Total Posts:29|Showing Posts:1-29
Jump to topic:

Atheism or Agnostism?

ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 3:10:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've always found Agnostics to be the more friendlier and logical using people since they agree not only do they not believe in God, but they agree they can't prove or disprove any theistic God. So I went and looked up some of the best scientists who didn't have a God they believed in. Like Carl Sagan who didn't believe in Gods. He then was speaking about atheism when he said he found the philosophy to be ridiculous. He said that Atheism is making the claim that you KNOW God doesn't exist and to do that you must have proof of his non existence. Sagan continues to say he fails to see evidence that disproves God's existence. He has stated people like Spinoza and Einstein believed in a God who didn't have an Antrhomorphic form, but that God was the laws of physics and everything else that defined the universe. Sagan would believe in that, but would find it silly to worship physics.

So question and comments. Which do you believe to be the more realistic and reasonable set of philosophical beliefs? Atheism or Agnosticsm?
Ragnar
Posts: 1,658
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 7:46:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Interesting question.

I personally define myself as an atheist, under the definition "a disbelief in the existence of deity;" yet I dislike my fellow atheists when they cross the line into "the doctrine that there is no deity" [1]. I usually prefer agnostics to both religious people and atheists.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Unofficial DDO Guide: http://goo.gl...
(It's probably the best help resource here, other than talking to people...)

Voting Standards: https://goo.gl...

And please disable Smart-Quotes: https://goo.gl...
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 9:15:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 3:10:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I've always found Agnostics to be the more friendlier and logical using people since they agree not only do they not believe in God, but they agree they can't prove or disprove any theistic God. So I went and looked up some of the best scientists who didn't have a God they believed in. Like Carl Sagan who didn't believe in Gods. He then was speaking about atheism when he said he found the philosophy to be ridiculous. He said that Atheism is making the claim that you KNOW God doesn't exist and to do that you must have proof of his non existence. Sagan continues to say he fails to see evidence that disproves God's existence. He has stated people like Spinoza and Einstein believed in a God who didn't have an Antrhomorphic form, but that God was the laws of physics and everything else that defined the universe. Sagan would believe in that, but would find it silly to worship physics.

So question and comments. Which do you believe to be the more realistic and reasonable set of philosophical beliefs? Atheism or Agnosticsm?

There's no doubt I would think of agnosticism as the more sensible approach. An odd thing I've observed about atheism on quite a few occasions is that some particular atheist doesn't just disbelieve in deity, but actually seems to be angry at God. They use the Bible as a reference to prove that God can't exist, and there is no reasoning with them at all. Agnosticism seems to me to be the logical perspective of any rational person who truly sees no reason to believe in the existence of any god.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 1:48:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

I believe that there's more terminology, such as gnosticism, which talks about knowledge. I agree with the poster above. ^
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 2:22:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Yeah, 'atheism/theism' is a stance on belief, 'agnosticism/gnosticism' is to do with knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, by quite some distance. In fact, I've met perhaps one or two gnostic atheists in my entire life. Which is good, because it's as silly a position to take as claiming to know that there is one.

It's a bit of a myth that you can be 'just agnostic', because you either do or do not hold a positive belief in the existence of a god. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Regardless of which of those you are, you're also either gnostic or agnostic about your position.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 2:30:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 2:22:08 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Yeah, 'atheism/theism' is a stance on belief, 'agnosticism/gnosticism' is to do with knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, by quite some distance. In fact, I've met perhaps one or two gnostic atheists in my entire life. Which is good, because it's as silly a position to take as claiming to know that there is one.

It's a bit of a myth that you can be 'just agnostic', because you either do or do not hold a positive belief in the existence of a god. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Regardless of which of those you are, you're also either gnostic or agnostic about your position.

This ^^^. It's far to complicated for some though.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 6:09:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 3:10:05 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
I've always found Agnostics to be the more friendlier and logical using people since they agree not only do they not believe in God, but they agree they can't prove or disprove any theistic God. So I went and looked up some of the best scientists who didn't have a God they believed in. Like Carl Sagan who didn't believe in Gods. He then was speaking about atheism when he said he found the philosophy to be ridiculous. He said that Atheism is making the claim that you KNOW God doesn't exist and to do that you must have proof of his non existence. Sagan continues to say he fails to see evidence that disproves God's existence. He has stated people like Spinoza and Einstein believed in a God who didn't have an Antrhomorphic form, but that God was the laws of physics and everything else that defined the universe. Sagan would believe in that, but would find it silly to worship physics.

So question and comments. Which do you believe to be the more realistic and reasonable set of philosophical beliefs? Atheism or Agnosticsm?

I have long stated agnosticism, and hold it to be a more reasonable view. However, neither atheism nor agnosticism is a "philosophy." Each is a position held to a single question: Is there a god? The agnostic's answer is, "I don't know," whereas the atheist's answer is, "No." I do hold steadfast to the position that no god ever worshiped by any group of humans can exist. However, that does not prevent the possible reality where there exists a god.

Stating anything unknowable with an absolute is just as narrow, on either side.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:00:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Religion confuses the issue.

Most atheists are only atheistic in regard to the concepts of god that they have been presented by religious theists. They are not atheist in regard to the concept of god universally. So that for a discussion like this to make any sense, it would require that we specify the conception of god being considered.

I have noted both here and on other sites where theists and atheists interact that they are almost always locked in an argument over a specific conception of god, as in the religious Christian concept of god. Or the Jewish conception of god, or the Muslim conception of god.

I am a theists, but I do not subscribe to a specific religious theistic conception of god. I am a Christian, but I do not subscribe to the common religious Christian conception of Christ. And although I am clearly in the minority in this, I am also clearly not alone. I have come across others who react to the idea of God and Christ in a similar way as myself. And I find that most self-proclaimed atheists can't really understand my kind of theism, and don't really want to. Because what they want to do is argue with traditional religious theists.

And I find that all very silly.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:14:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

So like the big bang?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:18:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:14:57 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

So like the big bang?

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 1:34:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:00:19 AM, PureX wrote:
Religion confuses the issue.

Most atheists are only atheistic in regard to the concepts of god that they have been presented by religious theists. They are not atheist in regard to the concept of god universally. So that for a discussion like this to make any sense, it would require that we specify the conception of god being considered.

I have noted both here and on other sites where theists and atheists interact that they are almost always locked in an argument over a specific conception of god, as in the religious Christian concept of god. Or the Jewish conception of god, or the Muslim conception of god.

I am a theists, but I do not subscribe to a specific religious theistic conception of god. I am a Christian, but I do not subscribe to the common religious Christian conception of Christ. And although I am clearly in the minority in this, I am also clearly not alone. I have come across others who react to the idea of God and Christ in a similar way as myself. And I find that most self-proclaimed atheists can't really understand my kind of theism, and don't really want to. Because what they want to do is argue with traditional religious theists.

And I find that all very silly.

I think that there is a movement in Christianity toward more of a focus on justice, ethics, and ecological stewardship. I've met a number of Christians who have moved away from hard theology and the ritualism and dogma of institutional religion, and are just trying to live in a Christ-like manner. I enjoy having conversations about humanistic values and ethics with these types of individuals. Our goals are the same, although we describe things differently.
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:53:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 1:34:03 AM, Keltron wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:00:19 AM, PureX wrote:
Religion confuses the issue.

Most atheists are only atheistic in regard to the concepts of god that they have been presented by religious theists. They are not atheist in regard to the concept of god universally. So that for a discussion like this to make any sense, it would require that we specify the conception of god being considered.

I have noted both here and on other sites where theists and atheists interact that they are almost always locked in an argument over a specific conception of god, as in the religious Christian concept of god. Or the Jewish conception of god, or the Muslim conception of god.

I am a theists, but I do not subscribe to a specific religious theistic conception of god. I am a Christian, but I do not subscribe to the common religious Christian conception of Christ. And although I am clearly in the minority in this, I am also clearly not alone. I have come across others who react to the idea of God and Christ in a similar way as myself. And I find that most self-proclaimed atheists can't really understand my kind of theism, and don't really want to. Because what they want to do is argue with traditional religious theists.

And I find that all very silly.

I think that there is a movement in Christianity toward more of a focus on justice, ethics, and ecological stewardship. I've met a number of Christians who have moved away from hard theology and the ritualism and dogma of institutional religion, and are just trying to live in a Christ-like manner. I enjoy having conversations about humanistic values and ethics with these types of individuals. Our goals are the same, although we describe things differently.

I think those moderate 'spirit Christians' were always there. It's just that the religious extremists had become very valuable to the republican party, and therefor to the wealthy elite that the republican party serves. And that gave them a great deal of attention from the media, who also mostly work for the wealthy elite, and who discovered that by playing to these religious fanatic's bias and passion, they could create and maintain a ready audience for their commercials. And that increased the amount of media attention they got even more.

To look at American media over the last 25 years, one would think this country is is full of these hard-line religious Christians zealots, when in fact they are a minority among Christians and have always been. They are now turning out to be somewhat of a liability to the republican party and the wealthy elite that the republicans serve, and so they are not getting quite as much focus and media attention as they were. Leaving a little more room for us to notice all those quiet 'spirit Christians' that were, I believe, always there.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 9:35:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:53:42 AM, PureX wrote:


To look at American media over the last 25 years, one would think this country is is full of these hard-line religious Christians zealots, when in fact they are a minority among Christians and have always been. They are now turning out to be somewhat of a liability to the republican party and the wealthy elite that the republicans serve, and so they are not getting quite as much focus and media attention as they were. Leaving a little more room for us to notice all those quiet 'spirit Christians' that were, I believe, always there.

That appears to be a fair assessment. The problem would be what does that really mean? What is a hard-line Christian zealot, and what is a quiet 'spirit Christian'? Or what does one have to do or not do to be a Christian zealot or quiet spirit Christian?

One of the problems I see is that an individual doesn't necessarily have to be a politician, or look for media exposure to be considered something along the lines of a Christian zealot. An example would be those cake makers, photographers, florists, who have refused to provide service specifically for gay weddings/ceremonies. They were actually labeled as discriminatory which I would say leads to the suggestion that they are Christian zealots.

Does a Christian have to conform to remove or avoid the label "Christian Zealot"? Are they required to remove the belief that the Bible is inerrant, because if they don't, they may face a situation that may render them discriminators (e,g., the cake maker in Colorado)?
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 11:28:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 9:35:11 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:53:42 AM, PureX wrote:


To look at American media over the last 25 years, one would think this country is is full of these hard-line religious Christians zealots, when in fact they are a minority among Christians and have always been. They are now turning out to be somewhat of a liability to the republican party and the wealthy elite that the republicans serve, and so they are not getting quite as much focus and media attention as they were. Leaving a little more room for us to notice all those quiet 'spirit Christians' that were, I believe, always there.

What is a hard-line Christian zealot, and what is a quiet 'spirit Christian'? Or what does one have to do or not do to be a Christian zealot or quiet spirit Christian?

Does a Christian have to conform to remove or avoid the label "Christian Zealot"? Are they required to remove the belief that the Bible is inerrant, because if they don't, they may face a situation that may render them discriminators (e,g., the cake maker in Colorado)?

Because of the way the human brain perceives, we tend to find ourselves viewing everything relative to two opposing ideals. And in this instance I think the opposing ideals are significant, and can therefor be characterized in a number of ways. On the one side we would find characteristics like conservatism, authoritarianism, literal/legalism, dogmatic intolerance, and absolutism. On the other side we would find characteristics like liberalism, anti-authoritarianism, open-mindedness, tolerance, and relativism. And in the case of any significant area of human endeavor, like religion, politics, science, philosophy and sociology, we will find people from both ends of this spectrum represented. The majority of them will be found toward the middle, holding one view or the other, moderately. While there will be a smaller number found holding onto either extreme.

The republican party has been courting, intensely, the more extreme among the conservative side of religious Christianity because they were the easiest to manipulate, politically, using propaganda. When Karl Rove wanted to get George W. Bush elected governor of Texas he put fliers on the windshields of cars parked in conservative church lots on sundays claiming that his opponent was a lesbian. It was a lie, but because these kind of extremely conservative religious folks are so inflamed by homosexuality, they reacted exactly as Karl Rove had hoped, and they voted for Bush in droves just to vote against that horrible lesbian woman.

These kinds of religious extremists represent only a small portion of all religious Christians, on either side of the scale, but they got a great deal of attention over the years because their votes became the difference between winning and losing elections for republicans.

Karl Rove used the same trick again in the presidential primary against John McCain, only this time the fliers in the church lots all over the south said that John McCain had fathered illegitimate black babies. Those conservative Christians didn't like fornicating adulterers any more than they liked homosexuals, and so they voted in droves just to vote against John McCain.

The point is that as these people have never really been the main stream of religious Christianity. But because of all the attention they've been getting, this has been the impression created and fostered by the media. And thanks to the internet and social technology, every little instance that plays into this hype gets blown all out of proportion. A bigoted cake-maker would never have been noticed by anyone but the gay couple he refused to serve 40 years ago. And the gay couple would simply have gone elsewhere else. But now days it becomes a national "incident" and TV talking heads prattle on incessantly for weeks, and there's law suits, and lawyers, and the whole community is divided over it.

Which is all exactly what the politicians, the media, and the uber-wealthy corporate bosses that they are all working for, want.

As to the people on either side of the religious Christianity scale of opposites, I think they all land on it each according to their own natures, the same as non-religious people do. Folks who have been raised by authoritarian parents tend to grow up to become authoritarians, themselves. Folks who were raised by bigoted parents tend to grow up to become bigots. And on and on it goes. There is change, but it happens slowly, and only in a few people at a time.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 11:47:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:18:51 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:14:57 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

So like the big bang?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

What?
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 12:10:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 11:47:16 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:18:51 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:14:57 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

So like the big bang?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

What?

Read the 20 things under "Evidence"
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 3:53:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 2:30:51 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2014 2:22:08 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
Yeah, 'atheism/theism' is a stance on belief, 'agnosticism/gnosticism' is to do with knowledge. Most atheists are agnostic atheists, by quite some distance. In fact, I've met perhaps one or two gnostic atheists in my entire life. Which is good, because it's as silly a position to take as claiming to know that there is one.

It's a bit of a myth that you can be 'just agnostic', because you either do or do not hold a positive belief in the existence of a god. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. Regardless of which of those you are, you're also either gnostic or agnostic about your position.

This ^^^. It's far to complicated for some though.

Obviously it's much easier to understand if you're enightened by your intelligence and not by a phony god's blessing.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:17:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 11:28:13 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/15/2014 9:35:11 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:53:42 AM, PureX wrote:


To look at American media over the last 25 years, one would think this country is is full of these hard-line religious Christians zealots, when in fact they are a minority among Christians and have always been. They are now turning out to be somewhat of a liability to the republican party and the wealthy elite that the republicans serve, and so they are not getting quite as much focus and media attention as they were. Leaving a little more room for us to notice all those quiet 'spirit Christians' that were, I believe, always there.

What is a hard-line Christian zealot, and what is a quiet 'spirit Christian'? Or what does one have to do or not do to be a Christian zealot or quiet spirit Christian?

Does a Christian have to conform to remove or avoid the label "Christian Zealot"? Are they required to remove the belief that the Bible is inerrant, because if they don't, they may face a situation that may render them discriminators (e,g., the cake maker in Colorado)?

Because of the way the human brain perceives, we tend to find ourselves viewing everything relative to two opposing ideals. And in this instance I think the opposing ideals are significant, and can therefor be characterized in a number of ways. On the one side we would find characteristics like conservatism, authoritarianism, literal/legalism, dogmatic intolerance, and absolutism. On the other side we would find characteristics like liberalism, anti-authoritarianism, open-mindedness, tolerance, and relativism. And in the case of any significant area of human endeavor, like religion, politics, science, philosophy and sociology, we will find people from both ends of this spectrum represented. The majority of them will be found toward the middle, holding one view or the other, moderately. While there will be a smaller number found holding onto either extreme.

The republican party has been courting, intensely, the more extreme among the conservative side of religious Christianity because they were the easiest to manipulate, politically, using propaganda. When Karl Rove wanted to get George W. Bush elected governor of Texas he put fliers on the windshields of cars parked in conservative church lots on sundays claiming that his opponent was a lesbian. It was a lie, but because these kind of extremely conservative religious folks are so inflamed by homosexuality, they reacted exactly as Karl Rove had hoped, and they voted for Bush in droves just to vote against that horrible lesbian woman.

These kinds of religious extremists represent only a small portion of all religious Christians, on either side of the scale, but they got a great deal of attention over the years because their votes became the difference between winning and losing elections for republicans.

Karl Rove used the same trick again in the presidential primary against John McCain, only this time the fliers in the church lots all over the south said that John McCain had fathered illegitimate black babies. Those conservative Christians didn't like fornicating adulterers any more than they liked homosexuals, and so they voted in droves just to vote against John McCain.

The point is that as these people have never really been the main stream of religious Christianity. But because of all the attention they've been getting, this has been the impression created and fostered by the media. And thanks to the internet and social technology, every little instance that plays into this hype gets blown all out of proportion. A bigoted cake-maker would never have been noticed by anyone but the gay couple he refused to serve 40 years ago. And the gay couple would simply have gone elsewhere else. But now days it becomes a national "incident" and TV talking heads prattle on incessantly for weeks, and there's law suits, and lawyers, and the whole community is divided over it.

Which is all exactly what the politicians, the media, and the uber-wealthy corporate bosses that they are all working for, want.

As to the people on either side of the religious Christianity scale of opposites, I think they all land on it each according to their own natures, the same as non-religious people do. Folks who have been raised by authoritarian parents tend to grow up to become authoritarians, themselves. Folks who were raised by bigoted parents tend to grow up to become bigots. And on and on it goes. There is change, but it happens slowly, and only in a few people at a time.
You still seem to be assuming that if someone is a biblical literalist, they possess the nature to be a bigot. The bigoted cake maker 40 years ago we can only assume would be bigoted is because their refusal to service a gay person or couple would have had nothing to do with gay weddings. The example I used of a cake maker in Colorado is not a bigot. At least there's no absolutely no evidence to suggest it.

There have been incidences in the media of a cake maker, a florist, and a photographer who have been penalized for discrimination solely on the basis of refusing to service gay weddings and ceremonies. Not gay individuals or couples themselves. The cake maker made it very clear that he would gladly make cakes for anyone including a gay person or couple for any other reason. His belief that the Bible is literal gives him a religious conviction that gay weddings are not honored in God's sight, therefore he would be dishonoring God.

This is an example of where the issue of Christian zealotry is already dicey. And where religious freedom is heading.
bulproof
Posts: 25,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 8:55:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Baking a cake is prohibited where in the bible?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 10:36:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 8:17:01 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
You still seem to be assuming that if someone is a biblical literalist, they possess the nature to be a bigot.[/QUOTE]Literalism, legalism, dogmatism, absolutism; these all reflect the ideology of narrowness and rigidity. And of an obsession with righteousness. So, yes, these are all general characteristics of bigots and of bigotry.

The bigoted cake maker 40 years ago we can only assume would be bigoted is because their refusal to service a gay person or couple would have had nothing to do with gay weddings. The example I used of a cake maker in Colorado is not a bigot. At least there's no absolutely no evidence to suggest it.

From wikipedia: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

The baker, and the others who refused service to people because of a prejudice against their ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics is a bigot, and is acting out of this bigotry. Pretending that he's only biased against gay weddings, but not gay people, is just dishonest sophistry.

His belief that the Bible is literal gives him a religious conviction that gay weddings are not honored in God's sight, therefore he would be dishonoring God.

Sure. And the klansmen's belief that the Bible tells him that black skinned people are the spawn of satan has his self-righteous theological excuses, too. And he believes he's dishonoring God by serving them in the same manner he serves white-skinned people. All that says, however, is that he is sincere in his bigotry. Is that somehow supposed to be better, or more acceptable than insincere bigotry?

This is an example of where the issue of Christian zealotry is already dicey. And where religious freedom is heading.

There isn't anything confusing about it once we separate the excuses from the behavior, and just deal with the behavior. Because it doesn't matter in the least what the baker thinks of gays or gay weddings or God or anything else. He's free to think whatever he wants. What matters is how he behaves toward other people. And that's what these folks you mentioned were being called out on, and rightfully so.

Religious freedom is not freedom to break the laws, and to abuse other people's rights. So the excuses and the sophistry don't really matter. It was never about that. It was about breaking the law, and abusing the rights of other people.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 12:15:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 10:36:12 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/16/2014 8:17:01 AM, RoderickSpode wrote:
You still seem to be assuming that if someone is a biblical literalist, they possess the nature to be a bigot.[/QUOTE]Literalism, legalism, dogmatism, absolutism; these all reflect the ideology of narrowness and rigidity. And of an obsession with righteousness. So, yes, these are all general characteristics of bigots and of bigotry.

The bigoted cake maker 40 years ago we can only assume would be bigoted is because their refusal to service a gay person or couple would have had nothing to do with gay weddings. The example I used of a cake maker in Colorado is not a bigot. At least there's no absolutely no evidence to suggest it.

From wikipedia: "Bigotry is the state of mind of a bigot: someone who, as a result of their prejudices, treats or views other people with fear, distrust or hatred on the basis of a person's ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics."

Are you familiar with the specific case I've been referencing? This part here is a false allegation:

A Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple has been given an ultimatum by a judge; serve gay weddings or face fines.

Administrative law judge Robert N. Spence found Friday that Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colo. violated the law when he turned away David Mullins, 29, and Charlie Craig, 33, from his shop last year.

In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

"At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spence wrote. "This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."


They were not refused service because of what they were:

According to the complaint, Phillips told the couple that the store policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods for a same-sex wedding, based on his religious beliefs.

Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."


Bigotry would go something like "I won't bake you a cake (because you are gay)....period".


The baker, and the others who refused service to people because of a prejudice against their ethnicity, evaluative orientation, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, or other characteristics is a bigot, and is acting out of this bigotry. Pretending that he's only biased against gay weddings, but not gay people, is just dishonest sophistry.

Then the accusation is that he is lying. This means that if he can somehow prove that he only refused to serve them because of his religious conviction that a gay wedding is dishonoring to God, then he is innocent Correct? You (and the court) just don't happen to believe him, so therefore he is guilty.

Or....that his religious conviction itself is bigoted....Biblical literalism should be outlawed.

Which is it?

His belief that the Bible is literal gives him a religious conviction that gay weddings are not honored in God's sight, therefore he would be dishonoring God.

Sure. And the klansmen's belief that the Bible tells him that black skinned people are the spawn of satan has his self-righteous theological excuses, too. And he believes he's dishonoring God by serving them in the same manner he serves white-skinned people. All that says, however, is that he is sincere in his bigotry. Is that somehow supposed to be better, or more acceptable than insincere bigotry?

This is an example of where the issue of Christian zealotry is already dicey. And where religious freedom is heading.

The klansmen murdered people. They...hung people. What am I missing here?

There isn't anything confusing about it once we separate the excuses from the behavior, and just deal with the behavior. Because it doesn't matter in the least what the baker thinks of gays or gay weddings or God or anything else. He's free to think whatever he wants. What matters is how he behaves toward other people. And that's what these folks you mentioned were being called out on, and rightfully so.

What part of:

Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Is not understood?

Do you believe in religious freedom?

Religious freedom is not freedom to break the laws, and to abuse other people's rights. So the excuses and the sophistry don't really matter. It was never about that. It was about breaking the law, and abusing the rights of other people.
There was no law broken:

This is the Colorado law:

In his written decision, Spence ordered that Phillips "cease and desist from discriminating" against gay couples, or face financial penalties, and cited Colorado state law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

This wasn't based on race (White, Black, Hispanic, etc.). This wasn't based on sex (male, female, she-male, etc...if there is an etc.). This wasn't based on marital status (married, divorced, single, etc.). This wasn't based on sexual orientation (straight, gay, bi-sexual, etc.).

This was because of his religious conviction...his conscience which he will not compromise on.

Again, are you basing your view on what you think was his motivation? What you suspect his prejudices are? Or on the very action itself irregardless of his real motivation and sentiment? You come across as taking a guilty until proven innocent approach. Sort of like someone convicted of stealing without there being any witnesses. He's convicted because it's the opinion that he must have stolen because he's from the wrong side of the tracks. Sort of the "yeah right" approach. You're guilty of pocketing a million dollars that was in an empty wallet you turned in. Even though you claim you would have turned the million dollars had it been in the wallet...."yeah right.....suuuuurrrrrre you would have".

http://abcnews.go.com...

In addition, this is based on private businesses refusing to service a gay wedding.

The judge waived it all away, saying that a private business doesn't have a right to refuse service to anyone it chooses. Such a view, he said, "fails to take into account the cost of society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com...

This doesn't say anything about a church's refusal to marry a gay couple. Do you think churches should be allowed to refuse to marry gay couples?
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 12:34:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 12:10:52 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 11:47:16 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:18:51 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:14:57 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

So like the big bang?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

What?

Read the 20 things under "Evidence"

Sorry, but most of this is foreign and I can't understand it. I haven't graduated college yet.
PureX
Posts: 1,525
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 1:14:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 12:15:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
What part of:

Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Is not understood?

What you keep trying not to see is that it doesn't matter why the baker refused to uphold his business's obligation to the public, any more than it matters why you ran a red light in traffic when the cop gives you the fine. The law says that a business that is open to the public must serve the public as it's license and advertising proposes. The baker didn't do that, deliberately, for whatever reason. And so he was fined for violating the laws of public commerce.

It never had anything to do with religion, except in the violator's mind, and yours.

Do you believe in religious freedom?

I believe in equal freedom, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all. And for that to happen, we must all be willing to sacrifice a little to respect and protect the equal rights of others.

The baker and photographer and the others got exactly what they deserved, and it has nothing to do with religion. What it has to do with is selfishness, and stupidity. They wanted to use their public commercial business to impose their ideals on other people. And they had to pay the price for their selfishness.

So be it.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:31:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 1:14:29 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/16/2014 12:15:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
What part of:

Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Is not understood?

What you keep trying not to see is that it doesn't matter why the baker refused to uphold his business's obligation to the public, any more than it matters why you ran a red light in traffic when the cop gives you the fine. The law says that a business that is open to the public must serve the public as it's license and advertising proposes. The baker didn't do that, deliberately, for whatever reason. And so he was fined for violating the laws of public commerce.
No, he did not violate the laws of public commerce. There are certain grounds laid out to where a business is allowed to refuse service. The article itself eludes to that. The implication is that his refusal is discrimination based an alleged prejudice against gay people. The owner made it clear that that is not the case. Part of the accusation involves an insult to the party being refused. That in addition is not a reason to punish the owner. If it was, businesses who refuse to serve people who are shoeless and shirtless would be fined as well, if the party involve claims offense, hurt, humiliation, etc. And I can tell you that there are those who do get hightly offended when refused service for lack of clothing.

It never had anything to do with religion, except in the violator's mind, and yours.


And it most certainly is a religious issue. Per the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.......

You can't just claim religion is not an issue just because you don't want it to be.

Do you believe in religious freedom?

I believe in equal freedom, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all. And for that to happen, we must all be willing to sacrifice a little to respect and protect the equal rights of others.

Then why couldn't the gay couple sacrifice by going to another cake maker? Does your belief in equal freedom include freedom of religion?

The baker and photographer and the others got exactly what they deserved, and it has nothing to do with religion. What it has to do with is selfishness, and stupidity. They wanted to use their public commercial business to impose their ideals on other people. And they had to pay the price for their selfishness.

So be it.
I doubt that. I remember back when a pastor was being fined for holding a bible study in his home. People were saying he got what he deserved......until he eventually won the case.

But again.....do you think churches should be required to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 2:34:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 2:31:12 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 5/16/2014 1:14:29 PM, PureX wrote:
At 5/16/2014 12:15:33 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
What part of:

Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Is not understood?

What you keep trying not to see is that it doesn't matter why the baker refused to uphold his business's obligation to the public, any more than it matters why you ran a red light in traffic when the cop gives you the fine. The law says that a business that is open to the public must serve the public as it's license and advertising proposes. The baker didn't do that, deliberately, for whatever reason. And so he was fined for violating the laws of public commerce.
No, he did not violate the laws of public commerce. There are certain grounds laid out to where a business is allowed to refuse service. The article itself eludes to that. The implication is that his refusal is discrimination based an alleged prejudice against gay people. The owner made it clear that that is not the case. Part of the accusation involves an insult to the party being refused. That in addition is not a reason to punish the owner. If it was, businesses who refuse to serve people who are shoeless and shirtless would be fined as well, if the party involve claims offense, hurt, humiliation, etc. And I can tell you that there are those who do get hightly offended when refused service for lack of clothing.

It never had anything to do with religion, except in the violator's mind, and yours.


And it most certainly is a religious issue. Per the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.......

You can't just claim religion is not an issue just because you don't want it to be.

Do you believe in religious freedom?

I believe in equal freedom, equal justice, and equal opportunity for all. And for that to happen, we must all be willing to sacrifice a little to respect and protect the equal rights of others.

Then why couldn't the gay couple sacrifice by going to another cake maker? Does your belief in equal freedom include freedom of religion?

The baker and photographer and the others got exactly what they deserved, and it has nothing to do with religion. What it has to do with is selfishness, and stupidity. They wanted to use their public commercial business to impose their ideals on other people. And they had to pay the price for their selfishness.

So be it.
I doubt that. I remember back when a pastor was being fined for holding a bible study in his home. People were saying he got what he deserved......until he eventually won the case.

But again.....do you think churches should be required to perform wedding ceremonies for gay couples?

Whoops...

No, he did not violate the laws of public commerce. There are certain grounds laid out to where a business is allowed to refuse service. The article itself eludes to that. The implication is that his refusal is discrimination based an alleged prejudice against gay people. The owner made it clear that that is not the case. Part of the accusation involves an insult to the party being refused. That in addition is not a reason to punish the owner. If it was, businesses who refuse to serve people who are shoeless and shirtless would be fined as well, if the party involve claims offense, hurt, humiliation, etc. And I can tell you that there are those who do get hightly offended when refused service for lack of clothing.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 3:11:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 12:34:20 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/16/2014 12:10:52 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 11:47:16 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:18:51 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:14:57 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

So like the big bang?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

What?

Read the 20 things under "Evidence"

Sorry, but most of this is foreign and I can't understand it. I haven't graduated college yet.

I don't pretend to be an astrophysicist either, I'm just saying, there is a plethora of evidence for the big bang.
ChristianPunk
Posts: 1,710
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 9:05:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 3:11:36 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/16/2014 12:34:20 PM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/16/2014 12:10:52 AM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/15/2014 11:47:16 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:18:51 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:14:57 AM, ChristianPunk wrote:
At 5/13/2014 9:28:32 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
Atheism is agnosticism with the extra step that theism is a positive claim for which there has been provided no evidence, and that positive claims with no evidence should be disbelieved until evidence is provided.

So like the big bang?

http://www.talkorigins.org...

What?

Read the 20 things under "Evidence"

Sorry, but most of this is foreign and I can't understand it. I haven't graduated college yet.

I don't pretend to be an astrophysicist either, I'm just saying, there is a plethora of evidence for the big bang.

Exactly, but it started as a theory until evidence started appearing. And the difference is that big bang is a materialistic thing. We can easily find it's existence. But God is more of a spiritual thing. Existence of a God or Gods can only have one way to be proven. If their afterlife comes true. So if somebody has an afterlife, it's their discovery. But even still, Big Bang would just support Christianity since the Bible begins with God said let there be light in the beginning. And that Big Bang or expansion of the stars was the light. But the point I guess i'm trying to say is, that even while Theists make that claim, Atheists make the claim they have sufficient evidence that disproves God, when people like Carl Sagan (as I've said earlier) admit that he hasn't seen evidence that disproves God.