, so much that somebody else who is ignorant, selfish, destructive, careless, etc, but who claims compatable (even if not identical) religious belief, is their preferred political option. Or I suppose it is the desire for religion to be their central belief above all others, and inability to reconcile that desire with the fact that they may share as many or more beliefs with certain atheists or agnostics than with others who claim to share same belief re: religion, a situation which implicitly undercuts the centrality of their religious belief. Thus hostility to atheists is as much avoidance of dealing with that situation, rather than it is about overt hatred of atheists qua atheists. In other words, it is not hatred/fear of atheists, but hatred/fear of idea of finding common ground with atheists vs. other religious people, which threatens to undercut the centrality of their religious belief."
I agree. I would add lazyness in religious people, or anyone who is not acquainted with a paritcular group, in getting to know a person or candidate in order to know what that person stands for or how fit they are to take office. The void of not knowing how a person is regardless of beliefs is filled with stereotypes or made up ideas about how that group is or must be.
3) "I unfortunately do not closely follow PR politics, but from first glance Googling, I take it that candidate Lugaro's position on PR sovereignty/status with US is... agnostic? I'm not sure how viable that position is (at least in long term), given the number of other issues that tie in with it, though I guess if the perspective is just taken as short-term policy it can have appeal in a situation where larger issues are unresolved, albeit it does implicitly end up promoting a certain perspective, not the least by simply removing those long term political issues from consideration to leave only narrow details as political choices... That said, it perhaps makes it even more silly how that agnosticism is not the issue, but her atheism re: religion is."
Religion here is engraved in pretty much everything. News casters and TV hosts for example tend to speak of God and bring aspects of Christianity regularly.
So far all I've read regarding candidate Lugaro is that she is an atheist. When approached about her belief and being a governor in a Christian country she said she comes to represent and work for all Puerto Ricans, be it Christians, Muslims, Jewish, non-believers, etc.
Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1