Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

This is why Non-believers struggle

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 12:58:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 12:39:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
Ever wonder why we non-believers are so adamant in our opposition to religion? Take a look.

http://www.msn.com...

I think that despite the fact this will hurt folks, it is a good thing those believers are showing their true bigoted colors. The more they do, the quicker we'll see the decline of religions.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
ThinkFirst
Posts: 1,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 2:24:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 12:58:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:39:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
Ever wonder why we non-believers are so adamant in our opposition to religion? Take a look.

http://www.msn.com...

I think that despite the fact this will hurt folks, it is a good thing those believers are showing their true bigoted colors. The more they do, the quicker we'll see the decline of religions.

It would be nice if I could have confidence in your assessment but, alas, I cannot. What I wonder is if an atheist/agnostic chooses not to acknowledge religious holidays, and a lawsuit follows, will these same bigots allow the atheist/agnostic to cite their own religious convictions to be used as a basis for not observing religious holidays...? Will an atheist/agnostic business owner be allowed to refuse to advertise for a religious organization under such convictions? I doubt it...
"Never attribute to villainy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
-----
"Men rarely if ever dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child. "

-- Robert A Heinlein
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 2:37:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 2:24:44 PM, ThinkFirst wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:58:51 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:39:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
Ever wonder why we non-believers are so adamant in our opposition to religion? Take a look.

http://www.msn.com...

I think that despite the fact this will hurt folks, it is a good thing those believers are showing their true bigoted colors. The more they do, the quicker we'll see the decline of religions.

It would be nice if I could have confidence in your assessment but, alas, I cannot. What I wonder is if an atheist/agnostic chooses not to acknowledge religious holidays, and a lawsuit follows, will these same bigots allow the atheist/agnostic to cite their own religious convictions to be used as a basis for not observing religious holidays...? Will an atheist/agnostic business owner be allowed to refuse to advertise for a religious organization under such convictions? I doubt it...

Religious freedom is always a one-way street. I'm free to discriminate against you because of my faith but you'd better not discriminate against me. Heck, I'm waiting for the first gay bakery owner in Indianna to tell a straight couple that they won't make a cake for their wedding. That should be fun.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 3:20:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 2:37:34 PM, dhardage wrote:
Religious freedom is always a one-way street. I'm free to discriminate against you because of my faith but you'd better not discriminate against me.

Doctrinal religion is sanctified paternalism: my faith's history is flawed and dubious; its metaphysics constantly debunked by science; its prayer produces none of the expected miracles; and I'm forever waiting for our doom-laden prophecies to come true; so in the meantime the only evidence of my faith's righteous power IS my ability to strip freedoms from you. Indeed, the more agency I can strip from you politically and psychologically, the surer I will be that God is on my side.

Such vanity and malignant greed are enemies of democracy, dignity and compassion.

Freedom of worship should be confined to protecting the act of worship and the physical safety of believers. Any other equality measure must not privilege faith, and any measure that privileges one faith over others, or grants one generation of believers power over the next generation of citizens, is not an equality measure -- it's a grab for power and privilege and should be denounced as such.

Moreover, any religious group that lobbies politically or tries to indoctrinate children should automatically be treated as a corporate no different to McDonald's, and pay its taxes.
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,074
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 3:28:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, I suppose that since this article pretty blatantly had "opinion" on it it's not as bad as the Huffington Post.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 3:38:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 3:20:00 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 2:37:34 PM, dhardage wrote:
Religious freedom is always a one-way street. I'm free to discriminate against you because of my faith but you'd better not discriminate against me.

Doctrinal religion is sanctified paternalism: my faith's history is flawed and dubious; its metaphysics constantly debunked by science; its prayer produces none of the expected miracles; and I'm forever waiting for our doom-laden prophecies to come true; so in the meantime the only evidence of my faith's righteous power IS my ability to strip freedoms from you. Indeed, the more agency I can strip from you politically and psychologically, the surer I will be that God is on my side.

Such vanity and malignant greed are enemies of democracy, dignity and compassion.

Freedom of worship should be confined to protecting the act of worship and the physical safety of believers. Any other equality measure must not privilege faith, and any measure that privileges one faith over others, or grants one generation of believers power over the next generation of citizens, is not an equality measure -- it's a grab for power and privilege and should be denounced as such.

Moreover, any religious group that lobbies politically or tries to indoctrinate children should automatically be treated as a corporate no different to McDonald's, and pay its taxes.

>Freedom of worship should be confined to protecting the act of worship and the physical safety of believers.

That's what it was supposed to be. The first Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, It does NOT say that one can force their religious beliefs on another or demand that their beliefs be sacrosanct and immune from criticism. Believers have invaded our government to the point that the IRS, one of the most feared bureaus of the Federal Government, is afraid to enforce laws that specify religious organization cannot get involved in politics or they will lose their tax-exempt status. Religions are supposed to be neutral in government affairs but that's not how it's being done.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 3:55:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 3:38:28 PM, dhardage wrote:
Believers have invaded our government to the point that the IRS, one of the most feared bureaus of the Federal Government, is afraid to enforce laws that specify religious organization cannot get involved in politics or they will lose their tax-exempt status. Religions are supposed to be neutral in government affairs but that's not how it's being done.

I live in a different country. In ours, nontheism is at around 31% and Christianity at 61%. We can have an atheist head of government and Muslim politicians; but our Parliament still commences with a Christian prayer. We have numerous state-funded education, health and employment services provided by Christian groups, and they are free to withhold certain medical treatments, teach certain doctrines, and apply religious and sexuality discrimination to employment.

We have no bill of rights, but there is a constitutional provision preventing government from instituting religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or setting a religious test for public office.

It's clearly not enough to prevent religious power-grabbing and discrimination though.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 3:59:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 3:55:30 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 3:38:28 PM, dhardage wrote:
Believers have invaded our government to the point that the IRS, one of the most feared bureaus of the Federal Government, is afraid to enforce laws that specify religious organization cannot get involved in politics or they will lose their tax-exempt status. Religions are supposed to be neutral in government affairs but that's not how it's being done.

I live in a different country. In ours, nontheism is at around 31% and Christianity at 61%. We can have an atheist head of government and Muslim politicians; but our Parliament still commences with a Christian prayer. We have numerous state-funded education, health and employment services provided by Christian groups, and they are free to withhold certain medical treatments, teach certain doctrines, and apply religious and sexuality discrimination to employment.

We have no bill of rights, but there is a constitutional provision preventing government from instituting religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or setting a religious test for public office.

It's clearly not enough to prevent religious power-grabbing and discrimination though.

And it never will be. Believers are certain that they have the Divine Authority and Wisdom to run everyone's lives for them. They will use any measure to get that authority, legal or otherwise. If Christians in general would behave more like the Christ they profess as an example, this would not be an issue. He never tried to make laws, never accumulated wealth, never persecuted anyone whether or not they believed what he said, and urged his people to pray privately and make their faith a personal and private thing. To paraphrase Ghandi, I quite like their Christ. I do not like Christians, they are so unlike him.
slo1
Posts: 4,342
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 4:12:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
James Madison got it

..will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others
.

unfortunately it is necessary for gov to step in and protect the christian sect from tresspessing the rights of others Different from them.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 4:23:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 4:12:44 PM, slo1 wrote:
James Madison got it

..will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others
.

unfortunately it is necessary for gov to step in and protect the christian sect from tresspessing the rights of others Different from them.

Agreed, but since most of the government are some flavor of Christianity, it is not likely to happen that way.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 4:39:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Religion:
* conflates pseudoscience with science;
* conflates indoctrination with education;
* conflates theology with morality;
* conflates apologetics with accountability;
* conflates superstition with spirituality;
* conflates inquiry with heresy;
* conflates criticism with blasphemy;
* conflates paternalism with compassion;
* constantly works to subvert secular democracy and human dignity; yet
* never itself admits greed, dishonesty, corruption or error.

Meanwhile, its whole claim to authority is "We have revelation, so just trust us"

Is there any form of thought in human discourse less trustable than religious thought?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 4:47:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 4:39:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Religion:
* conflates pseudoscience with science;
* conflates indoctrination with education;
* conflates theology with morality;
* conflates apologetics with accountability;
* conflates superstition with spirituality;
* conflates inquiry with heresy;
* conflates criticism with blasphemy;
* conflates paternalism with compassion;
* constantly works to subvert secular democracy and human dignity; yet
* never itself admits greed, dishonesty, corruption or error.

Meanwhile, its whole claim to authority is "We have revelation, so just trust us"

Is there any form of thought in human discourse less trustable than religious thought?

Nope, it takes the prize.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 5:36:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 12:39:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
Ever wonder why we non-believers are so adamant in our opposition to religion? Take a look.

http://www.msn.com...

And those damned LBGQTI groups that lobby to get people fired based on their charitable donations. Disagree with gay marriage can't stop them from having their wedding in a christian church. Not like they can't get another venue or cake.

But LGBQTI can disagree with how you spend your money and get you fired. Yeah no bigotry there
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 5:44:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 4:39:11 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Religion:
* conflates pseudoscience with science;
* conflates indoctrination with education;
* conflates theology with morality;
* conflates apologetics with accountability;
* conflates superstition with spirituality;
* conflates inquiry with heresy;
* conflates criticism with blasphemy;
* conflates paternalism with compassion;
* constantly works to subvert secular democracy and human dignity; yet
* never itself admits greed, dishonesty, corruption or error.

Meanwhile, its whole claim to authority is "We have revelation, so just trust us"

Is there any form of thought in human discourse less trustable than religious thought?

Insanity?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 6:55:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 5:36:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
And those damned LBGQTI groups that lobby to get people fired based on their charitable donations.

I'm not familiar with that example, Mhykiel. Please link. But in the meantime, I have two points to make; one of integrity, and one of accuracy:

Integrity:
There is considerable integrity in acknowledge an injustice perpetrated from within your own affiliation and then pointing out that this is not the only injustice. However, deflecting from one injustice to another supposed injustice has no integrity at all.

Accuracy:
To potray LGBQTI people as anti-religious is a category error. In a pluralistic society, 60-70% of people inherit their parents belief -- and this is true in the US (link available on request.) So this is likely to carry through to LGBQTI -- and indeed it does.

While nonreligiosity is higher in same-sex couples (about twice as high), in Australia at least, about 40% identify as Christian, and that's likely to be higher in the US, which has higher religiosity. [http://abs.gov.au...] Moreover, any nonreligiosity might be induced due to the appalling behaviour toward nonheteronormative people by religion.

The point I'm making here is that the contention isn't between LGBQTI and religion: it's between religion and sexuality. Your own parishioners are suffering from your theology.

But LGBQTI can disagree with how you spend your money and get you fired. Yeah no bigotry there

I think it's clear what has created this division, and it wasn't human sexuality, but the ignorant, benighted and bigoted stories religion has told about it for millennia.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 7:49:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 6:55:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 5:36:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
And those damned LBGQTI groups that lobby to get people fired based on their charitable donations.

I'm not familiar with that example, Mhykiel. Please link. But in the meantime, I have two points to make; one of integrity, and one of accuracy:

Internet browser company Mozilla, CEO fired for donation to support a propisition 8 in his state. http://reason.com...


Integrity:
There is considerable integrity in acknowledge an injustice perpetrated from within your own affiliation and then pointing out that this is not the only injustice. However, deflecting from one injustice to another supposed injustice has no integrity at all.

Accuracy:
To potray LGBQTI people as anti-religious is a category error. In a pluralistic society, 60-70% of people inherit their parents belief -- and this is true in the US (link available on request.) So this is likely to carry through to LGBQTI -- and indeed it does.


the OP is claiming that religion should be fought against, denied to an individual to actually apply their religious tenets in real life, force an individual to condone and conduct services that they are morally opposed to.

I was using the same belligerent attitude to draw attention to how absurd and hypocritical it sounds.

While nonreligiosity is higher in same-sex couples (about twice as high), in Australia at least, about 40% identify as Christian, and that's likely to be higher in the US, which has higher religiosity. [http://abs.gov.au...] Moreover, any nonreligiosity might be induced due to the appalling behaviour toward nonheteronormative people by religion.

The point I'm making here is that the contention isn't between LGBQTI and religion: it's between religion and sexuality. Your own parishioners are suffering from your theology.

But LGBQTI can disagree with how you spend your money and get you fired. Yeah no bigotry there

I think it's clear what has created this division, and it wasn't human sexuality, but the ignorant, benighted and bigoted stories religion has told about it for millennia.

God's ideal intention is a life long commitment between a woman and man. This is of course in great contrast to the fallen sinful nature of humans. And shows that many people not just LGBQTI are in need of reconciling their desires with God's will.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 8:01:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 7:49:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/10/2015 6:55:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 5:36:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
And those damned LBGQTI groups that lobby to get people fired based on their charitable donations.
Internet browser company Mozilla, CEO fired for donation to support a propisition 8 in his state. http://reason.com...

Mozilla, the mission-based makers of lagging web browser Firefox, fired its newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich after the dating site OK Cupid publicized Eich's donation to Prop. 8, a California ballot initiative that barred same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

OK Cupid must be a front then.

the OP is claiming that religion should be fought against, denied to an individual to actually apply their religious tenets in real life, force an individual to condone and conduct services that they are morally opposed to.

Yes. I support the criticism of religious paternalism, and opposing it being legislated in real life too.

I was using the same belligerent attitude to draw attention to how absurd and hypocritical it sounds.

Except that the site which lobbied was a commercial dating site -- whether exercising some political ideology of its own or just going for commercial promotion, I don't know. Either way, I think firing someone for religious belief should be illegal -- except where it can be shown that the exercise of that belief would conflict with their duty of care. But equally, failing to hire the most qualified applicant on grounds of religious belief should be illegal under the same qualification. There are many more examples of religious organisations failing to hire (or else firing) people with the wrong religious belief than the former.

Your example still lacks objectivity and integrity.

God's ideal intention is a life long commitment between a woman and man.

And you are welcome to let that inform your own relationships Mhykiel. But you are not welcome to claim the privilege of theological paternalism in constraining the right of other humans to pursue happiness in harmless ways.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 8:21:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 8:01:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 7:49:23 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/10/2015 6:55:59 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 5:36:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
And those damned LBGQTI groups that lobby to get people fired based on their charitable donations.
Internet browser company Mozilla, CEO fired for donation to support a propisition 8 in his state. http://reason.com...

Mozilla, the mission-based makers of lagging web browser Firefox, fired its newly appointed CEO Brendan Eich after the dating site OK Cupid publicized Eich's donation to Prop. 8, a California ballot initiative that barred same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

OK Cupid must be a front then.

the OP is claiming that religion should be fought against, denied to an individual to actually apply their religious tenets in real life, force an individual to condone and conduct services that they are morally opposed to.

Yes. I support the criticism of religious paternalism, and opposing it being legislated in real life too.

I was using the same belligerent attitude to draw attention to how absurd and hypocritical it sounds.

Except that the site which lobbied was a commercial dating site -- whether exercising some political ideology of its own or just going for commercial promotion, I don't know. Either way, I think firing someone for religious belief should be illegal -- except where it can be shown that the exercise of that belief would conflict with their duty of care. But equally, failing to hire the most qualified applicant on grounds of religious belief should be illegal under the same qualification. There are many more examples of religious organisations failing to hire (or else firing) people with the wrong religious belief than the former.

Your example still lacks objectivity and integrity.

God's ideal intention is a life long commitment between a woman and man.

And you are welcome to let that inform your own relationships Mhykiel. But you are not welcome to claim the privilege of theological paternalism in constraining the right of other humans to pursue happiness in harmless ways.

I don't everyone is free to be choose their path. You can choose to be as foolish as you want. but just like we don't force Muslim prisoners to eat pork we shouldn't order churches to hold gay weddings. It's freedom of religion, not from religion.

As far as I am concerned legislation is to protect everyone natural right to make bad decisions as long as such choices to not impede upon someone else's opportunity to make a bad decision.

... and harmless ways...

That is my point a religious person denying a gay couple a cake compared to a gay organization strong arming the firing a person do to personal donations???

Which is doing harm?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 8:46:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 8:21:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

I don't everyone is free to be choose their path. You can choose to be as foolish as you want. but just like we don't force Muslim prisoners to eat pork we shouldn't order churches to hold gay weddings. It's freedom of religion, not from religion.

Yes indeed, it IS freedom FROM religion. That is a right we all have.

As far as I am concerned legislation is to protect everyone natural right to make bad decisions as long as such choices to not impede upon someone else's opportunity to make a bad decision.

... and harmless ways...

That is my point a religious person denying a gay couple a cake compared to a gay organization strong arming the firing a person do to personal donations???

Which is doing harm?

The bigoted religious person, of course,
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 10:33:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 8:21:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
we don't force Muslim prisoners to eat pork we shouldn't order churches to hold gay weddings. It's freedom of religion, not from religion.
The essence of tolerating faith in a secular society is that nobody gets to make their faith normative. Every time you try and do that, you're throwing your leg over everyone outside your faith.

So nobody should tell you whom to admit to worship or how to worship, and if a church doesn't want to celebrate a gay wedding, nobody should force it to. That's exactly what freedom of worship means -- and although I'm both strongly secular and moderately antitheistic, I support that right.

However, there's a huge gap between not wanting to celebrate gay weddings in your own house of worship, and insisting that a secular society shouldn't recognise gay marriage at all.

One is freedom of worship; the other is theocratic control of a secular process. The moment religious lobbyists begin to interfere with secular processes, they've ceased being faith-groups and have become political groups trying to dominate society. They should lose their tax exemption immediately and run hard up against constitutional provisions to stop exactly such theocratic powergrasping.

Equally, the moment they run a service that is not a house of worship -- like a school or a hospital -- they need to obey secular law, and not dictate theocratic policy.

If they can't do that, or understand why they must do that, then they can't play nice with secularism.

It's freedom of religion, not from religion.
And here, you're explaining that no, religions can't play nice with secularism, and shouldn't have to.

But we secularists already know religions want to abuse secular protections and have a free-for-all over which faith controls society. So you're saying that secularists must oppose your constant clawing at privilege, or resign ourselves to a return to some neomediaeval theocracy.

We know, Mhykiel. Your faith's own vanity and greed have incited exactly the secular pressure you're now experiencing. Your participation in DDO is doing a great job of illustrating why even moderate, mainstream theology respects neither democracy, secularism, nor science, and cannot be trusted.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/10/2015 11:58:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 10:33:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 8:21:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
we don't force Muslim prisoners to eat pork we shouldn't order churches to hold gay weddings. It's freedom of religion, not from religion.
The essence of tolerating faith in a secular society is that nobody gets to make their faith normative. Every time you try and do that, you're throwing your leg over everyone outside your faith.

Normative? This word must have completely different meaning for you than what I have. I don't judge normality based on my faith. There are some normative behaviors and attitudes that I disagree with as well.


So nobody should tell you whom to admit to worship or how to worship, and if a church doesn't want to celebrate a gay wedding, nobody should force it to. That's exactly what freedom of worship means -- and although I'm both strongly secular and moderately antitheistic, I support that right.

However, there's a huge gap between not wanting to celebrate gay weddings in your own house of worship, and insisting that a secular society shouldn't recognize gay marriage at all.

Where did I say gays can't marry? I don't think marriage should be recognized by state at all. Mutual powers of attorneys can be drawn up for people.

But marriage license is the state issuing an allowance for something. The first marriage licensees were issued for a slave owner to marry a slave. The license was issued because it was a marriage across a caste system. The only reason for advocating a license program for anything is if the state wants to implement a control mechanism for the encouragement of certain behavior for the safety of the public. Such as medical licensees, drivers licenses, ect..

Do i think such a control for public safety is needed for gay cohabitation and sex? No I don't.


One is freedom of worship; the other is theocratic control of a secular process. The moment religious lobbyists begin to interfere with secular processes, they've ceased being faith-groups and have become political groups trying to dominate society. They should lose their tax exemption immediately and run hard up against constitutional provisions to stop exactly such theocratic powergrasping.

Equally, the moment they run a service that is not a house of worship -- like a school or a hospital -- they need to obey secular law, and not dictate theocratic policy.

The law is already established not to impinge on the practice of religion. If a religious organization runs a hospital or school the law can not force them NOT to add religious contest or content to the service.


If they can't do that, or understand why they must do that, then they can't play nice with secularism.

It's freedom of religion, not from religion.
And here, you're explaining that no, religions can't play nice with secularism, and shouldn't have to.

But we secularists already know religions want to abuse secular protections and have a free-for-all over which faith controls society. So you're saying that secularists must oppose your constant clawing at privilege, or resign ourselves to a return to some neomediaeval theocracy.

No it's very simple: The Supreme Court under Earl Warren adopted an expansive view of the Free Exercise Clause. In, Sherbert v. Verner (1963) the Court held that states must have a "compelling interest" to refuse to accommodate religiously motivated conduct. Once a court determines that strict scrutiny must be applied, it is presumed that the law or policy is unconstitutional. The government has the burden of proving that its challenged policy is constitutional. To withstand strict scrutiny, the government must show that its policy is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. If this is proved, the state must then demonstrate that the legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve the intended result.

It means the free practice of religion and the individuals right to follow and adhere to it's tenets ARE ALREADY free-for-all.


We know, Mhykiel. Your faith's own vanity and greed have incited exactly the secular pressure you're now experiencing. Your participation in DDO is doing a great job of illustrating why even moderate, mainstream theology respects neither democracy, secularism, nor science, and cannot be trusted.

First off my abrasive nature stems straight from what I see is erroneous argumentation being passed of as rational logic. If someone was walking around your town and was saying 2+2=5 and saying that's Arithmetic wouldn't you say something to keep the kids from hearing such nonsense?

Well that's the foolishness I see from many atheist.

Like saying you can;t prove a universal negative so the burden of proof is on the theist. Great shifting of BoP, and based on a principle that atheist constantly recite and pass of as being a logical principle.

Well square-circles do not exist in this universe. I just made a statement of a universal negative that I am 100% confident in. And can support if need be.

See we really can prove universal negatives. To say otherwise is not logic it is absurdity. And anyone making the claim has the BoP.

If atheist can't give their justifications for their claims, then their claims become not worthy of consideration. What I see is atheist arguments are more like the wind that blows forth from my back end.

So no do not confuse my theist perspective, religion, or anything else with why I am confrontational with some people. I am confrontational because you muddy the waters of investigation when you pass obvious, historically rejected as fallacious reasoning, off as if it is logic.

I sometimes meet an atheist who is actually able to articulate their justifications without resorting to invalid inferences or billboard jargon. But this is not the general case.
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 12:03:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Perhaps someone can produce the passages that prohibit christians baking cakes for same sex couples?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 8:24:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 11:58:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/10/2015 10:33:22 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/10/2015 8:21:20 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
we don't force Muslim prisoners to eat pork we shouldn't order churches to hold gay weddings.
The essence of tolerating faith in a secular society is that nobody gets to make their faith normative. Every time you try and do that, you're throwing your leg over everyone outside your faith.
Normative? This word must have completely different meaning for you than what I have.
Normative means relating to an ideal standard of or model, or being based on what is considered to be the normal or correct way of doing something.

So saying that (your interpretation of) God's wishes should be normative is making your particular faith normative. When you do that you've just asserted intolerance of any other faith or belief.

That's what happens when Christians try to create legislation preventing gay people from marrying. They're trying to make their faith normative by putting it into legislation. Not because of secular evidence, but because of theological doctrine.

Both religious and sexual intolerance, it undermines the very idea of secular democracy.

Where did I say gays can't marry?
You defended the Christian position on it in the context of secular policy:
God's ideal intention is a life long commitment between a woman and man.
That's utterly irrelevant. To offer it as an explanation or justification for any legislative position is to try and give faith a place in discussion of secular policy.

It has no place. Secular policy should be based on balanced and independent secular evidence only.

The law is already established not to impinge on the practice of religion. If a religious organization runs a hospital or school the law can not force them NOT to add religious contest or content to the service.
Hospitals and schools are necessary social infrastructure, and religious institutions are taxpayer-subsidised. There's a conflict of interest in tucking theology into essential social infrastructure -- like McDonald's offering primary school courses on child nutrition.

Such conflicts of interest must be managed. However, like McDonald's, religious institutions refuse to recognise the conflict at all.

the free practice of religion and the individuals right to follow and adhere to it's tenets ARE ALREADY free-for-all.
In the face of religious corporatisation, a secular democracy that admits a commercial religious war to fight over control of social and governance infrastructure will not remain a secular democracy. So the very freedoms that protect a faith can be exploited and bypassed if the cash and lobbies are strong enough.

my abrasive nature stems straight from what I see is erroneous argumentation being passed of as rational logic.
Your abrasive nature bothers me not at all, Mhykiel, and I sometimes respect your detailed research.

But cherry-picked evidence, narrow views, argument by analogy, unacknowledged bias, refusal to acknowledge your faith's routine bigotry, its lack of intellectual integrity and shoddy ethics, and refusal to self-examine from outside its own zealous, self-serving precepts of the day, are exactly the reasons theology is bad for secular democracy, human dignity and human development.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 8:43:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 12:39:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
Ever wonder why we non-believers are so adamant in our opposition to religion? Take a look.

http://www.msn.com...

For one thing, the dictionary meaning of the word, "religion" is totally wrong. All religions are formed around an object built with human hands such as a corporate building like the new Apple building that's being built in Cupertino, CA. This building is unique to the rest of the world's greatest architectural wonders with a design that will be protected and totally secured by a force of guards. All the new ideas within the building that's being developed by Apple engineers will be protected and new laws will be added to guarantee that none of their engineers and other employees steal these ideas of the designers, etc.

So a new religious group of Apple CEO's and their employees will soon emerge along with that new building. This is how all religions came into being during this first age.

This is why corporations and large religious groups get along in this world to oppress the small business man or single individual who has no power to control it's domain.

Have you ever wondered how many Catholics and other religious people have made their wealth in this world? Don't you think they invest into the corporations they helped build to spread their wealth throughout the world?

Welcome to the Roman Empire that has never ended.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 9:19:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 11:58:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

First off my abrasive nature stems straight from what I see is erroneous argumentation being passed of as rational logic. If someone was walking around your town and was saying 2+2=5 and saying that's Arithmetic wouldn't you say something to keep the kids from hearing such nonsense?

Not really, it would be much simpler to show the kids that 2+2=4 with 4 objects. A simple visual exercise would suffice. In other words, show the evidence to refute the claim.

Well that's the foolishness I see from many atheist.

Show us one single atheist here who says 2+2=5? It's the other way round, the atheists are constantly having to point out theists fallacies.

Like saying you can;t prove a universal negative so the burden of proof is on the theist. Great shifting of BoP, and based on a principle that atheist constantly recite and pass of as being a logical principle.

Burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim, that's logic.

Well square-circles do not exist in this universe. I just made a statement of a universal negative that I am 100% confident in. And can support if need be.

Who here or anywhere else made the claim that square-circles exist in the universe? If they did make the claim, they would have to support it.

See we really can prove universal negatives.

But, you did no such thing. You created a imaginary scenario of absurdity and then stated it could never occur. That's something entirely different.

To say otherwise is not logic it is absurdity. And anyone making the claim has the BoP.

If atheist can't give their justifications for their claims, then their claims become not worthy of consideration.

Okay, what positive claims are atheists making? Name one in which justification is required by has not been produced?

What I see is atheist arguments are more like the wind that blows forth from my back end.

Okay, name one argument that follows your backside wind?

So no do not confuse my theist perspective, religion, or anything else with why I am confrontational with some people. I am confrontational because you muddy the waters of investigation when you pass obvious, historically rejected as fallacious reasoning, off as if it is logic.

Where did that occur? Show us.

I sometimes meet an atheist who is actually able to articulate their justifications without resorting to invalid inferences or billboard jargon. But this is not the general case.

Okay, show us those billboards and invalid references?

What can be observed here is the constant use of fallacies by theists, they are regularly pointed out despite the fact they are repeated over and over.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 10:07:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/10/2015 5:36:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:39:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
Ever wonder why we non-believers are so adamant in our opposition to religion? Take a look.

http://www.msn.com...

And those damned LBGQTI groups that lobby to get people fired based on their charitable donations. Disagree with gay marriage can't stop them from having their wedding in a christian church. Not like they can't get another venue or cake.

Show me some reference for your statement about lobbying to get someone fired. There's no law that prevents a Christian church from stopping a gay wedding. Of course they can get another venue and most people don't want to get married where they aren't welcome. As for the cake, well, if you're doing business with the public I'd bet those 'religious' people don't ask if someone is Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian. Doing business with someone in no way supports their lifestyle or religious choices. Anyone who believes otherwise is a putz.

But LGBQTI can disagree with how you spend your money and get you fired. Yeah no bigotry there

Again, reference please?
bulproof
Posts: 25,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 10:15:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 12:03:17 AM, bulproof wrote:
Perhaps someone can produce the passages that prohibit christians baking cakes for same sex couples?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 10:18:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 10:07:57 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 4/10/2015 5:36:01 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 4/10/2015 12:39:57 PM, dhardage wrote:
Ever wonder why we non-believers are so adamant in our opposition to religion? Take a look.

http://www.msn.com...

And those damned LBGQTI groups that lobby to get people fired based on their charitable donations. Disagree with gay marriage can't stop them from having their wedding in a christian church. Not like they can't get another venue or cake.

Show me some reference for your statement about lobbying to get someone fired. There's no law that prevents a Christian church from stopping a gay wedding. Of course they can get another venue and most people don't want to get married where they aren't welcome. As for the cake, well, if you're doing business with the public I'd bet those 'religious' people don't ask if someone is Lutheran or Catholic or Baptist or Presbyterian. Doing business with someone in no way supports their lifestyle or religious choices. Anyone who believes otherwise is a putz.

But LGBQTI can disagree with how you spend your money and get you fired. Yeah no bigotry there

Again, reference please?

Ok, I agree that the action taken against Eich was, in my opinion, unjustified. His personal beliefs should not be a factor in hiring/firing unless they interfere with his job. There are those who make knee jerk reactions on both sides. That in no way impacts my assertion that only an insistent, vocal response is necessary every time someone tries to make their religious beliefs the law of the land in direct contradiction of the Constitution and the intent of its original framers.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2015 2:05:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/11/2015 9:19:42 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 4/10/2015 11:58:56 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

First off my abrasive nature stems straight from what I see is erroneous argumentation being passed of as rational logic. If someone was walking around your town and was saying 2+2=5 and saying that's Arithmetic wouldn't you say something to keep the kids from hearing such nonsense?

Not really, it would be much simpler to show the kids that 2+2=4 with 4 objects. A simple visual exercise would suffice. In other words, show the evidence to refute the claim.

No I would rather go to the source and attempt to correct them.


Well that's the foolishness I see from many atheist.

Show us one single atheist here who says 2+2=5? It's the other way round, the atheists are constantly having to point out theists fallacies.

Calling fallacy is not the same as demonstrating a fallacy exists. All i see from you is shouting out that's ____ fallacy and I see no elaboration for how that is true. 2nd an informal fallacy does not always make an argument bad or the conclusion automatically untrue. Not only can you have bad inferences from bad premises that result in a true conclusion. But you can have a a true argument that resembles a fallacy. There is no way to prove "Water runs downhill" without using a form of circular reasoning.


Like saying you can;t prove a universal negative so the burden of proof is on the theist. Great shifting of BoP, and based on a principle that atheist constantly recite and pass of as being a logical principle.

Burden of proof is always on the one making the positive claim, that's logic.

That's not logic. That's Atheist jargon. I COMPLETELY REJECT THIS STATEMENT AND DENY IT. THIS IS NOT LOGIC.

All claims whether negative or positive take up the burden of proof when challenged.
http://books.google.com...

Page 15.


Well square-circles do not exist in this universe. I just made a statement of a universal negative that I am 100% confident in. And can support if need be.

Who here or anywhere else made the claim that square-circles exist in the universe? If they did make the claim, they would have to support it.

I'm demonstrating that claiming a negative is possible to justify with logical argumentation.


See we really can prove universal negatives.

But, you did no such thing. You created a imaginary scenario of absurdity and then stated it could never occur. That's something entirely different.

Yeah I proved something could never happen. but if you want a less certain claim. Energy can never be destroyed. there I just said in the entire universe energy can not be destroyed. That is a universal negative.


To say otherwise is not logic it is absurdity. And anyone making the claim has the BoP.

If atheist can't give their justifications for their claims, then their claims become not worthy of consideration.

Okay, what positive claims are atheists making? Name one in which justification is required by has not been produced?

God is imaginary is quite popular.


What I see is atheist arguments are more like the wind that blows forth from my back end.

Okay, name one argument that follows your backside wind?

Speaking to you is one example. I question why I ever think I can have a logical discussion with you.


So no do not confuse my theist perspective, religion, or anything else with why I am confrontational with some people. I am confrontational because you muddy the waters of investigation when you pass obvious, historically rejected as fallacious reasoning, off as if it is logic.

Where did that occur? Show us.

I sometimes meet an atheist who is actually able to articulate their justifications without resorting to invalid inferences or billboard jargon. But this is not the general case.

Okay, show us those billboards and invalid references?

I was using billboard as an adjective that the jargon Atheist use is more appropriate for billboard catch phrases than it is for a philosophical treatise.


What can be observed here is the constant use of fallacies by theists, they are regularly pointed out despite the fact they are repeated over and over.

This is because you, yes YOU in particular do not know what reason or logic is. I don't think you understand any argument ever put forward. I think you look at the words like block in a line and think rearranging the blocks you can sound like you understand. instead of understanding implication you only can see order of premises.

I seriously think every thing you say is programmed. Just retort the same fallacies and state the same jargon. You never back any of those up. Your just trollish.

I suspect you are not only borderline retarded but mentally ill. Again just more reasons why I generally do not respond to you. But because I was talking about Atheist jargon and you replied with such jargon I felt I should point that out to the reading audience.