Page 4 of 6 [ 90 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

18 May 2011, 5:14 pm

For me, discussion and debate are means by which to challenge my thinking and introduce new lines of thought.

The radicals of either side hinder that; the godmoding Christians who can't apply reason or logic to their claims, and the stridently* atheist who make statements like, "stupid thoughts are stupid and people addicted to these silly things have exaggerated emotional reactions". Neither promote discussion.

I have read statements like, "you don't have to prove a negative claim", and to be honest I think it's ridiculous that either side would say, "Prove it!", because there is absolutely no proof either way. However, if you feel a claim is stupid, simply show why you believe the claim to be stupid. If you want to base an opinion on "Because the Bible says so", expect people to challenge the validity of your source.

There are only two logical reasons for debate; 1) to challenge your own thinking, or 2) to challenge another's thinking.
Anything else is just mudslinging and provocation.


* Not referring to SA's per se, but the definition of strident as being:
–adjective
1. making or having a harsh sound; grating; creaking: strident insects; strident hinges.
2. having a shrill, irritating quality or character: a strident tone in his writings.
3. Linguistics . (in distinctive feature analysis) characterized acoustically by noise of relatively high intensity, as sibilants, labiodental and uvular fricatives, and most affricates.



Thom_Fuleri
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 849
Location: Leicestershire, UK

18 May 2011, 5:18 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
It's strange why they care so much. Surely if God isn't real, why must they be so anti-God?


Atheists aren't (generally) anti-God. That would be stupid - there is no God.
Atheists are anti-religion. That definitely exists, and is designed to control how people act and think. One of the major problems is that religions are supposed to be the perfect word of a deity and don't adapt - so Christians, for instance, are still operating with "laws" that are two thousand years old and take no account of technology, democracy, modern medicine, multiculturalism, the environment, space travel, global economy, the internet...



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 5:28 pm

ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
And here in America various laws had been passed in the 1990's denying the ability of either teachers or students to pray in public school - if they were Christian that is. Also, "offense" is one sided by default here, such as being offended about not being completely accepted when somebody flaunts their lifestyle around is fine, but Christians cannot be offended about anything because we are, by default, considered to be the offending party.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that legislation just outlaw teacher-led prayer? Private prayer (i.e at lunch) is kosher.

I think Christians would be infuriated by a morning, imam-lead prayer in schools, so there should be no hypocrisy on their parts about having their brand of religion pushed.

it's not about "flaunting lifestyles", it's about Christianity being pushed on kids in schools. Individuals can be as theistic or atheistic as they wish, so long as they don't compel you to believe what they do.


Private, silent, and individual, in other words, only in one's mind can one pray at a government run schools. However, exceptions can be made for "cultural minorities". Catholicism may be annoying, especially when Catholics or their clone of Anglicans have control of governments, but I doubt a Catholic or Anglican state can be any worse than a secular state.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 5:32 pm

Quote:
Quote:
I put a fairy in a proton decelerating matrix, and it turned into
a cat.


No! Don't put fairies in a matrix! GIGO; Only use the reals, quotients, or complexes! :P

Quote:
Atheists are anti-religion. That definitely exists, and is designed to control how people act and think. One of the major problems is that religions are supposed to be the perfect word of a deity and don't adapt - so Christians, for instance, are still operating with "laws" that are two thousand years old and take no account of technology, democracy, modern medicine, multiculturalism, the environment, space travel, global economy, the internet...


well said :)


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,573

18 May 2011, 5:32 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
Only theists do this, applying their ideology to other systems of thought?


If people impose their beliefs upon me, I will b***h. Theists do that in my country (blasphemy laws, catholic run education). So I b***h.


And here in America various laws had been passed in the 1990's denying the ability of either teachers or students to pray in public school

The US constitution does not date from 1990.

Not like your Christian elites wouldn't say "Screw the constitution" every once in a while and violate it throughly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer


_________________
.


Moog
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,663
Location: Untied Kingdom

18 May 2011, 5:35 pm

I just don't think all religions are bad or wrong. It's an assumption that many make. Possibly because so many are bad/wrong. What's the rule about 99% of things being s**t? Well it applies to secular influences as well.


_________________
Not currently a moderator


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 5:36 pm

Thom_Fuleri wrote:
Christians, for instance, are still operating with "laws" that are two thousand years old and take no account of technology, democracy, modern medicine, multiculturalism, the environment, space travel, global economy, the internet...


Technology changes but human nature doesn't. As for the application of the moral Torah, it is the same. The situation in most western nations now is only slightly better than it was in Rome during Rome's heyday, and it's headed back down there.

As for application to technological issues, like driving a car, the general principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" can be applied specifically. Economic situations, "differing weights are abhorrent" as per having items in different units so as to confuse a buyer, etc.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 5:38 pm

Vexcalibur wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
Only theists do this, applying their ideology to other systems of thought?


If people impose their beliefs upon me, I will b***h. Theists do that in my country (blasphemy laws, catholic run education). So I b***h.


And here in America various laws had been passed in the 1990's denying the ability of either teachers or students to pray in public school

The US constitution does not date from 1990.

Not like your Christian elites wouldn't say "Screw the constitution" every once in a while and violate it throughly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Day_of_Prayer


Oh yes, and having an optional and voluntary time of prayer is in violation of the principle of not allowing the Anglican church to control the state or the state to control the churches?



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 5:49 pm

Quote:
Private, silent, and individual, in other words, only in one's mind can one pray at a government run schools. However, exceptions can be made for "cultural minorities". Catholicism may be annoying, especially when Catholics or their clone of Anglicans have control of governments, but I doubt a Catholic or Anglican state can be any worse than a secular state.


Prayer is protected under free speech; American kids can pray in the cafeteria, halls, or even in groups. State-scheduled prayer isn't, as it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

What would be wrong with a Secular State? People of all faiths would be legally allowed, by free speech, to practice their faith as they wish, so long as they don't impose it on other.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,316
Location: Omnipresent

18 May 2011, 6:15 pm

BurntOutMom wrote:
There are only two logical reasons for debate; 1) to challenge your own thinking, or 2) to challenge another's thinking.
Anything else is just mudslinging and provocation.

Are mudslinging and provocation illogical? :P



BurntOutMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Mar 2011
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 502
Location: Oregon, USA

18 May 2011, 6:38 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
BurntOutMom wrote:
There are only two logical reasons for debate; 1) to challenge your own thinking, or 2) to challenge another's thinking.
Anything else is just mudslinging and provocation.

Are mudslinging and provocation illogical? :P


Smart ass! :wink:
Not illogical if your purpose is self gratification!



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 6:50 pm

ryan93 wrote:
Quote:
Private, silent, and individual, in other words, only in one's mind can one pray at a government run schools. However, exceptions can be made for "cultural minorities". Catholicism may be annoying, especially when Catholics or their clone of Anglicans have control of governments, but I doubt a Catholic or Anglican state can be any worse than a secular state.


Prayer is protected under free speech; American kids can pray in the cafeteria, halls, or even in groups. State-scheduled prayer isn't, as it is a violation of the separation of church and state.

What would be wrong with a Secular State? People of all faiths would be legally allowed, by free speech, to practice their faith as they wish, so long as they don't impose it on other.


Free speech? America has that in anything other than name only? And a secular state is not nonsectarian if they regulate which religious groups are more free than others. For as much as it sounds nice to allow freedom for people to do what is right in their own eyes and all that sort, that doesn't really exist.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 6:59 pm

Quote:
Free speech? America has that in anything other than name only? And a secular state is not nonsectarian if they regulate which religious groups are more free than others. For as much as it sounds nice to allow freedom for people to do what is right in their own eyes and all that sort, that doesn't really exist.


A hyperbolic response to the existence of free speech in the US does not change the fact that people are legally entitled to pray whenever they wish.

A Secular state wouldn't regulate Religion, but it would prosecute criminal action. If a person practiced human sacrifice, pedophilia (as is sometimes the case with cults), or any other action that an ordinary citizen would be prosecuted for, that person would be jailed, like any other citizen.

Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

18 May 2011, 7:29 pm

ryan93 wrote:
Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.


Yes, and private schools, if they receive any federal or state funding, have to allow the federal or state governments to select their curricula.



ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

18 May 2011, 7:43 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
ryan93 wrote:
Ironically, the current US Government does play the role of regulating the freedom of religion; it decides which religion is a religion, in order to grant them tax-exemption. It's an awkward fit.


Yes, and private schools, if they receive any federal or state funding, have to allow the federal or state governments to select their curricula.


Seems fair; "our money, our rules". Although frankly state education sucks in all forms.


_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists