Reason Rally - The Underreported Smashing Success

[KittenAB]

The clip is of Richard Dawkins' speech at the event. I see so little of it in the news yet as an event it was a great success. I regret to say I did not get to go there (wrong Washington), however, many of my favorite speakers and scientific minds were there and their own footage is pretty interesting. Are there any here who had the great pleasure of going? If so, please share your experiences.

[redneck diaper boy]

The clip is of Richard Dawkins' speech at the event. I see so little of it in the news yet as an event it was a great success. I regret to say I did not get to go there (wrong Washington), however, many of my favorite speakers and scientific minds were there and their own footage is pretty interesting. Are there any here who had the great pleasure of going? If so, please share your experiences.

Could the athiest have some heart felt doubt? Are they really protesting something that they believe does not exist. I think they are really a bunch of Secular Humanist that want to force their religion on the rest of America.

Real faith has to have no reason. To believe there is no supreme being is showing ignorance. To believe in the big-bang theory, one would have to believe that one could place some coal and iron ore in a bag and if shaken for a sufficient amount of time, a diamond watch would appear.

[belinda_sue_fox]

I used to quite like Dawkins but he has being going bat shit crazy lately.

[gah!ghost]

I'm all for what he is saying. There's no reason atheists shouldn't be just as vocal about their beliefs as everyone else. I find it ludicrous that Christian groups who are extremely vocal and very proactive in getting their agenda heard are so judgmental of any other group that does the same.

[Guest Baby Rina]

The part that boggles my mind is that there are some stories in the bible that are batshit crazy. Now I'm not saying that the stories contained in the bible are not a great framework for how to live your life [don't be a douche, try really hard not to bone your neighborhor's wife] I'm pretty sure that they are not meant to be taken literally [Lot's wife turning to a pillar of salt!?] And yet parts of it are put on a pedestal and treated as more concrete fact than... well anything that comes to my mind.

Now I'm not trying to bash or knock anyone elses religion but... If you aren't even willing to entertain the notion that some things in your grand master plan don't add up, you have no business trying to rip my beliefs to shreds to matter what they are. I'm a Pagan, even though I'm probably only as devout as most of the "Christians" in my neighborhood [Even I'll agree that religion shouldn't be an Easter and Christmas only thing] and it's annoying to have these guys give me grief about my religion yet when you try to mention anything even from the bible itself that has a negative to thiers suddenly 'they're being attacked from all angles' I've never come at a bible thumper swinging for no reason, but I'm a little tired of getting those pamphlets at work from various preachers because I'm open about being Trans and wear Mjolnir instead of a cross.

[KittenAB]

I used to quite like Dawkins but he has being going bat shit crazy lately.

I don't often agree with his approach myself, a bit arrogant at times, but he is still very intelligent so I do enjoy some clips or short speeches of his.

I'm all for what he is saying. There's no reason atheists shouldn't be just as vocal about their beliefs as everyone else. I find it ludicrous that Christian groups who are extremely vocal and very proactive in getting their agenda heard are so judgmental of any other group that does the same.

Yeah, the primary reason there is a larger vocalization in the US right now is because of the attempts to silence science in schools and even prevent atheists from voicing concerns about a theocracy, which would go against everything the US stands for. AronRa on YouTube did a few videos publicizing the outrageous modifications to history books being done in the schools (starting in his home state of Texas) and then there are those well known pushes to teach religious mythology as science in science classes.

Fun fact: several states have laws that atheists cannot hold public office ... even today. Sad.

[belinda_sue_fox]

When the great flood returns scientists will have ships, Christians can have St Christopher (Which queue to join left or right shoulder) and atheists can bloody well get wet and swim.

[Diapered Jason]

Fun fact: several states have laws that atheists cannot hold public office ... even today. Sad.

Not true, it was you cannot hold public office as a Republican if you are atheist in those few states in the southeast.

Regarding the speech, Yawn. It is actually a stupid approach for what he wants if you ask me. In a public speech, a tirade on beliefs will result in push back. He did not even have the right target. If he really wanted that approach, debate the institutions and political figures that do often push their religious beliefs on all of us in ways that most people disagree with. If we attack all religious beliefs, they will unite against us. Rather he should criticize the religions that come to your front door quite often, such as Mormonism. That will divide them, because many Christians do not like Mormons. The added benefit is it will not be seen as really offensive since many Mormons do try to push their religion on everyone.

In any case, I think a more compassionate approach would work best and with less repercussions. There are many good arguments that do not require beating down people who have religious beliefs that will suffice. The principles of secularism in public are good enough in and of itself and do not really conflict with religious beliefs. In fact, with the right speech, everyone who does not have hardcore religious beliefs, would support us (I have even met Mormons who think pushing their religion on someone else is wrong). This is called politics, and in politics, a tirade on what people believe equals political suicide.

[KittenAB]

Doesn't the U.S. Constitution state that there shall be no "religious litmus test" for holding public office? If not directly, then that's implied.

Recently, in NC, a court ruled that NC's "no atheists" law was not constitutional when an atheist won a seat on the Asheville city council and the local religious nuts tried to deny this. (I may be off on a few facts but that's the gist of it, and later when I have time I will try to find that story and post it here).

If you feel strongly about this, as I do, please consider joining Americans United for the Separation of Church & State ( www.au.org ).

It has yet to be challenged in several states, but yes, it is unconstitutional and if challenged would be tossed out by the courts as unconstitutional. The part that makes such laws really disturbing is that they are new, not old. They were passed within the recent decades and shows we, as a country, are going backwards.

Not true, it was you cannot hold public office as a Republican if you are atheist in those few states in the southeast.

Regarding the speech, Yawn. It is actually a stupid approach for what he wants if you ask me. In a public speech, a tirade on beliefs will result in push back. He did not even have the right target. If he really wanted that approach, debate the institutions and political figures that do often push their religious beliefs on all of us in ways that most people disagree with. If we attack all religious beliefs, they will unite against us. Rather he should criticize the religions that come to your front door quite often, such as Mormonism. That will divide them, because many Christians do not like Mormons. The added benefit is it will not be seen as really offensive since many Mormons do try to push their religion on everyone.

In any case, I think a more compassionate approach would work best and with less repercussions. There are many good arguments that do not require beating down people who have religious beliefs that will suffice. The principles of secularism in public are good enough in and of itself and do not really conflict with religious beliefs. In fact, with the right speech, everyone who does not have hardcore religious beliefs, would support us (I have even met Mormons who think pushing their religion on someone else is wrong). This is called politics, and in politics, a tirade on what people believe equals political suicide.

No, there are a few states with the "any public office" law, not just Republicans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists You have to scroll down a bit and yeah, it's wiki, but it's a good synopsis of this point. I don't agree with all of the assertions made in it (private organizations should maintain the right to discriminate membership).

As to the Dawkins speech, he was not the only one. There were, I believe, over 30 speakers this year. One of the odd things is that this rally is not new at all, it has just been renamed since there are many theists who now support it. The original name was something like Atheist Association Rally, or some such. There are many theists who are supporting this movement to re-institute a full separation of church and state.

Mormons use to be a lot more for equal rights and anti-persecution laws, however, some are becoming a bit over-zealous of late and the few who still remember the old president of the church know it's wrong to be like that, so even some of them are supporting the Reason Rally Coalition. The problem is that with the passing of most of the great speakers of reason, Dawkins is the only iconic one remaining. Carl Sagan would have been better, in my opinion, but alas he has passed, RIP. Brian Cox is pretty busy with lectures now so it's difficult to get him to come across the pond lately, and Cox is not nearly as iconic since he just loves talking about science all the time.

[belinda_sue_fox]

Carl Sagan feck off. Lying cheating twat that he was.

Brian Cox is OK but he is on too much, seems like he gets rolled out for anything now.

[Guest Baby Rina]

Carl Sagan feck off. Lying cheating twat that he was.

Brian Cox is OK but he is on too much, seems like he gets rolled out for anything now.

Jesus hung out with 12 dudes, and a couple of whores... the message message is more important than the speaker, but at times on the right speaker will get people to pay attention.

[ForbiddenFruit]

Jesus hung out with 12 dudes, and a couple of whores

Well, now I know that when someone asks 'What would Jesus do?' I can wholeheartedly respond with 'bros before hos'.

[KittenAB]

Carl Sagan feck off. Lying cheating twat that he was.

Brian Cox is OK but he is on too much, seems like he gets rolled out for anything now.

No human is perfect, a good speaker, however, is a good speaker. Most of those in the spotlight have skeletons in the closet, but it seems that too few of their followers (mostly of the religious zealot types) are unwilling to admit this. People of reason, whether atheist or theist, are not afraid nor ashamed to say, people make mistakes. However, I would like to know your sources for this accusation, otherwise I cannot address this in any way.

[belinda_sue_fox]

He was well known for removing anything from data that didn't agree with him or put his scribblings in doubt.

[Guest Baby Rina]

He was well known for removing anything from data that didn't agree with him or put his scribblings in doubt.

Like removing books from the bible?

[Bettypooh]

I think they are known as the Apocrypha- and yes, they were removed by the major organized religions when it is clearly and specifically prohibited in the texts (Bible) they still want to slam people with. Once I discovered how deeply this outright hypocrisy went I split from them all- I don't heed the words of liars, supporters of liars, or hypocrites.

Bettypooh

[KittenAB]

He was well known for removing anything from data that didn't agree with him or put his scribblings in doubt.

Well, enlighten me on this "well known" point, I need some actual sources, I do not take anyone's word for anything without checking the sources and since I have never heard of this, I cannot in any way agree or accept it as fact.

[gah!ghost]

I've never heard that about Sagan. So I'd like to see some sources as well. I've only ever heard of him as well regarded.

[belinda_sue_fox]

Like removing books from the bible?

Lol yea thats close enough.

[belinda_sue_fox]

Well, enlighten me on this "well known" point, I need some actual sources, I do not take anyone's word for anything without checking the sources and since I have never heard of this, I cannot in any way agree or accept it as fact.

Damn who knows, known it from way back. Course then again how many and how often you hung around with people who actually wo*ked with the guy. So yea the chances of you knowing are slim.

[KittenAB]

I've never heard that about Sagan. So I'd like to see some sources as well. I've only ever heard of him as well regarded.

For Carl Sagan you'd be best searching for his speeches on YouTube, many have uploaded them under Fair Use, but he is a cosmologist from the 80's who had a great philosophical technique for speeches. His lectures were often recorded with, at the time, really high quality imagery to accent his points. He was a dreamer of dreamers, though a bit of a pot smoker but meh, we all have vices.

[gah!ghost]

Hah, I know who Sagan is, he's fantastic. I was saying, in response to belinda, that I had never heard anyone say that Sagan was anything but an upstanding respected scientist.

[KittenAB]

Damn who knows, known it from way back. Course then again how many and how often you hung around with people who actually wo*ked with the guy. So yea the chances of you knowing are slim.

As I said, being a skeptic I cannot accept hearsay information as fact. Not saying you are lying, just that I cannot accept it without some actual sources. As far as I know, Sagan was a brilliant person. Many intellectual minds are arrogant, I'm arrogant as hell myself and I am not a scientist in any way, just a dreamer and a very fast learner. My one talent, I have a learning curve that is that of a child even now. In the last few months I have learned advanced evolutionary theory and even understand it all, phylogeny is still boring though.

There is a genetic link to intellect and anti-social personality traits though, it's a circumstantial link still because of various other factors, however it is holding true. However, even then, a lot of people who speak to someone on a topic they know a lot about will often appear abrasive or vain simply because we use a language that is tailored to that topic, often scientific terminology or even old Latin and Greek words, and we are just use to using stricter grammar at times. This is intimidating to the common person, though most often no intimidation is intended. Take abiogensis for example, it just makes sense to me, it's basic chemistry to me (a subject I have been keeping up on since high school) yet, to explain it to a person who has never had any high level chemistry education is frustrating to say the least.

[KittenAB]

Hah, I know who Sagan is, he's fantastic. I was saying, in response to belinda, that I had never heard anyone say that Sagan was anything but an upstanding respected scientist.

Right now though, I'm in love with Brian Cox .... the guy's genius, and his voice is soothing, I use his lectures for lulling me to sleep lately. If you like Sagan then I highly recommend you see some of Cox's lectures, if you have not yet seen him.

[gah!ghost]

Brian Cox, not the actor right? I love the actor. I think he's among the more underrated actors out there and was a better Lector than Hopkins, although I do also generally like Hopkins in most other roles.