|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 21:33:58 GMT
I wasn't making a generalization. I was giving an equivalency.
I don't care how gay men do it. I only care about the sex I have.
Likewise, I don't care if people don't like the fact that I'm Christian. It is more important that I like being a Christian.
However, the point remains that even if I were offended, offending me is allowed.
Stopping me from following Christianity is not and it isn't even possible.
That's all perfectly reasonable, and I wish that most theists would have that attitude. And as long as your beliefs are for you and not for informing the laws that I have to follow, then I am happy to tolerate your beliefs (even if I reserve the prerogative to make fun of them). Likewise, I don't care much what the views of theists are about my sexuality, just as long as I have the liberty to conduct my affairs in a way that does not cause harm to anyone else. Most religious people think exactly like that which is why there is so much freedom to do as you wish in non-sucky countries.
People tend to exaggerate the danger based on what the speech is. To be clear, most Christians aren't even insulting people that differ from them, but the few who do are only hurting other people's feelings. That is the extent of the damage in the overwhelming majority of cases.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2017 21:40:01 GMT
That's all perfectly reasonable, and I wish that most theists would have that attitude. And as long as your beliefs are for you and not for informing the laws that I have to follow, then I am happy to tolerate your beliefs (even if I reserve the prerogative to make fun of them). Likewise, I don't care much what the views of theists are about my sexuality, just as long as I have the liberty to conduct my affairs in a way that does not cause harm to anyone else. Most religious people think exactly like that which is why there is so much freedom to do as you wish in non-sucky countries.
Well, actually the majority of religious people do want to force their religion into the laws that the rest of us must obey and there's no country with a religious heritage where there aren't still religious laws interfering with liberties. Fortunately, in prosperous Christian nations, the scope of that religious interference has been rapidly diminishing over the past few decades. And most of the 'non-sucky countries' happen to be the ones where religion has the least influence in day to day life. Funny that. It's almost as if religiosity is inversely correlated with social enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 10, 2017 22:18:54 GMT
Most religious people think exactly like that which is why there is so much freedom to do as you wish in non-sucky countries.
Well, actually the majority of religious people do want to force their religion into the laws that the rest of us must obey and there's no country with a religious heritage where there aren't still religious laws interfering with liberties. Fortunately, in prosperous Christian nations, the scope of that religious interference has been rapidly diminishing over the past few decades. And most of the 'non-sucky countries' happen to be the ones where religion has the least influence in day to day life. Funny that. It's almost as if religiosity is inversely correlated with social enlightenment. This is not true until you can prove it.
I can prove you are free to do as you wish since you're doing it now.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 10, 2017 23:58:54 GMT
Well, actually the majority of religious people do want to force their religion into the laws that the rest of us must obey and there's no country with a religious heritage where there aren't still religious laws interfering with liberties. Fortunately, in prosperous Christian nations, the scope of that religious interference has been rapidly diminishing over the past few decades. And most of the 'non-sucky countries' happen to be the ones where religion has the least influence in day to day life. Funny that. It's almost as if religiosity is inversely correlated with social enlightenment. This is not true until you can prove it.
I can prove you are free to do as you wish since you're doing it now.
Easy. Look at Germany. There is a prohibition of stem cell research, no homosexual marriage, and restrictions on abortion and euthanasia. And the loudest opponents to legalizing these rights are religious groups; in fact, the biggest religious group, the Roman-Catholic church, opposes all four. And the arguments put forward against legalizing these practises are almost always religious. So if we have Christians in the parliament, then we can wait for a long time until more enlightened laws are passed. And even with direct democracy I am not sure if laws in favour of equal rights and medical progress wouldd be passed. The majority of people in Germany are Christians.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2017 2:27:21 GMT
This is not true until you can prove it.
I can prove you are free to do as you wish since you're doing it now.
Easy. Look at Germany. There is a prohibition of stem cell research, no homosexual marriage, and restrictions on abortion and euthanasia. And the loudest opponents to legalizing these rights are religious groups; in fact, the biggest religious group, the Roman-Catholic church, opposes all four. And the arguments put forward against legalizing these practises are almost always religious. So if we have Christians in the parliament, then we can wait for a long time until more enlightened laws are passed. And even with direct democracy I am not sure if laws in favour of equal rights and medical progress wouldd be passed. The majority of people in Germany are Christians. And here I thought Europe was supposed to be less sucky. However, you are conflating issues. It should be assumed that people would not vote against their conscious. There is no reasonf or a religious person to think of gay marriage as normal. What you have to do is figure out the harm first of all. Then you have to figure out the real reason none of these things have passed considering a place far more religious like the USA has managed to rise above that despite most churches no marrying gay dudes. Was Germany smart enough to seperate church and state? I'll look it up for you. It may just mean that Germany is far more Nazi nostalgic than previously believed. In the US when people were saying the religious were messing stuff up, there was always a legal reason for the decisions rather than a religious one. Maybe in time we can discover if that's the case in Germany.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2017 2:40:21 GMT
OK, so I looked up the German gay marriage thing and it passing is imminent. It has far more support than the USA ever had.
So either someone is imply that religious minority controls everything or the majority of Germans who are likely religious are OK with gay marriage. In any event, this changes nothing in regards to what I said - Most religious people are harmless beyond hurting feelings.
The euthanasia one is an idiotic argument, but I'll see what's going on with abortions next...
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2017 2:47:06 GMT
Abortions are perfectly legal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2017 2:54:26 GMT
I just wanted to point out that you keep referencing "gay dudes," so please remember to include the "gay chicks" in there too.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2017 3:12:45 GMT
Gay issues are almost always about the dudes.
Men are ugly & lesbians are hotter.
This is known.
|
|
althea
Sophomore
@althea
Posts: 105
Likes: 10
|
Post by althea on Mar 11, 2017 6:44:39 GMT
I read a lot of theists react to strong challenges as being intolerant of religion. But consider this.
Don't we have schools, and mandates to attend them, precisely because we are intolerant of things like not being able to read? Intolerance is not a bad thing if you are being intolerant of something that detracts from education or other factors about society.
So here we have religion, an institution that has a large population who still encourage each other to reject things like evolution and the big bang, which historically subjugated women, which has demonized gays, which has committed massive atrocities in the name of a god, which has contributed to the spread of the aids epidemic in Africa through rejecting condoms, which in the past has burnt "witches", refused to accept that the earth orbited the sun, and which generally lives as though things like prayer do anything and that a universe creating deity guides them.
Yes. I'm intolerant of illiteracy, and of nonsense like that. What's the problem? Tolerance is part and parcel of living in a free and secular nation, if you want to do so in a peaceful manner. If you have an issue with western countries with constitutional rights to freedom of religion, you could always go somewhere more in line with your own attitudes toward religion. You might like China. They have problems with religion too, and people who think and say the wrong things instead of the right things. They'd probably even agree with you, that such right things and wrong things are objectively determined and subjective personal views don't enter into it at all.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 11, 2017 8:31:11 GMT
OK, so I looked up the German gay marriage thing and it passing is imminent. It has far more support than the USA ever had. So either someone is imply that religious minority controls everything or the majority of Germans who are likely religious are OK with gay marriage. In any event, this changes nothing in regards to what I said - Most religious people are harmless beyond hurting feelings. Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/113097/quote/8836?page=3#ixzz4b0F1wN6uAbortions are perfectly legal. To clarify: The German "Homo-Ehe" (Gay marriage) does not have the same rights as the straight marriage. There are some privileges in straight marriage that gay marriage doesn't have; especially about adoption or taxes. The reason why it's not equal is because the biggest party in Germany, the CDU (the C stands for Christian) has insisted that straight marriage should be under special protection. I believe that complete equality between gay and straight marriage will only be achieved if the CDU loses its majority after the next election. As for abortion: There is a time rule (Fristenregelung) which means that women can legally have an abortion within the first 12 weeks of their pregnancy, if they have a mandatory counseling first. And they need to get a certificate that they had the counseling. This mandatory counseling was implemented because of pressure from the Christian parties. An earlier draft from the 1970s which did not have this mandatory counseling was rejected from the Federal Constitutional Court, thanks to pressure from Christian groups. And what's more: When the Fristenregelung finally was implemented, the Catholic Church ordered its counseling places to stop giving pregnant women the certificate. And if a woman does not get a certificate within the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy, she won't be able to get an abortion in Germany legally. So while technically women can get an abortion in Germany, they are forced to jump through all kinds of hoops set up thanks to Christian pressure. And my point stands that it's Christian groups putting pressure on people about things that are not their business. No Christian in Germany is forced to marry a person of their own gender. No Christian woman in Germany is forced to have an abortion if she doesn't want to. And yet, Christians want to prevent other people from doing these things.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2017 11:29:24 GMT
OK, so I looked up the German gay marriage thing and it passing is imminent. It has far more support than the USA ever had. So either someone is imply that religious minority controls everything or the majority of Germans who are likely religious are OK with gay marriage. In any event, this changes nothing in regards to what I said - Most religious people are harmless beyond hurting feelings. Read more: imdb2.freeforums.net/post/113097/quote/8836?page=3#ixzz4b0F1wN6uAbortions are perfectly legal. To clarify: The German "Homo-Ehe" (Gay marriage) does not have the same rights as the straight marriage. There are some privileges in straight marriage that gay marriage doesn't have; especially about abortion or taxes. The reason why it's not equal is because the biggest party in Germany, the CDU (the C stands for Christian) has insisted that straight marriage should be under special protection. I believe that complete equality between gay and straight marriage will only be achieved if the CDU loses its majority after the next election. As for abortion: There is a time rule (Fristenregelung) which means that women can legally have an abortion within the first 12 weeks of their pregnancy, if they have a mandatory counseling first. And they need to get a certificate that they had the counseling. This mandatory counseling was implemented because of pressure from the Christian parties. An earlier draft from the 1970s which did not have this mandatory counseling was rejected from the Federal Constitutional Court, thanks to pressure from Christian groups. And what's more: When the Fristenregelung finally was implemented, the Catholic Church ordered its counseling places to stop giving pregnant women the certificate. And if a woman does not get a certificate within the first 12 weeks of her pregnancy, she won't be able to get an abortion in Germany legally. So while technically women can get an abortion in Germany, they are forced to jump through all kinds of hoops set up thanks to Christian pressure. And my point stands that it's Christian groups putting pressure on people about things that are not their business. No Christian in Germany is forced to marry a person of their own gender. No Christian woman in Germany is forced to have an abortion if she doesn't want to. And yet, Christians want to prevent other people from doing these things. Gay Marriage: I understand that not having secular gay marriage is not fair to gay couples. However, if most of the Germans are for gay marriage and it still hasn't passed, then that is a party issue not a religion one. From what I can tell nearly all parties are for it except for the one Merkel is a part of and most of them want it. People are pretty easily able to delineate between what their beliefs accept and what the law allows. I am spoiled because in the states there is the separation even if there are people out there who don;t want it. I have no idea if other countries have this. In short, it'll happen, but if it doesn't there are more things to blame than us and even if we were to blame, no true harm is caused as Germany has apparently been gay friendly since before WWII...Well, except for that Nazi thing. Abortion: Most abortions are performed in the 1st trimester making this a non-issue for the majority of them. I never understood the issue of counseling. I get it if the counseling is religious based, but again that is a legal issue if that's what happens. Counseling itself is not a bad thing although that is usually all abortion advocates have to argue about. For every big decision I ever make, I would hope somone tells me more information. The worst thing that happens is the person changes their mind which is never a bad thing. Until there is proof of that, then it is simply an opinion. I have no doubt that there are vocal groups that make it clear that they are against something for religious reasons. What I take issue with is the notion that these people are reading Scripture to the government and the government is making the decision based onff of that. If that were the case, gays would be facing far more persecutions and abortions would be banned. There's always more to the story.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 11, 2017 11:46:59 GMT
And yet atheism has continued to grow and gain acceptance and understanding. Impotent? What does that have to do with anything?
Don't clump all atheism into your brand of it because your view of religion is retarded.
However, even if this did boil down to a popularity contest, don't pretend that atheism will be top tier anytime soon.
It thrives in the shadow of religion rather than the absence of it and it primarily does so on the basis personal experience of not being bound by the obligations of any particular doctrine. What a weak reason to adhere to something.
About as much to do with the perceived invulnerability of religion, as though it could never become an irrelevantly small portion of society. Of course it could. I'm the last person to claim popularity has anything to do with what it is true.
Atheism doesn't need to thrive at all. That's perhaps what you don't get. Atheists would sit around discussing gods any more than we'd sit around discussing that we're all the matrix, but we unfortunately have to live amongst mass numbers of people taking one of those two things seriously.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 11, 2017 11:48:16 GMT
What does that have to do with anything?
Don't clump all atheism into your brand of it because your view of religion is retarded.
However, even if this did boil down to a popularity contest, don't pretend that atheism will be top tier anytime soon.
It thrives in the shadow of religion rather than the absence of it and it primarily does so on the basis personal experience of not being bound by the obligations of any particular doctrine. What a weak reason to adhere to something.
About as much to do with the perceived invulnerability of religion, as though it could never become an irrelevantly small portion of society. Of course it could. I'm the last person to claim popularity has anything to do with what it is true.
Atheism doesn't need to thrive at all. That's perhaps what you don't get. Atheists would sit around discussing gods any more than we'd sit around discussing that we're all the matrix, but we unfortunately have to live amongst mass numbers of people taking one of those two things seriously.
Are you the user AtheismBecauseReason?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 11, 2017 11:48:47 GMT
"Just to be clear, I am in no way suggest religion be made illegal."The suggestion is there if you're going to use the example of how we treat illiteracy as a model for how we should treat religion. you can do better than grammar trolling surely
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2017 11:50:42 GMT
About as much to do with the perceived invulnerability of religion, as though it could never become an irrelevantly small portion of society. Of course it could. I'm the last person to claim popularity has anything to do with what it is true.
Atheism doesn't need to thrive at all. That's perhaps what you don't get. Atheists would sit around discussing gods any more than we'd sit around discussing that we're all the matrix, but we unfortunately have to live amongst mass numbers of people taking one of those two things seriously.
Are you the user AtheismBecauseReason? He was.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 11, 2017 11:53:05 GMT
Tolerance is part and parcel of living in a free and secular nation, if you want to do so in a peaceful manner. If you have an issue with western countries with constitutional rights to freedom of religion, you could always go somewhere more in line with your own attitudes toward religion. You might like China. They have problems with religion too, and people who think and say the wrong things instead of the right things. They'd probably even agree with you, that such right things and wrong things are objectively determined and subjective personal views don't enter into it at all. I think you're confusing tolerance with silence. I'm not suggesting attacking religious people or banning them or outlawing the practice.
I am suggesting speaking out against it, peacefully.
They have the constitutional right of freedom of religion. They also have the right to be told that their religion is largely a set of irrational beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 11, 2017 11:56:17 GMT
For example someone believing that the souls of their ancestors talk to them and that they will live forever after their physical selves die. This is what you listed as a good thing? It's completely delusional and this qualifies as a good thing to you.? As opposed to being realistic.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Mar 11, 2017 12:04:16 GMT
Are you thinking personal code of conduct or government policy (laws)? In many cases we do need some sort of governing rulebook and enforcement. Consider that what works in some societies does not work in others. For instance if we were a small tribe of a 100 people, perhaps we could take a popular vote for every decision. Perhaps theft doesn't exist because we all know each other. But in a large society it doesn't work like that and it requires a delegated authority, elected or otherwise, to maintain order in some cases.
Now, we do not need policy to tell us the things we do in our home and how we do them. Jerk off to big bird and pretend we're all made of cheese if you want to, but recognize that when you tell the rest of us that, that we're going to be honest with you.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Mar 11, 2017 12:25:09 GMT
For example someone believing that the souls of their ancestors talk to them and that they will live forever after their physical selves die. This is what you listed as a good thing? It's completely delusional and this qualifies as a good thing to you.? As opposed to being realistic. Why is something not being delusional or realistic neccesarily a good thing? Imagine there is a world in which people's beliefs cause them to live in an illusion, another world if you will, or a matrix. Now imagine the "real world" is a dreadful place, it is literally hell, as desribed in the bible but infintely times worse.The only thing stoping someone from being subjected to such a thing is their delusional beliefs about reality because as I have said for whatever reason their beliefs about reality determine what world they live in. Also imagine there is a man who for whatever reason is able to avoid going to hell even though he knows the truth about reality. He is able to enter people's illusions and talk to them, he wants them to know the truth. Lets say he convinces someone and they "wake up" from the illusion and find themselves in the "real world" i.e hell. He will now experience unimaginable pain for infinity. By your logic this is a good thing, he is no longer holding delusional beliefs. So clearly someone not holding delusional beliefs isnt a good thing just because they dont hold delusional beliefs. Actions are moral insofar as the minimise harm. If someone believing in a hair pink monster lives in their mind gives them great emotional comfort then the belief is a good thing and to try to take it away from him/her is unethical.
|
|