Australia:
It started out as a bit of fun to raise money for the Animal Welfare League on the Gold Coast but it's turned into a fur-raising cat fight.
The Australian Christian Lobby has condemned a risque flyer for wax treatments showing a woman in sexy lingerie with a cat sitting between her open legs, and the slogan "What's New Pussycat?".
The flyer, distributed to homes around Burleigh Heads, promises to donate $1 from every wax treatment to the Animal Welfare League. The league's marketing manager, Brooke Whitney, says it's all for a good cause and a bit of edgy, but harmless fun. "It's just thinking outside the box," she laughed. [Oh dear! A pun. "Box" is Australian slang for part of the female anatomy but I am not sure if it means the same elsewhere]
"We've been running an SOS campaign for the past six weeks and this little ad has got more publicity in 24 hours than we've had since the campaign started and it's certainly getting the message out."
Source
"The Australian Christian Lobby has condemned a risque flyer "
ReplyDeleteAs we all know, religion wrecks everything.
If nothing else it has certainly raised the profile of animal welfare. So much for 'turn the other cheek' that Christianity preaches, but prudes will be prudes who just can't keep their noses out of anything. There are many more important causes that the ACL could be addressing but no, they choose to interfere with fund raising for a worthwhile cause.
ReplyDeleteIf they took their minds out of the gutter for once thay might get more public support.
-btm
The christian prudes are dumb as they were/are just played by the advertizers for the publicity they stupidly give for free and so counter-productively.
ReplyDeleteThis made me chuckle:
ReplyDeletehttp://motherjones.com/politics/2011/05/indian-call-center-americanization
During our second day of culture training, Lekha dissected the Australian psyche. It took about 20 minutes.
"Just stating facts, guys," Lekha began, as we scribbled notes, "Australia is known as the dumbest continent. Literally, college was unknown there until recently. So speak slowly." Next to me, a young man in a turban wrote No college in his notebook.
"Technologically speaking, they're somewhat backward, as well. The average person's mobile would be no better than, say, a Nokia 3110 classic." This drew scoffs from around the room.
"Australians drink constantly," Lekha continued. "If you call on a Friday night, they'll be smashed--every time. Oh, and don't attempt to make small talk with them about their pets, okay? They can be quite touchy about animals."
"What kind of people are there in Australia?" a trainee asked. "What are their traits?"
"Well, for one thing," Lekha said, "let's admit: They are quite racist. They do not like Indians. Their preferred term for us is--please don't mind, ladies--'brown bastards.' So if you hear that kind of language, you can just hang up the call."
Hey, it's for a great cause. BTW, could they please move the cat for the next poster?
ReplyDeleteWhat, you mean no one bombed a cafe or knifed an infidel over this innocuous ad?
ReplyDeleteOops, wrong religion. These would be the "safe" prudes, right?, not the ones who want to bomb cafes and cut the woman's clit off?
Yeah, like Christianity was never averse to a bit of blood-letting and torture "to save a soul from Satan"!
ReplyDeleteSo you're claiming that ALL of Christianity did as you claimed? The fact that it was for a limited period of time, in a limited geographical area, and is CONTRARY to the Bible's teachings has nothing to do with it?
ReplyDeleteWhatever happened to "you can't know anything about history"?
"So you're claiming that ALL of Christianity"
ReplyDeleteThere goes Luke again. Putting words into people's mouths. You are a joke. Along with your religion.
What words?
ReplyDeleteYeah, like Christianity was never averse to a bit of blood-letting and torture "to save a soul from Satan"!
ReplyDeleteTotal deaths from the Inquisition: 10,000 over 500 years (this is a middling high estimate; most historians cite 6,000 - 9,000). This works out to approx 10,000/500 = 200 per year or, for sake of very round numbers, a death every other day.
Total deaths from communism in the 20th century: approx 100,000,000 over 50 years, again using very round number. This works out to approx 2 million per year, or a killing rate one million times worse than the Inquisition.
What about, say, Islam? I don't know if anyone has totaled it up, but we can look at a few sample incidents:
Tamerlane, ca 1400: total deaths 12,000,000
Armenian Genocide by the Turks, 1915-1918: total deaths 2,000,000
East Pakistan, 1971, genocide against Hindus: total deaths 2,500,000
If you doubt any of the above numbers, you are welcome to google your own; estimates vary, but not enough to affect the obvious conclusion.
That conclusion states that a peaceful religious doctrine - the New Testament certainly qualifies - can dramatically reduce the massacres, though not entirely eliminate them, because those who would perform the atrocities (generally higher-ups intent on increasing their secular power using any excuse they can find) are hindered in their depredations by having to fight against the teachings.
BTW, I do not practice any religion myself, so I am not coming at this from any perspective other than the stats as cited.
Oops, I made a decimal error and overstated the Inquisition's totals, towit:
ReplyDelete10,000/500 = 20 deaths per year, on average, not 200.
The correction further reinforces the original point.
Amusing comments about Australia
ReplyDeleteAustralian "sandstone" universities are older than most British and American ones.
I have degrees from two of them.
Stinky just uses the "somebody might be worse" excuse!
ReplyDelete"The correction further reinforces the original point."
ReplyDeletewhich is people like to kill people for any reason at all.
which is people like to kill people for any reason at all.
ReplyDeleteFor some that's true, it's pure nature, but they're a small minority. For most it's a learned behavior, one that can be taught or not taught.
Where it's been taught, the measured and measurable atrocities, as noted above, drop by 99% or more, so the moral equivalence implied by your comment is 1% true, 99% false.
You're partly right!
This will get PETA upset for sure
ReplyDelete97% of stinky conservatives make up statistics.
ReplyDeleteAs originally suggested, you're more than welcome to look up the numbers for yourself; you should be able to google 'em in under a minute.
If anything, I understated my case.
97% of all quoted statistics are untrue.
ReplyDeleteImagine how much human progress would have advanced by now if we weren't burdened with religion? Imagine if everyone spent all their time and energy improving our condition instead of hoping a god will do it for us? How many useless hours are spent praying for something that will or won't happen or thanking a god for something that did or didn't?
ReplyDeleteFree thinking will free humanity to improve!
Imagine how much human progress would have advanced by now if we weren't burdened with religion?
ReplyDeleteYou mean like under Stalin or Mao where atheism was official, and goodness and mercy reigned in the land? Or perhaps a holistic New Age animism, instead? Genghis Khan's beliefs would have fit comfortably with much of the California hot-tub crowd.
Hypothesis is best tested against actual results.
In the much quoted regimes of Stalin and Mao, their version of Communism was where the state was supreme and all power was centralized in its ruling hierarchy. The so-called atheism was simply the removal of religion as a competing loyalty, except where the Orthodox Church conformed to the state's control. In other words, "atheism" was not the central feature of these regimes, and the regime's character was not a direct reflection of its atheist or anti-theist component.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, "atheism" was not the central feature of these regimes, and the regime's character was not a direct reflection of its atheist or anti-theist component.
ReplyDeleteHow does atheism ground morality? In other words, if materialism is all there is, then what inherent feature of "stuff" makes it "wrong" to torture babies for fun?
"How does atheism ground morality? "
ReplyDeleteHow does believing in some invisible man in the sky ground morality? Your morality comes from delusions. My morality comes from empathy towards my fellow man and I DO NOT need a god to tell me that.
My morality comes from empathy towards my fellow man…
ReplyDeleteHow does your empathy apply to others who lack such empathy? (Stalin and the people who carried out his orders obviously lacked such empathy.) Are you the arbiter and enforcer of all morality?
Yes, morality is grounded in how members of society inter-relate in a mutually beneficial way. It arose as human societies arose. Attaching religion to it was for re-inforcement, but is in fact superfluous to the social function of morality.
ReplyDeleteThe religious who burned witches and tortured heretics had a lot of empathy for their victims I guess.
ReplyDeletemorality is grounded in how members of society inter-relate in a mutually beneficial way.
ReplyDeleteThe "society" of Stalin's Russia thought murdering certain people was okay because it was to their benefit. And this pattern has been repeated in numerous other societies. Are you claiming that murder is just fine if "society" says it's okay?
"Stalin and the people who carried out his orders obviously lacked such empathy."
ReplyDeleteWhen all rational arguments are exhausted, revert to variations of Godwin's Law.
When you can't argue rationally, play the Godwin's law card instead of actually looking at history. (Godwin's law is not actually what you seem to think it is.)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/
ReplyDelete5. What should I do if somebody else invokes Godwin's Law?
The obvious response is to call them on it, say "thread's over", and declare victory. This is also one of the stupidest possible responses, because it involves believing far too much in the power of a few rules that don't say exactly what you wish they said anyway. The proper response to an invocation is probably to simply followup with a message saying "Oh. I'm a Nazi? Sure. Bye" and leave, and in most cases even that much of a post is unnecessary.
6. "Hitler!" Ha! The thread is over!
Nope, doesn't work that way. Not only is it wrong to say that a thread is over when Godwin's Law is invoked anyway (Usenet threads virtually always outlive their usefulness), but long ago a corollary to the Law was proposed and accepted by Taki "Quirk" Kogama (quirk@swcp.com):
Quirk's Exception: Intentional invocation of this so-called "Nazi Clause" is ineffectual.
Sorry, folks. Nice try, though.
Luke is being naive - of course there are always some people who are not empathetic, and that includes many so-called religious and so-called non-religious, and when power-hungry individuals or groups lead their people into wars or their communities into conflicts. But society only progresses over all when there is mutual co-operation and respect, at least within specific communities or nations with laws to govern it. Laws can become perverted, as can political leaders, but society is dynamic and self-correcting. But life is an experiment, and like biological life, it follows the same evolutionary trends - ie. what works succeeeds at least for as long as it remains relevant to the circumstances. Sorry, rant over!
ReplyDeleteAhh, name calling. The favorite retort of the one who's just figured out that their claims don't bear up to scrutiny.
ReplyDeleteHow about actually addressing the issues and learning something. After all, you are serious about figuring out what's actually true, right?
of course there are always some people who are not empathetic,
ReplyDeleteBut can you call them wrong? That's the question. Morality—and it's attendant concept, rights—is based on the idea that right and wrong apply to all people at all times and places. If the definition of right and wrong only comes from individuals or societies, and various individuals/societies come up with different definitions, then how can one call the other WRONG?
People usually only reference Hitler or Stalin, Mao, etc. to try to link an argument they don't like to figures of hate most people don't like - ie. guilt by association. It's a fallacious tactic in debates and arguments, especially when there is some doubt about those historical figures' actual opinions or actions on any specific point. Was Hitler a Christian/Catholic or an atheist or just cynically using religion. Was Stalin an atheist or cynically using the same type of power he learned as a trainee priest in the hierarchical Orthodox Church where the Czar had divine authority.
ReplyDeleteWas Stalin an atheist or cynically using the same type of power he learned as a trainee priest in the hierarchical Orthodox Church where the Czar had divine authority.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, Stalin's beliefs/associations don't actually matter. The question is still this: Can you, as an atheist, call the murders under Stalin's rule WRONG based on the criteria YOU stated?
Luke - what is right or wrong can only be determined by humans as they do not have access to a "divine" court of law, and even what they may consider to be "God's Law" is still open to interpretation. Such apparent absolutes as "not killing" can be modified in capital punishment and warfare. Or stealing if the theft is needed for a "higher purpose" or taken from an oppressor, etc. etc. etc. In the end morality is a matter for human conscience or human courts of law.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like you're admitting that atheism does not provide any basis for objective, universal morality. Correct?
ReplyDeleteI know what is right or wrong when I see it. Clearly, Luke, you must rely on a "higher power" to do that. How about thinking for yourself?
ReplyDeleteWhat's the matter? Having a hard time swallowing the obvious?
ReplyDeleteAgain, using YOUR claimed standard, can you call the murders under Stalin WRONG?
Luke: I am 3:09, so I don't know who are addressing. I would indeed call Stalin's murderers wrong, but some may not - so what! I call a lot of Islamic "morality" wrong, but clearly most muslims would not. I can't speak for anybody but myself. And neither can you with any real certainty.
ReplyDeleteI would think that with Luke's superior intellect, he would be able to tell the difference between various anons. Maybe he needs help from a "higher power".
ReplyDeleteThere were two basic claimed standards: Individual Empathy (which Stalin's Russia did not demonstrate) or Society's Values (the society of Stalin's Russia apparently considered murder to be fine). Applying your own personal standard to Stalinist Russia contradicts that claimed standard.
ReplyDeleteIn order for those murders to be objectively wrong, there has to be an objective moral standard which supersedes both you and them which you can refer to. My argument is that atheism provides no such standard.
"My argument is that atheism provides no such standard."
ReplyDeleteAnd your particular flavor of god does?
Wow - it is quite clear and obvious that whatever theoretical standard of morality anybody may claim to have or to think exists, any other person or "society" can (and does) have their own regardless.
ReplyDeleteOne thing at a time. Do you agree that atheism does not have a basis for objective morality?
ReplyDeleteThat was a response to 4:19.
ReplyDelete"Do you agree that atheism does not have a basis for objective morality?"
ReplyDeleteThat is an invalid question. There is no such thing as objective morality.
What an odd way to put it. Despite your claim that it's in invalid question, you did just give an answer, based on your atheistic assumptions, that no, atheism does not give an objective basis for morality. Now, we can work from there.
ReplyDeleteAnd atheism simply means a disbelief in god or gods, so in that respect does not concern morality of any sort. Luke continues to dishonestly (immorally?) conflate the (im)morality of stalinist communism with his misconception of atheism. He would object if theism or christianity was linked to the morals of the crusades or the inquisition or burning heretics.
ReplyDeleteNow you're putting words in my mouth.
ReplyDelete"Now you're putting words in my mouth."
ReplyDeleteLuke, you just did that YOURSELF in your 4:46 comment! It's the pot calling the kettle black. Typical religionist.
"you just did that YOURSELF in your 4:46 comment!"
ReplyDeleteYou said, and I quote, "There is no such thing as objective morality." How is that NOT an admission that your worldview (which is atheist) does not provide for an objective standard?
"that your worldview (which is atheist) does not provide for an objective standard?"
ReplyDeleteI also go to Burger King and Walmart and watch MLB games.
I repeat: There is no objective standard for morality, including what comes from your invisible man in the sky. What part of that do you not understand?
Are you retracting the 5:03 post then?
ReplyDeleteAn objective standard is illusory. Morality evolves in each society and is reflected in each of its members. The members may or may not act accordingly but their society will censure them if necessary.
ReplyDeleteIf objective morality exists it cannot be proved as it will always be a matter of opinion and interpretation.
Are you retracting the 5:03 post then?
ReplyDeleteSorry, I am 5:27 and not 5:03, but I think your repeat comment about a retraction from 5:03 is lame and evasive.
ReplyDeleteDo you still want to hear my Fox Force Five joke?
ReplyDelete"Are you retracting the 5:03 post then?"
ReplyDeleteSure, why not? No hard feelings? Wanna get together for a beer sometime?
In other words, "atheism" was not the central feature of these regimes, and the regime's character was not a direct reflection of its atheist or anti-theist component.
ReplyDeleteEven if wholly true - debatable, but I'll run with it for a moment - your argument merely reinforces my point, doesn't it, that a peaceful religious organization might well be hijacked as an excuse by those with ill intent, but the peaceful religion itself - and by extension its true believers - is not the cause of the ill intent per se.
That is why, as you noted, eliminating religion did not help at all where tried in the past; because religion was not the root cause. In fact, under atheism the reverse of your hypothesis resulted: things got measurably worse by several orders of magnitude.
[This applies at least to formerly Christian, Confucian and Buddhist societies, all based on relatively peaceful teachings.
Judaism lacks much of a sample size and Islam teaches a "House Of War" approach that encourages violence, tho still not to the historical atheistic scale. And I am unaware of a Hindu society where atheism was subsequently dominant. So we're mostly talking Christian and Buddhist samples here.]
I.E.: Y was postulated to be a function of X, but when X was removed, Y did not fall, it instead rose dramatically.
The negative correlation does not necessarily prove that a lower Y value is caused by lack of X, but it does prove that a high Y value is not caused by X.
Your theory is at odds with the evidence; which of them will you change?
Religion was removed or controlled by communist states as it was a competing loyalty and "idealogy". Only in that respect was it "a-theist". It was not to make a communist state "better" by your standards but by the standards of a communist state as envisaged by Stalin or Mao, etc. You are just trying to associate those who do not believe in a god or gods with unpleasant regimes, while not associating theism with unpleasant regimes that purported to be "religious".
ReplyDeleteTheists so often selectively pick on certain totalitarian states as being typical of, or the result of, atheism. But do not of course want to cite modern democratic and successful states whose populations are statistically atheist or non-religious, like in Scandinavia, which were relatively crime-free, peaceful and afluent, until they foolishly allowed religious immigrants to enter through a misguided sense of fairness and compassion - the muslims and the so-called christians from eastern and southern europe, etc.
ReplyDeleteIs this thread now blocked?
ReplyDeletePlease re-read my commments as you appear to have read your own expectations rather than my actual words:
ReplyDeleteI am not using a binary "association vs non-association" standard; that would be meaningless for such a complex issue.
Rather, I am measuring which approach hasdproduces more harm than the other, using genocide/murder as the key stat, in order to determine if religion has fanned or fought such flames of hatred as compared to atheism.
As I said at the outset, you are welcome to google up your own numbers if you think mine are inaccurate, but I think you'll find that if anything I have understated my case.
In any event, the conclusion is clear, but if you believe you can dispute it, please do so.
Scandinavia was even more peaceful back when it was more religious.
ReplyDeleteThis is a fundamental lesson of how to read history: Always look at the trendline; i.e. history is a movie, not a photograph.
Pre-secular Scandinavia (pre-ca. 1920), especially Sweden, was very poor where the theocratic society was virtually feudal. As in other european countries, warfare and social dis-location was also rife between these christian countries.
ReplyDeleteStinky: I would be more impressed by your arguments and statistics if you were not Christian or religious, otherwise I consider you are biased. You would probably then accuse me of bias, but I am neither a theist nor an atheist. I like to counter the arguments of people I regard as biased, prejudiced or bigoted. You then might accuse me of being just a polemicist, but just forget me and justify your claims "objectively" if you can, though try avoiding long-winded, pseudo-academic rants, as few people bother to read them, even though some people (especially religious people) may find verbosity impressive and convincing.
ReplyDeleteAs in other european countries, warfare and social dis-location was also rife between these christian countries.
ReplyDeleteBut with less total deaths and depradations - by orders of magnitude, see previous cites above - than under atheism or as compared to Islamic societies. Trendlines!
You seem determined to prove a point that is belied by the evidence, evidence that indicates that peaceful teachings such as those of Jesus and Buddha reduce atrocities greatly.
They do not reduce them to zero, sure, but what does? A reasonable analogy is to a vaccine offering 99.9% protection.
BTW, I have cited numerous comparative statistics. Where are yours and, more tellingly, why are they so hard for you to come up with?
By moaning and bitching, the Australian Christian Lobby has done more for the Animal Welfare League than any poster could have done. Yet another case of unintended consequences. Way to go!
ReplyDeleteBy moaning and bitching, the Australian Christian Lobby has done more for the Animal Welfare League than any poster could have done. Yet another case of unintended consequences. Way to go!
ReplyDeleteStinky: I would be more impressed by your arguments and statistics if you were not Christian or religious
ReplyDeleteTo quote myself, from directly above in this same thread: "BTW, I do not practice any religion myself, so I am not coming at this from any perspective other than the stats as cited." Not sure why that would leave you confused but perhaps you skimmed rather than read the conversation.
But now you know, so, um, color yourself impressed, I guess, tho you really should try judging the message rather than the messenger as your current approach is a closed loop that allows no room for change.
You seem impressed by statistics, which as you should know can be selected and manipulated to "prove" any point. If it's just a "competition" between societies which are "religious" or "non-religious/atheist" re how many deaths or acts of cruelty that they cause, that would be next to impossible to evaluate, and even if you could, so what, if the numbers are huge in both cases.
ReplyDeleteI would say the 1st World War was pretty impressive as regards total deaths and social dislocation, and that was all between "Christian" countries which all claimed to have God on their side!
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Ottoman empire was also involved in WWI it was also a religious state.
ReplyDeleteRun the numbers. The historical rate of atrocities and wars is orders of magnitude higher under atheistic and islamic govts than under Christian and Buddhist ones (and possibly Hindu govts as well, but I lack data in that case).
ReplyDeleteStart with 100m dead - not even counting the wars!- under socialism alone in the 20th century. Nothing else even comes close.
You are determined, it seems, to confirm an existing bias even in the face of hard numbers to the contrary. But the numbers don't lie.
What relative rates have you calculated, by the way, for this life-and-death question of the first order?
I thought I made it clear that the numbers game is pointless and flawed in principle and practice.
ReplyDeleteAny bias is yours re the definitions you use and the numbers you come up (so I doubt your claim that you are not religious or not pro-religious). Any bias of mine is to point out the futility of your arguments. You'll have to play alone now. Ta' ta.
Statistics are pointless and flawed, but only when you can't refute them?
ReplyDeleteMessage received. Argument concluded.