|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 14, 2018 22:48:26 GMT
He's fairly obviously making a distinction between physically removing the people vs. arguing away the mindset. "I want them gone" vs. "I want to change their minds". Bullshit. "The sooner we get rid of religion, the sooner we can begin to heal the world". He wants them gone and doesn't care how it happens. I don't know how you can defend this crap. If anybody said the same thing about homosexuality then you'd be all over them. But anyway, let's go with your unjustifiably rose-tinted interpretation for the moment. How does that change things vis a vis his bigotry? "I want to get rid of homosexuality by changing gay people's minds about being gay / curing their gayness / holding an inquisition where I round up all the suspect gay people and make them renounce their homosexuality". Yeah, right, that's not bigoted at all.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 14, 2018 23:18:40 GMT
He's fairly obviously making a distinction between physically removing the people vs. arguing away the mindset. "I want them gone" vs. "I want to change their minds". Religion denotes ideology. It's simply not bigotry to think that the world would be better off if people discarded some particular ideology, be it religious, philosophical, or political.Bigotry? Maybe, maybe not. I'd like to rid the world of smoking by persuading smokers to quit. I'm not bigoted against smokers; I'm concerned for their health. If you want to "cure" homosexuality for the same reason, I'll conclude that you are badly misinformed, but I won't say you're a bigot. (But if you resist some education on the topic, then you might be a bigot after all.)
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 7:34:21 GMT
Definition of bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance I think you are defensive and hence confused about what constitutes bigotry. IMHO noun [ C ] uk /ˈbɪɡ.ət/ us /ˈbɪɡ.ət/ disapproving a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life: a religious bigot He was known to be a loud-mouthed, opinionated bigot. or Definition of bigot : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance An opinion to do away with religion is not bigotry. To act on it and hate or be intolerant of religious people is bigotry. If I stated that I would like to do away with the religion of Islam completely, the first thing you would do is accuse me of being an intolerant bigot. So who do you think you're trying to kid here? Not true, for the reasons given above.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Feb 15, 2018 9:40:58 GMT
If I stated that I would like to do away with the religion of Islam completely, the first thing you would do is accuse me of being an intolerant bigot. So who do you think you're trying to kid here? Not true, for the reasons given above. Well then you're lying for the simple fact that you've done it numerous times before in the past.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 15, 2018 12:25:25 GMT
If somebody says let's rid the world of religious people, that's bigoted. But to say let's rid the world of religion doesn't seem bigoted. I fail to see the difference, since ridding the world of religion necessitates ridding the world of religious people. In a similar vein, do you think "I want to rid the world of gay people" sounds bigoted but "I want to rid the world of homosexuality" does not? They both “sound” bigoted, but only one actually is. Ultimately, it would depend on WHO is saying it, and what they mean by it. But here’s the part you are not getting: One reason the second one sounds bigoted is because it implies that sexual orientation is a choice (as religion is). But the only people who would say that (the intolerant religious) believe that “homosexuality” is a behavior (that can be cured or changed) rather than what it actually is, a natural sexual orientation that people are born into. So they have created their own meaning of homosexuality that doesn’t even conform to reality, which in itself is an attack on anyone who it applies to. The second reason it sounds more bigoted than saying I want to rid the world of religion is because it implies that homosexuality has some harmful effect on society or on individuals (the way that religion often has). But no war has ever been fought over homosexuality. No heterosexual has ever been persecuted by homosexuals. No homosexual has ever advocated teaching “homosexuality only” as part of sex education. No homosexual congressman has ever advocated “heterosexual conversation therapy”, and nobody is trying to deny the rights of heterosexuals from getting married, adopting, serving the military, or buying cakes! Religion (which is actually a choice) on the other hand has inspired ALL of those things, so you’re comparing apples and oranges. Saying I want to rid the world of homosexuality would be akin to saying I want to rid the world of “dark skin”. That implies racial superiority over something people can’t change, just as your statement implies heterosexual superiority over something people can’t change.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 15, 2018 17:56:15 GMT
He's fairly obviously making a distinction between physically removing the people vs. arguing away the mindset. "I want them gone" vs. "I want to change their minds". Bullshit. OK man. Yours is certainly a more fun and martyring interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 15, 2018 19:27:45 GMT
tpfkar "Ideas do not have any rights, either to be heard or to be treated with kid gloves." And yet criticism of Islam, the ideology, often gets conflated with bigotry towards Muslims as people by deranged leftists like you and Goz when it suits you. And yet it is often noted that Islam in the raw is no less bestial and immoral than is Christianity, even when there are no Muslims about posting silly hypocritical tripe. And their rabid extremists are right up in the same league as you. Women shouldn't be presidents, prime ministers or chancellors.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 15, 2018 20:45:26 GMT
They both “sound” bigoted, but only one actually is. No, they both are. Your problem is that you can see bigotry in others but not in yourself, even when it gets pointed out to you. That probably explains why you are so hypocritical. (Edit:) BTW, your attempts at self-justification are pathetic. Does the irony of the logic "wars are fought over religion, therefore let's eradicate religious people" completely escape you? Even if you weren't guilty of exactly the same fault as religious people who declare war against people of different religions, the comment is a total non sequitur. Wars also get fought over power and territory, so does that mean that we should eradicate all people who own property or are in positions of power?
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 15, 2018 20:47:57 GMT
OK man. Yours is certainly a more fun and martyring interpretation. Putting your passive-aggressive response aside, my point still stands. If anybody had made an identical comment but substituted the word 'homosexuality' for 'religion', you'd have been all over them like a rash instead of volunteering yourself as their apologist.
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Feb 15, 2018 21:34:36 GMT
OK man. Yours is certainly a more fun and martyring interpretation. Putting your passive-aggressive response aside, my point still stands. If anybody had made an identical comment but substituted the word 'homosexuality' for 'religion', you'd have been all over them We've had plenty of people on RFS talk about praying the gay away over the years. It didn't result in my lambasting them via misinterpreting it as removing all the gays themselves. You're simply insisting I'd react as rashly to feel some comfort in company. Stop with the drama, llama. I wouldn’t even be onboard for removing religion via debate - I think some folks need it. It’s one of the various reasons you don’t see me doing so on this forum.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 15, 2018 21:55:41 GMT
I fail to see the difference, since ridding the world of religion necessitates ridding the world of religious people. He's fairly obviously making a distinction between physically removing the people vs. arguing away the mindset. "I want them gone" vs. "I want to change their minds". Maybe, but in this case I don't know if I agree. When people are religious, they are religious. Forcing them to give up their religiosity would be a violation of their personality. People with a religious mindset who don't hurt others should be allowed to keep their religions. I don't have a problem with religions; only with aggression, including aggressive marketing. Invading your home, or constantly pestering you about joining a cult is aggressive marketing. Religious wars and terrorist acts are extreme forms of aggression. But if people don't try to convert others, and live their lives, and their religion makes them happy: Who am I to stop them?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 15, 2018 23:19:18 GMT
They both “sound” bigoted, but only one actually is. No, they both are. Your problem is that you can see bigotry in others but not in yourself, even when it gets pointed out to you. That probably explains why you are so hypocritical. You’re entitled to that opinion, but you are also clearly impotent when it comes to justifying that. It’s one thing to accuse someone of hypocrisy; it’s quite another to actually demonstrate it. The only thing you can do is ignore my actual argument, attack a straw man in its place, and then say I mean the opposite of what I say. That’s an interesting opinion, but it’s not an argument. Again, your opinion is noted. But until you can actually demonstrate that you even comprehend my argument (or acknowledge the specific points I’ve made regarding your comparison), then this is just a way for you to avoid justifying YOUR position. So as far as I’m concerned, I can rest my case! No it hasn’t. But you know what else hasn’t escaped me? That would be your pathetic attempts once again to completely mischaracterize my position. Because nobody here has actually said that EXCEPT YOU! You keep creating your own narrative with which to attack, proving that you either cannot comprehend what others here are saying, or you don’t really have an argument against what’s actually being said. But I didn’t make that comment...YOU DID! Maybe you should have this conversation with someone who actually advocated eradicating people in the first place. And let me know what they say!
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Feb 15, 2018 23:22:49 GMT
OK man. Yours is certainly a more fun and martyring interpretation. Putting your passive-aggressive response aside, my point still stands. If anybody had made an identical comment but substituted the word 'homosexuality' for 'religion', you'd have been all over them like a rash instead of volunteering yourself as their apologist. I already explained why that analogy fails, but you ran away from that argument and choose not to address the differences I brought up. So your point was actually destroyed (until you can repair it by justifying your idiotic comparison in light of the facts that you ignored).
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 16, 2018 2:03:48 GMT
He's fairly obviously making a distinction between physically removing the people vs. arguing away the mindset. "I want them gone" vs. "I want to change their minds". Maybe, but in this case I don't know if I agree. When people are religious, they are religious. Forcing them to give up their religiosity would be a violation of their personality. People with a religious mindset who don't hurt others should be allowed to keep their religions. I not suggesting any coercion. Only persuasion, the way that people legitimately decide about embracing or discarding any ideas.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Feb 16, 2018 14:42:58 GMT
For everyone else Cody, perhaps you can just give us a the gist? I am sure you know it off by heart to be so convinced of its validity.
|
|
|
Post by tickingmask on Feb 17, 2018 13:16:45 GMT
You’re entitled to that opinion, but you are also clearly impotent when it comes to justifying that. It’s one thing to accuse someone of hypocrisy; it’s quite another to actually demonstrate it. The only thing you can do is ignore my actual argument, attack a straw man in its place, and then say I mean the opposite of what I say. That’s an interesting opinion, but it’s not an argument. But you don't have an argument, other than the pathetic non sequiturs you use to try and justify why you have a problem with religion but not with homosexuality. While also trying to pretend at the same time that you don't have a problem with religion. You've got yourself completely tied in knots over that one. Believe me, your arguments are not hard to understand. You want to pretend that a Christian lobbying to get existing laws changed, or prevent new laws being passed (or even having an opinion on the law, it would seem) is not the same as a Christian exercising his right to freedom of expression, and that I am showing 'prejudice', or introducing a strawman, or failing to understand some hidden subtlety in your argument, when I state that these two things are one and the same. You also want to pretend that, unlike gay people, every religious person can just 'choose' to be an atheist, presumably just like every atheist can 'choose' to start believing in a god. So you have chosen a pretty shitty case to rest on. So I've misunderstood your point that you justify your desire to get rid of religion (and therefore religious people by implication) but not homosexuality because religious people start wars and homosexuals do not? The only thing I can't comprehend is how anybody who is capable of typing on a keyboard could possibly be so brain dead as to come up with such a stupid argument in the first place. But if you think I have misunderstood your "religious people start wars and gay people don't" justification, then feel free to clarify it instead of whining about how I have misinterpreted your point, or pretending that I don't have the intellectual capacity to understand the finer point of what you are saying. But since you appear to have nothing else except to resort to these tactics, I'm not going to hold my breath. Well, unless you can tell me how it is possible to eradicate religion without eradicating religious people or forcing them to stop being religious then I will continue to presume that this is exactly what you are advocating. Bigot.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 17, 2018 13:51:07 GMT
how it is possible to eradicate religion without eradicating religious people or forcing them to stop being religious We know it's possible because it's happening here (slowly). The percentage of non-religious people in the U.S. is growing. That's widely recognized. blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-u-s-is-retreating-from-religion/
Religious people in the country are not being rounded up and eradicated. And no one is forcing people to stop being religious. So, it's obviously possible, for whatever reasons that might explain the trends.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 17, 2018 13:54:23 GMT
how it is possible to eradicate religion without eradicating religious people or forcing them to stop being religious We know it's possible because it's happening here (slowly). The percentage of non-religious people in the U.S. is growing. That's widely recognized. blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-u-s-is-retreating-from-religion/
Religious people in the country are not being rounded up and eradicated. And no one is forcing people to stop being religious. So, it's obviously possible, for whatever reasons that might explain the trends.
Yeah, that isn't an eradication. Your great grandchildren will be dead of old age and religion will be fine. However, I do think people, both religious, non-religious, & the theophobiac all focus too much on the numbers. The number of people belonging to a religion does not matter as long as they are allowed to practice in peace which, of course, is always the bigger danger. Heck there are some completely peaceful religions out there that are banned on the basis of not supporting an aggressive and oppressive government. Who would have thunk it in such an enlightened world...
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 17, 2018 14:06:13 GMT
We know it's possible because it's happening here (slowly). The percentage of non-religious people in the U.S. is growing. That's widely recognized. blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-u-s-is-retreating-from-religion/
Religious people in the country are not being rounded up and eradicated. And no one is forcing people to stop being religious. So, it's obviously possible, for whatever reasons that might explain the trends.
Yeah, that isn't an eradication. Your great grandchildren will be dead of old age and religion will be fine. However, I do think people, both religious, non-religious, & the theophobiac all focus too much on the numbers. The number of people belonging to a religion does not matter as long as they are allowed to practice in peace In the context of this discussion "eradication" does not need to mean every trace vanishing in every corner. It does mean religion's loss of any significant influence on the world.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 17, 2018 14:26:36 GMT
Yeah, that isn't an eradication. Your great grandchildren will be dead of old age and religion will be fine. However, I do think people, both religious, non-religious, & the theophobiac all focus too much on the numbers. The number of people belonging to a religion does not matter as long as they are allowed to practice in peace In the context of this discussion "eradication" does not need to mean every trace vanishing in every corner. It does mean religion's loss of any significant influence on the world. An eradication is a complete removal and I'm just saying that it isn't happening anytime soon. Religion has lost influence completely in secular worlds which is fine as long as the people who place it first in their lives are able to continue doing so. If people are able to do so, then religion will be alive and well for centuries assuming God/Deity of choice doesn't exist. The danger to most religions has always been the attempts to stop worship of any particular religion.
|
|