Category: the Rant Board
Okay, I've got something I want to get off my chest. If you're particularly sensitive, religious or both, you may want to get out now. I do not want a firestorm out of this, but I'm also not making a concerted effort to tiptoe either. I want honest discourse if I can get it, since this is something I've been wrestling with. I realize that this might strike some people close to home though; please know that I mean absolutely no one any personal harm from this.
Still here? Okay, here goes.
Why the hell are we giving airspace to platforms that hurt, oppress and alienate people? Why does a platform's religious nature grant it the right to exist? I don't think it should.
If I came up to one of you tomorrow and said "I believe in the Stick Man. The Stick Man says having blonde hair is wrong, and you're going to suffer forever", you'd probably either gape at me or laugh in my face. That's exactly what you ought to do, because I'm making a claim I've not supported. Some among you might say "prove it", and when I couldn't, you'd just dismiss me. You wouldn't argue with me as if I had a valid point, because I don't.
Yet there is fierce argument about whether or not homosexuality is wrong. There is heated debate about whether creationism should be taught in schools. These things happen, and continue to happen, even though science has proven creationism is bullshit, and has gone a long way toward demonstrating that homosexuality is something you're born with. Some of these things have happened over time, but even still, the number of people who have yielded is staggeringly low, and the number of people who maintain the argument even when all rational evidence points in the opposite direction is mind-numbingly high. What's more, there is no strong nonreligious arguments to say that homosexuality is wrong, or that the earth is only eight thousand years old or whatnot.
But the nonreligious among us, the ones who rely (sometimes to a fault) on reason, continue to argue. We continue to give reasoned responses to faith-based, illogical rhetoric. We do it because we've been taught to "respect someone else's religion". I sometimes feel like our choices are two bad ones. We can either ignore the religion-based arguments outright and be seen as jerks who don't respect people, or we can make at least a token gesture at hearing out the other side even when it gives no evidence and often hurts people in the bargain, and by doing so continue to justify that side's right to exist and struggle.
I have no problem with any of you, as I said before. That includes the more religious among you. You can believe whatever you wish to believe; as an atheist, and as a proponent of the "live and lev live" sort of philosophy, I'd be silly if I thought I should browbeat you into changing your mind. But why is it that I, as said atheist, am stuck between two bad choices? Why do I have to be made to feel bad if I dismiss a religious argument because it is nothing more than a religious argument?
Let me be really, really clear, and this is the bit that's going to offend people, if anything does.
Not every platform is created equal. I don't feel that an argument, opinion or platform is valid just because it has been made, or just because it has been agreed with.
If you are free to dismiss my Stick Man because you find him ridiculous, then I should be equally free to dismiss your "gay is wrong" platform, if your only supporting evidence is "God said so". I am equally free to dismiss creationism out of hand without actually arguing with you if your only supporting evidence is "The Bible said so". I'm sorry, but when the choice is between a book cobbled together by members of a subjective organization with a personal interest, and a body of knowledge compiled by thousands of people over thousands of years using rigorous testing methods that can be verified and proven by an unbiased outsider, I will take the latter every time and dismiss the former. Dinosaur bones are millions of years old, and as such, the earth cannot be only eight thousand years old.
Put another way: science justifies its right to exist in logical forums by proving itself. Religion has yet to prove itself. Ergo, religion is not equal to science in logical forums, and I wish it were not treated as such.
This is probably sounding like I'm hating on Christians, or religious people at large. I'm not. At worst, I'm suggesting that the onus is on you to prove the validity of your claims, not on me to prove their invalidity. Until that happens, they're not really admissible, and I think any one of you who maintains inadmissible claims when confronted is doing a potential disservice to the world at large.
For every person who believes that being gay is wrong because their religion claims it to be true, you are holding aloft a platform that is doing the homosexuals of the world an incredible amount of hurt, and you're doing it "because God said so". Even if you yourself would never lift a finger against a gay man, the same cannot be said about the more radical adherents of the belief system. You are complicit, to a point at least, because you are making no effort to stop the injustices that are occurring and, in some cases, may add to them, since your religion has taught you that it's okay to convert people. Those people may be more radical than you, so the only way that your own "gay is wrong" stance can avoid a chance at hurting others is if you make a concerted effort not to convert anyone.
That's just some food for thought for those of you who may feel that gay is wrong, but who aren't okay with the horrible stuff being done to gay people and can sympathize with the struggles they face. If you really do sympathize, you might want to ask yourself if the "God said so" argument actually means anything, all by itself, then re-examine why being gay is wrong. If your reasons for believing so are nonreligious, then they don't really fall within this point, but if they're religious, I think they bear some serious scrutiny.
This is a long-winded way of me saying that I think a lot of perfectly good religious people would do well to think just a little more when it comes to some of the things they say they're not okay with. By swallowing the "because God said so" arguments when they were being raised or converted, they are perpetuating the same hollow baseless arguments to which I made reference earlier...the kind which should not be supported without evidence. Ultimately, I know that people will continue to do whatever they wish, however; I'm not really trying to preach, so I apologize if that's how I'm coming across.
Basically, I'm just saying that I don't think all arguments should be viewed as equal just because they've been made or taken up by others, and I think that we should give baseless arguments the treatment they deserve. I'm stuck though, because if I start doing that, people at large will think I (or anyone else who does it) a nonsympathetic, religion-hating asshole who's guilty of the same bigotry as the people whose arguments we're refusing to entertain.
Damned if we do, and damned if we don't.
I completely agree with you. The whole "God said so thing" really made me examine my role in religion for sure.
all I can say is that I 100% agree with this.
the first thought that comes to mind here is a tweet that I saw recently.
Why do lots of churches not have WiFi? They don't believe in an invisible power that actually works. LOL
Just wanted to try to lighten up what I imagine is going to turn in to something pretty nasty.
I really and truly hope it doesn't get nasty. As I said, I'm not trying to incense the Christians (or Muslims, or anyone else) who comes in here. I'm honestly curious what people think, and just wanted to air this out. It's a beef I've had practically forever, and figured the rant board might be an okay place for it.
For any of the moderate Christians who may come in here and see this, please know that I am not in the habit of tarring every person in a group with the same brush. I may think you are complicit if you truly believe that being gay is wrong, but there's a huge difference in being complicit and being directly guilty. The former can be an unintended and unwanted consequence of an association that you neither seek nor fully understand. When I said food for thought, I wasn't kidding. I'm not calling you all monsters or anything, because you definitely are not. Most people aren't, to be honest, even the more vocal religious people. Even if I can't understand the thing which fuels them, I do understand their honest drive to be right, to say what they believe, to feel like they belong somewhere...the whole nine yards. Honestly, I may have painted religion in general to be a pretty dark construct; it is, I think, but only when viewed from the outside and en masse. Person to person, it's all kinds of things, and dark is only intermittently visible. As such, I will apologize in preparation for the offense some people may take at the harshness of my first post. I'm not retracting the whole thing, not by any stretch, but I recognize that it can seem pretty sharp, perhaps.
I've been saying this for years Greg, glad you agree with me. Now you've just
gotta work on apologizing for holding those beliefs.
I don't apologize for holding the beliefs. I apologize, if at all, because someone, somewhere, is apt too take this in a way I didn't intend. I'm probably still being too careful. But as to actually holding the beliefs? No, I refuse to apologize for that.
Until there is proof that homosexual behaviour harms the earth or its inhabitants in any way (and please, please don't say "because they can't conceive"--population control is a thing), I see no reason to lend those biblical arguments weight. Yes, they're backed up by a very, very old book ... but an old book does not a scientific argument make. The more we debate these people in legitimate forums, the more we lend them credibility they don't merit.
I realize Gregg's stick man argument might sound like a ridiculous deflection to a lot of Christians, but just because much of the world believes in Jesus Christ does not mean He exists any more than a stick man god. Until you can prove to me that He is real--empirically, that is-- you cannot expect me to try to prove He does not exist. The burden of proof, as has already been said, rests on you. Until that proof is available, please refrain from telling me where I'm going and why I'm going there.
Thank you, Meglet. I recognized kinda after the fact that the stick-man thing might inflame people. That wasn't a deliberate attempt to inflame anyone. I have basically no opinion about Jesus himself, and all that he may or may not have done; I'm not equating him to a stick man in any greater way than that, for both of them, I personally see no reason to lend any weight to arguments which use them as a basis.
Greg and others, you can't offend people who are secure in their beliefs (as myself and others are). thanks for the laugh though and nice try at yet another failed attempt to make yourself look like a good human being who cares about humanity.
Chelsey:
I know that I care about humanity. Absolutely no one else can take that away from me.
As for being a "good human being", that's pretty subjective. Frankly though, I don't give a damn that I've failed your own personal test on that score; after all, you've demonstrated yourself to be both bigoted and frightfully narrow-minded. In fact, I'm glad I've failed your test, because passing it would mean I'm something I can't stomach. As such, thank you for further validating my status as an upstanding human being who is interested in the welfare of others.
Probably not your intent, but that's the way of the world sometimes.
Also, congratulations for missing the point entirely. In case you weren't clear, the point concerned my refusal to acknowledge a religious argument purely on its religious merit. The fact that you missed the point and tried to throw a veiled personal attack suggests that you are a little more upset than you realize, and that, contrary to what you said, people who are secure in their beliefs can and do get offended. Even if you personally do not get offended by such things, I've met many many others who shoot your claim to hell and gone, so take care when you speak so sweepingly for others, eh?
Hi Greg. I'd look to Voltaire (or at least to what Voltaire is supposed to have
said) to answer your first question: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it."
Free speech means that people will and must be allowed to express some views
that many people will find pretty unpleasant and won't agree with, free speech
isn't just the expression of a view that the intellectual liberati can sign up to.
Obviously free speech isn't absolute, and it will be constrained both in
totalitarian and socially progressive society (for different reasons obviously), but
within that, there will still be the opportunity for some people to put across
some points of view that others might legitimately look on as being pretty
obnoxious.
Ultimately though this isn't a TV debate where someone awards points for the
merits of an argument, and no-one who takes either point of view will be
required to relinquish or maintain it based on the evidence they put forward.
They are entitled to think what they want, though as I've alluded to earlier in
this post, societal norms and in some instance the law acts as a check on some
of the views that the majority might consider obnoxious.
The reason in your opinion, arguments are not created equal is due to how you view them.
You have pointed out yourself, that science is not perfect, so doesn’t know all. You lean on it heavily to prove your argument is more valid then others.
Next, you have the emotional factor, or what you see as fairness. The opposing side is just as emotionally involved.
If you put even these few factors on a scale evenly, then the opposing side arguments are just as valid.
Some arguments are easily refuted, others are not so easy.
I heard a joke once.
Scientist went to God and said, God, we don’t need you anymore. We can make a man from dirt, just like you.
God said, okay, let’s have a man making contest.
The scientist reach down to grab a hand full of dirt, and God said, wait! Get your own dirt.
I can see you are a reasonable person, because you keep apologizing for your stance. Stop that!
If you think a spades a spade, call it one.
It seems no matter how you put a thing, you’re going to offend somebody. It just can’t be helped.
EdG: Thanks for the elucidation on Voltaire and such. I agree with people's right to free speech in almost all cases, so this isn't a huge issue. It's only when that free speech motivates people to hurt, ostracize and judge each other harshly that I take issue. I find it objectionable that it's okay to spout anti-gay nonsense, in much the same way I'd find it objectionable if I heard someone preaching the merits of what Hitler condoned in the second world war. Talk itself might be pretty harmless, but talk is the basis for actions which are not harmless at all. If we'd frown at someone spouting anti-Semitic hate-speech, then we should be judging those who are anti-gay equally harshly. The only reason we're not is because Christianity is the proponent of this anti-gay stance, and it's currently the grindstone of choice for multitudes.
Wayne, I see where you're coming from, but I don't wholly agree. I'll give an example; it may seem silly but it'll show what I'm getting at:
Argument 1: Gravity makes this ball fall when I throw it into the air.
Argument 2: A creature I believe in, who no one (including me) has ever seen, is making this ball fall when I throw it into the air.
When pressed, argument 1 will proceed to explain our understanding of gravitational theory. It will use equations and demonstrations if called upon to do so. There is a very outside chance that argument 1 is wrong, but the evidence would point strongly in another direction.
Argument 2, on the other hand, cannot provide equations and facts to back itself up. If the creature to which argument 2 owes its base is not tangible and cannot be summoned in any way for testing, then all claims made in argument 2 are nonverifiable. Since this is not the case in argument 1, argument 1 is the more logical platform.
By definition, this means that the arguments are not equal.
Most (though not quite all) religious arguments fall into type B. They are unverifiable, anecdotal and largely run in direct opposition to the scientific laws as we understand them.
As such, if I ask the question "Why does this ball fall when I throw it into the air?", I should give no weight to any argument that cannot validate itself. If the argument is raised and cites nothing more than itself and its nonverifiable source, it is inadmissible.
Now, if argument B starts by talking about an intangible creature and then starts to get into scientific explanations, or starts dealing with more than just conjecture, it's a valid platform. Unfortunately, almost all religious arguments are incapable of doing that past a certain point. That's why the leap of faith exists, and will continue to exist.
Greg, part of being insecure in your beliefs is apologizing for them by saying things like, "I really don't want to start a fire in creating this topic but here I am anyway."
the subtext of that is that you said the same thing on the "what a pastor promises to do if his child was gay" topic; yet, you came back repeatedly to that topic with nothing but nonsense to contribute, just as you're doing on yet another topic.
I suggest you sleep on that and ponder your actions. oh, and speaking of actions, we don't have actions to go by on a message board; we only have words...so your statement in this and other topics that people need to look at actions carries no weight.
Chelsey:
Neither reason nor rational debate qualifies as nonsense. if you think otherwise, you either misunderstand the word, or you live in a world where rational and irrational have swapped sides. Might explain a great many things if that's the case. either way, your stance has no merit and I won't credit it here any more than I credit it in the other board. If you want to discuss something, bring something substantive to the table.
Also, since when does having a sense of decency translate to insecurity? I was trying to do nothing more than make absolutely sure that none of the more moderate board users who might read this thread would see what I meant, rather than what they thought I meant. I was trying to make damn sure that my words weren't being seen as truly anti-anything, not because I'm insecure and don't have the courage of my convictions, but because I have the wherewithal to realize that not everything I say will come out the way I mean it to, and that it's very possible for an otherwise well-meaning individual to misread me and think I'm being a whole lot more harsh than I mean to be. Sue me for being a little too careful, but I'm not doing it for my benefit; I'm doing it for that of other people. When one isn't careful, one tends to get digressions like this. They waste time and turn into a nitpicking of minutiae which, ultimately, means the challenger gets gratification by being acknowledged.
Fine. I honour such digressions no longer. And as a funny little experiment, I'm going to go for awhile not being particularly gentle and apologetic and careful, see where that gets me. I have a very strong idea of what's going to happen, but who knows? I've been wrong before, and I'm sure to be wrong again.
If we are debating religious arguments, let me give you a strong one.
Faith healing.
You have heard that Aids was not curable. It took a while for medicine to catch up, but not it is less of a problem.
Magic Johnson is a wonderful example. He beat the odds.
Before this happened, there was a man, that was extremely religious, and he was curing people.
Scientist can’t say why, but it was happening on a small scale.
Why?
Science has the habit of saying, well, if we don’t know, we’ll ignore it until we do.
It isn’t hurting anything, so we’ll not worry about that.
But, faith healing happens all the time. Why?
Second, you know about the Egyptian pyramids.
These are still unexplainable to this day.
We can’t preserve people like they did. Why?
Oh, and I believe in the Stick Man.
Our world is too complicated, and I don’t think it will ever be totally explainable.
If this were possible, we’d be able to solve everything. We can’t.
Wayne:
You raise some interesting questions, and this sort of thing I have absolutely no issue with. None at all.
Quite frankly, I don't have all the answers, and I don't plan to.
Regarding faith healing: it's entirely possible that there is some sort of godlike being at work.
However - and this bears highlighting - it's also possible that the "faith healing" was biofeedback, or some other sort of person-to-person energy transfer at work. Science really doesn't know how to explain this; maybe one day it will, and maybe it won't.
I'm more than willing to concede that there are things science doesn't know. This does not mean that they're religious in nature by default, however; they could still be scientific, but beyond our understanding. The truth is, we frankly don't know, and any explanation is nearly as good as any other since they're all conjecture.
I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm saying that we don't know the answer. Getting that right up front.
And that is were I base my argument.
If you are arguing religion verses science, they've got as valid of a place as you do.
You might not agree, but you can't discount it based on your emotional feelings, or beliefs.
That depends entirely on what's being argued, I'm afraid. I still don't really agree with you though.
If we're talking about faith healing, where both science and religion have nothing to prove definitively over one another, then that's about as close as they get.
But now, take the sources:
Science: well-documented body of knowledge, verifiable (non-anecdotal) evidence, repeatable confirmation, ability to be verified internally and externally
Religion: thousands of years of hearsay, a holy book whose contents were actually voted on by constituants of the religion, nonverifiable from external sources and difficult to verify internally, nonrepeatable demonstrations of evidence
Based on that alone, science has a better (though far from perfect) track record.
Put another way: both of them may come up short in some places, but given science's propensity to be right far more than religion, I will default to science unless given greater reason to think otherwise.
That's why I don't agree with you. Essentially, if the defaults are either science or religion, then religion is untrustworthy by default. That doesn't mean it absolutely cannot be right or that it is always unfit to judge something, but it has to demonstrate its viability before being considered, and it can't.
With faith healing, the only difference is that science is equally unable to explain the situation, so rather than religion being made equal to science, science has failed and has found itself equal to religion in its ignorance on that one subject.
This, by the way, assumes that there really is no explanation. Faith healing isn't something I've done tons of research on.
Wayne, please provide citation for your claim of a religious person healing
aids patients. It shouldn't be difficult, a story like that would literally shut down
news sources, especially in the 80s.
Them: Please respect my beliefs.
Me: No. I find them idiotic.
I don’t ask anyone to respect my beliefs. I welcome your efforts to change my mind.
That statement goes both ways however.
The opposing side wishes I’d just shut up and “respect their beliefs.” Be like me, and you’ll be okay.
Now, it is true that religion is some based on what people feel, or think, but some is based on scientific study.
Scientist also have feelings, or thoughts they can’t prove.
Some studies are faked to prove somebody right, just like some faith healings are faked.
My bottom line is, until I can say 100% something is not so, I can’t discount the argument.
On both sides, you’ll have lesser arguments, or once with lesser strength.
That in my opinion makes the scale even.
Because mankind has a need to explain existence, science and religion will always be with us.
We have what I call hard science, and then we have science religion.
Mankind hates to admit, we just simply don’t know.
We can only work with what we have, but can’t make anything without the raw materials provided.
On the faith healing, I’m not a person that believes it happens every day, so news stories will be difficult to find.
Next, because of all the arguing that goes on whenever this is brought up, until that debate is settled, we can’t say for sure.
I am not looking for you to agree, juspresenting the other side.
A thousand years ago, if you said to the best scientist of the day,
It is possible to step in to my flying machine and go to the other side of the world in less than 12 hours, they’d have called you a witch.
That would have been on the level of religion at the time, and proven to be impossible.
We do this daily.
Back at that time, someone would have said, your argument is less valid then mine, because it isn't based on sound science.
Wayne, I'm glad to know that you realize the validity/rationality of religion. it's refreshing to hear your perspective, and I hope it inspires someone somewhere as to why religion is needed and a great thing for us all.
the thing about science that is clearly being missed by Greg and other people here, is that science has all these pretty words like "maybe," "could have been," ETC, that apparently give this bunch the warm fuzzies because those words are taken by them to mean much more than they actually do. in other words, no one can truthfully say that science is right, because it is often wrong. that's why people need to use words like "may be," "thought-to-be," ETC, because they are weak words that fail to tell us anything except that people are too scared to flat out say "I don't know."
also, someone posted on the pastor topic that there "might be" a homosexual gene. nothing was said like, "yes, there absolutely is a gay gene, and such-and-such a person has shared their experience." and that's just it: science cannot say anything for certain, and as I said above, science is often inaccurate.
Yes, science is often inaccurate. Scientists used to believe that the earth was flat, that the sun went round the earth, that diseases were caused by going out at night. They were wrong. Anyone who claims that science is absolutely infallible is a fool.
But here's the problem. Science has also found out one hell of a lot of things, and has proven them. That's why we have the scientific method as a universal way to verify findings. That's why some scientific ideas are called laws; that is to say, they are guaranteed to occur under all known conditions given a finite list of specifications. When scientists find out that they were wrong, they admit it, modify their understanding and run with it. The earth isn't flat? Okay, well, then let's go all around the world! The sun doesn't go around the earth? Hmm, well, that makes a lot of sense now that we look at how the stars in the sky appear. The time of day doesn't affect when you get sick? Well now that you mention it, that does make a lot of sense. How silly we were.
And there's your key word. Were.
Science learns from its mistakes. In many ways, religion does not.
I'll give Christianity, and humanity in general, this much. It's not okay with slavery and with the oppression of women anymore. Congratulations! It has learned from the grievous mistakes of the past and has started to act in a more enlightened way, because there's no evidence to support old, outdated societal norms.
So, science isn't perfect, but it has learned a wealth of things that are largely seen as fundamentaly sound. Religion cannot boast this.
Both science and religion are equal in that neither hold all the answers. But that is the only way in which they are equal.
This equality does not lend religious arguments the right to be given airspace in a logical debate purely because the other side is not omniscient. It simply means that a logical, sane mind must accept the fallibility of both sides.
I do so. Can you say the same, Chelsey?
Slavery, and the women issue was not Christianity, , it was people using Christianity, to validate there beliefs.
Now, do you remember when science proved that black men had smaller brains, bigger penises, and other nonsense?
I believe this is still believed, because, well, science said so!
Religion has changed just for the same reasons science has changed.
Study, and the willingness for people to say, I was wrong.
Science didn't prove this. People misusing science claimed it. There's your issue.
If slavery and the oppression of women weren't condoned by Christianity, Wayne, then why were there slaves in the Bible? Why were there even prescripts to explain how to treat your slaves? Why was there a passage about how woman was made to be man's aid rather than his equal? Why is there some sort of comment about how women are not allowed to speak in church?
Again, no one is saying that science has not given birth to soome pretty horrible stuff. It certainly has, and some of the people - such as vivisectionists - who have pursued science for freakish ends should rightly be judged monstrous. All this means is that science isn't perfect. But neither science nor religion is perfect. Science still has its very construction, not to mention the vast body of verifiable knowledge, in support of it; religion doesn't have that. I feel like you keep shooting shy of the mark, Wayne.
Remember, the Bible has several versions.
Even if they were all alike, how people intrepid a passage makes the difference.
I haven’t looked this up, it is off the top of my head.
I believe it was King James that wanted to get divorced. The Bible at the time stated he couldn’t.
He commissioned one, and had his wise men and scholars find a way he could.
Read the correct version, or listen to a person that practices God’s love, and you’ll learn that slaves were important, not to be used.
You’ll learn that slaves, or the term slaves, were workers, just like people that work at the telephone company.
Somebody owned the crops, fields and had to have workers to do the work.
Mis treatment of them wasn’t Godly.
Women were greatly respected. If not, why didn’t God choose Joseph to have a baby, not Mary?
Ever been to a Catholic church, or read about the religion?
Joseph and Mary is an odd example, but I use it to make a point.
I’m not saying religion is right, science is wrong.
I told you I’m not trying to convince you.
I’m simply pointing out, you can’t discount one argument just because you believe it to be foolish.
When you decide your way is the only way, you stop learning.
We are discussing religion verses science. Both side have problems, and to only consider one side as the right side leaves you lacking in learning.
Even if you don’t believe in the shit man, you know something about him, and why people do.
That my friend, makes you a well-rounded thinker.
Myself, if I sat here and saw only the bad science has done, I’d never reap the benefits of all the good it has done, because, I’d not see it.
I’d be narrow minded, and be afraid to turn on a light.
I’d think light was a spirit or something
. OH, and you can tell me flat out I’m talking out of my ass. It’s fine. Smile.
Wayne,
I see what you're getting at, and if I was dismissing every single religious argument out of hand, you'd have a point. I'm not though. Many religious arguments have other components, and I'm willing to hear those. I'm not saying all religious arguments are bad, only that an argument is bad if its justification amounts to "because x said so".
I hope I'm never greatly respected, or God might choose me to have a baby.
Greg, the reason you have the point of view about religion not adding value to the world is because you refuse to see the good it brings. you find everything that you interpret as horrible and run with those things like they make up Christianity as a whole rather than trying to educate yourself about the greatness of religion and the peace, love and joy it brings to people's lives.
as Wayne keeps saying, if you and others keep a hardened heart and don't want to learn how to have varying perspectives on this and other subjects, then go on thinking that your way is right and religious people are wrong just because we have such different viewpoints.
as I've said before, if I see anything rational from you or those who believe as you do, I'll say so, but until then...
Funny thing: at no point have I ever said that religion does no good. Many people do all kinds of good in the name of religion.
But guess what? We aren't talking about the good that religion does in the world. We're talking about the validity of a religious argument solely because it's religious. See? This inability to get the freaking point is why people dismiss you so readily and so often. You deserve it, because you either twist or mangle what people say in some misguided attempt to substitute your brand of truth in place of it.
Besides, I'd wager that while religion does a lot of good things, it's also responsible for a lot of really vicious things too. You can't take the good without the bad. And yes, before you jump down my throat, I recognize that people have done some pretty awful things in the name of science.
But you know what else is funny? This has turned into a science versus religion argument again. Really, science and religion aren't even the same thing, and aren't in the same league. Science attempts to use reason to explain and understand the world; religion attempts to use ideals in order to manipulate and explain the world. Two vastly different systems.
As such, logical forum is largely the kingdom of logical disciplines. Religion is not a logical discipline. The sooner you accept that, and the sooner you accept that my related point is valid, the happier you might be and the less you might feel the need to waste everyone's time.
Here's something interesting: Wayne mentions that he "welcomes people's efforts to change [his] mind". I never tried to change anyone's mind, and I don't think Gregg or Leo or anyone else is doing so, either. Personally, what I want is for people who cling to religion in a way that hurts people to step back and stop hurting people. That's it. And if logic held the sway that it should, (and if God created the universe then He has also created logic), less people would face pointless persecution.
And just as a gentle reminder: the Bible isn't all that kind to disabled people, or women, so keep that in mind, Chelsea. You value your right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, but I don't think God quite intended that (see letters from Paul).
Do I sorta kinda wish certain peoples' minds would change regarding topics that hurt people? Hell yes. But I wish for that every day, and a saying I heard years ago holds true there:
Wish in one hand, shit in the other, see which one fills up first.
I know better than to think my wish will come true.
Am I actively trying to change minds? Not a bit. I'm destroying illogical arguments and specious claims where I see them. I'm calling a spade a spade, as I've been wont to do for most of my life. One thing I'm not doing, however, is deliberately attempting to change minds. This thread came about as a result of me getting fed up with the "respect other people's religion" double standard, and my intention to stop crediting religious arguments purely because they're religious; it didn't come about as a means of me trying to convert Christians to my way of thinking, or because I wanted to change the world.
The reason I stated I welcome people to try to change my mind was due to one poster saying people like myself are always saying please respect my beliefs.
I'm not humble like that, and don't expect anyone to give me a break.
Bring it on, I say!
I am always open to others thoughts, opinions, and feelings.
This is how I learn much.
I don't have to agree with a point to learn something from it.
This is why I am stating the other side of the scale.
I don't hope to change minds, only to say, due to both sides being flawed, one is not any better than the other as far as our personal emotions, beliefs, and thoughts.
Both are important, and vary useful for mankind.
I think that if religious people are allowed to use religion as an excuse for intolerant behaviour, then atheists and others should sure as hell be allowed to use the same excuse without insodent.
If religious people are allowed to hold and express views that are offensive, then why not atheists? Why do people excuse religious people for homophobic behaviour and hate speach, while I'm given the 3rd degree for criticising them?
The fact of the matter is is that the extreme religious like free speach only when they are using it because they feel they have the moral high ground. Religion is not the only qualifyer for morality, yet they cannot accept that atheists have a morality too, just that we did not et it from some outdated book. We got it from science and from our own experience.
Religion is a choice. There is less evidence for religion being something you're born with than there is for there being a gene for homosexuality. However religions all over the world use it to justify homophobia, racism and sexism. As far as I know, noone is in control of determining their sexuality, race or sex, but we are all fully capable of determining our religion.
Respect goes both ways. I respect the people who respect me, and so far there has not been a single extremest willing to accept or fight for an atheists right to believe in science.
Yet I am still supposed to respect them?
bugger that.
I wonder if some atheists are also homophobic?
Standing in the middle, as I do, I can't see how one side is better, or perfect, because they are religious, or atheists .
I am religious, or more accurit, am a believer in God, but the one thing I'm not interested in is saving souls, or changing minds.
I don't care is you repent your sins, or as Christians are often claiming, go to hell, it is your thing.
From where I am, I can see atheists are just as bad and the extreme religious in pushing there belief system.
I always wonder, why do you need to prove religious people are wrong? Why is there such a drive, when the religious pushing there beliefs is a main source of your dissatisfaction?
Seems to me, this is human though. Everyone wants to be right.
When I post on topics like this, I am never saying, you are wrong, I am right, I am always holding up the other side of the fince.
I don't fault you for venting, mind, but when you vent, you have to expect someone to respond.
My only wish in this, and I've said it before, is that more religious people would speak up.
Accept the challenge, and don't go begging atheists to respect your beliefs. Stand up for them.
There are some rabid atheists who are actively trying to convert Christians and Muslims and other religious people. I'm not one of them. Live and let live, and all that.
I can't really imagine being religious, but obviously other people can. It doesn't have to work for me in order to work for someone else. I only take issue when that faith, or the practising of that faith, hurts people for no appreciable gain.
There are perfectly okay religious people who aren't going to get in anyone's face, and there are perfectly good atheists who are the same way.
I'll agree with that.
I don't want a single person to become atheists because they were converted. i do however see a difference in fighting the sorts of toxic belief systems spreading homophobia, racism and sexism in the name of religion.
There are markedly less homophobic atheists, because atheists don't really see the problem because the act of homosexuality is not harming us or anyone else. the few who are are simply disgusted by the act and are less mature, that's all.
Hit the nail on the head, Perestroika.
I don't want anyone "converted" to atheism. The closest I'd ever come to that is to say that I appreciate it when people think for themselves as much as possible. Usually, when they do this, they find that certain parts of what they believe are doing harm. And I say this of absolutely anyone, atheists included. Everyone lives with presuppositions about life, and their place in it. Everyone in the world could do with a little extra common sense sometimes, so it makes me glad to see someone making a concerted effort to reject things they've been taught which don't have any basis.
No, this does not translate to rejecting God. There's too much about the world we don't know, and while I personally don't think any sort of god figures into the equation, I could be wrong, and people are free to ascribe whatever they wish to the true unknowns of existence.
There have been some atheists who were rabidly homophobic. The Castro regime in Cuba comes to mind, and I believe the former Soviet Union was not exactly friendly either, not to mention the Chinese and Vietnamese communists. If I’m not mistaken, they believed homosexuality to be a Western/capitalist corruption, never mind that every tribe, race, nation, ethnicity has gay people in it. So, homophobia is not just for so-called religious bigots. On a clinical level, I find this interesting, as do I find the idea that all gay people are godless. I have a friend who is a gay Grek Orthodox, and another who is a gay Jew. He just celebrated Passover the week before last. I guess I have a god concept because to be totally atheistic doesn’t make sense to me personally. That’s because the idea of totally blinking out after one life on this plain somehow doesn’t make sense as it leads to the big questions of why are we here, why set up this intelligence thing in the first place, wy, why, why. But that's just me. That said, I’m not comfortable with the traditional Abrahamic faiths, but I do believe that all the religions are probably working towards a central theme. In essence, don’t be a dick, treat others as you would want to be treated, and live and let live. In other words, first, do no harm. But you can argue that these are moral principles by which I live, not spiritual ones per se, because an atheist can live just as easily by them as can a religious person. I can see that you would not necessarily need a god concept to hold to them and practice them.
I know this is kinda off topic, but fuck it. One thing that troubles me, is when someone says, please pray for so and so who has cancer. How do I tell them that I'm not one who prays, without coming off like a complete asshole?
You simply say, you don't. Seems easy enough to me.
if someone asks me to pray for someone, or whatever, I generally ask if there is actually something I can *do* for them instead.
Johndy brings up a good point. Hitler, for example, hated religion and also hated homosexuals. The situation is different anywhere you go.
I'll put it as simply as I can: believe whatever you want, but you are not above the law. If the law says you cannot spew hate speech, or commit hate crimes, then you can't do either and still be considered a law-abiding citizen. Why should you violate one group's rights while asking for yours to be preserved? It's not logical, and it's not fair.
As for the law, keep your religion/philosophy out of it. We don't need it in order to be moral. Democracy is not theocracy.
As for the law, keep your religion/philosophy out of it. We don't need it in order to be moral. Democracy is not theocracy.
But being Atheist, or claiming you are doesn’t make you all these things nor believe in them.
Believe it or not, some Atheist makes laws that are not good for the people.
Are you saying, if you are an Atheist, you will be perfecting your thinking?
I should model a sermon vase on a come to God speech, but change it to suit Atheism. Smile.
It should go something like this.
Come sinners and be baptized in beer.
Come to Atheism, and you’ll be a new person, cleaned up from the curse of believing in God. True in the rightness of logical thinking, washed, and pure!
Sorry, people are people, and we fall short, even Atheist.
It isn’t the belief in God that makes people wrong, nor religion, it is humanities need to control.
I'd stop debating this, if Athist would stop doing like Christians, saying, they've got the way, the truth, and the best method of living.
You don't.
the point is is that laws shouldn't be made on religious grounds.
the only argument against gay marriage is a religious one, therefore, no law should prevent it.
the arguments against abortion are religious, so no law should prevent abortion.
if you disagree with either of those, don't engage in abortion or gay marriage, however don't dictate to me that I can't because of your beliefs about morality and life.
Actually no.
Religion wasn't the only reasons for these arguments on these issues.
Not all law makers are religious, so the vote isn't made exclusively by the religious.
If that were the case, I'd agree with you.
Even if not all lawmakers are religious - and they're certainly not - there's no getting around the fact that religion is entrenched in a lot of laws. In some ways, it's common sense; for instance, religion and common morality agree on the fact that you shouldn't really steal from people or murder them. But seriously...just look at the way you have to swear in a court of law. "...so help me God". Say enough for ya?
but it is also decent ethical principle not to steal or murder. I don't need religion to tell me this, because I have common sense.
That's my point. In that case, religion and decency agree.
Some would have you believe that there is no decency without religion. I strongly disagree with this.
When religion suggests that you should love all people, or that you should do to others as you'd have them do to you, it's just parroting tenets of everyday compassion and empathy. It didn't create them, but it's nice to see when it uses them.
But Atheist are not all decent.
This is not because they are Atheist, just people, is my point.
That swearing in court was based on peoples fear, or some of them, but as you know, it really isn't worth the saying is it?
Everyone isn't self guided, religion helps many in this area.
You don't have to like it, but it works.
Here's an interesting article about giving platforms to arguments that don't merit them (and, no, this is not religious, so even you will have to at least ponder it, Wayne.) I would copy and paste, but it's quite long and has a lot of embedded stuff. Apologies, guys.
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/13/8385295/science-reporting-ethics
I'll give it a read.
Thanks.
there are also judges out there who actually think that people who don't swear on the bible are not worth listening to because they don't fear god.
Interesting article.
This debate is credited toAlbert Einstein , but there isn’t 100% evidence he said it.
It is just sowing in my opinion how one point can be as logical or not logical as the other.
We just don’t know.
Did God create everything that exists? Does evil exist? Did God create evil?
A University professor at a well known institution of higher learning challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"
A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"
"God created everything?" The professor asked.
"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.
The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil. And, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define who we are, then we can assume God is evil."
The student became quiet and did not answer the professor's hypothetical definition. The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.
Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, professor?"
"Of course", replied the professor.
The student stood up and asked, "Professor, does cold exist?"
"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been cold?"
The other students snickered at the young man's question.
The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat. Every body or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy, and heat is what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We have created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat."
The student continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"
The professor responded, "Of course it does."
The student replied, "Once again you are wrong sir, darkness does not exist either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color.
You cannot measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by man to describe what happens when there is no light present."
Finally the young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"
Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said. We see it everyday. It is in the daily examples of man's Inhumanity to man. It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These manifestations are nothing else but evil.
To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."
The professor sat down.
I'm not even sure what to say about that last post, its a spurious argument that only functions if you take a non standard version of the definition of evil, and use that as the base of the argument. Most people wouldn't define evil in that way. And unlike the first two scientifically validated examples, its completely subjective. Its an apologetic argument that uses the logical fallacy of conflation to make two unequal things equivalent to one another.
Wayne, its my honest belief that you don't really understand how science works, or the definition of atheism.
Atheism is nothing more than the following.
The conclusion that reliable, provable, or testable evidence doesn't exist to prove a god exists, or ever has.
As such, atheism doesn't define morals. It doesn't tell you how you should or shouldn't live your life. It simply is what it is. You're making the same error of conflation, to make religion and atheism similar enough for your stance.
As such, atheists don't define their moral code from or by atheism. We turn to our sense of right and wrong, philosophy, life experience, and the world around us to come to these conclusions. This is because atheism doesn't provide any framework for people to use for this, or any other task. We don't decide what we eat, drink... How we vote, where we shop, or anything else based on the definition above. We may chose not to shop at places who promote bigoted views, but this is because we object to them on moral grounds. Again, the definition of atheism doesn't provide for any rational evaluation of those choices. Unless, you are simply choosing to act tribally. As our ancestors were most likely to do for survival.
For this reason, you're likely to find a wide range of opinions amongst atheists. You may think to yourself... "But there are books about atheism, People have shared their opinions and ideas about it. So, a standard must exist across all atheists that defines who they are, how they live, and what they value, right?"
Not quite... Many religious and non religious people make the error of conflating these books to holy book status. This approach may be somewhat rational on the surface. Particularly when you have a less than accurate representation of what atheism is and isn't. This approach breaks down in a few serious ways though. Firstly, atheists may respect or like an author, but at the end of the day we know they're only human. We don't consider them prophets, we don't consider their ideals infallible, and we don't consider their works to be above questioning just because some "famous who's who of atheism" wrote them.
Secondly, we understand that the opinions of the authors are just opinions, accepting where they use scientific proofs to make a point. We know that a range of different factors all came together to create a range of different people, who write about vastly different human experiences than those we may have ever related to. Knowing this, we evaluate what we read, and consider the value of it in our lives. This leads to my third point.
Thirdly... Most atheists are not saying they have all the answers via these books. they may say they have found methods that could unlock all the answers, but they are not saying "I am god, and the world rests on four pillars. Do not question my word, for I am god."
This is a huge difference in philosophy. Because atheists are not omniscient gods, who say they know everything about everything, and the only way to live a perfect life, many create systems that are open to questioning, challenge, and evaluation for proof. If they believe they are infallible this isn't because of atheism. The most accepted explanation of what atheism is and isn't can't answer that question. Because atheism only answers weather there is or isn't a god, the rest of the opinions expressed by atheists are simply theirs.
I know I've been shoving that last thought down your throats, in a lot of different ways. But, its critical you understand this point, if you want to really understand how/why atheism works. People really need to stop conflating everything and anything with atheism. I figured I wouldn't need to explain this so many different ways, considering we're al on a sight full of blind people. We've all experienced people trying to relate everything and anything to our blindness. We all know about how effective this principle actually is.
I think that clears up most of the last posts problems. Doesn't fix the rest of the rampant conflation going on in this topic, but one can only do so much.
On the subject of faith healing...
The majority of studies I've read over the years have concluded that it has absolutely no effect what so ever. Science has attempted to verify a link, and failed to do so, using repeatable methodologies.
This leads me to think that we need a similar post in this topic about what science is, and isn't, to go along with this one on what atheism is and isn't.
People have this strange idea that science is godlike, based on their posts. But its really not. Science is nothing more than a generally accepted standard for creating methodologies that can be used to prove or disprove things about our world, and make conclusions based on the resulting theories. Remember that theory means something completely different in the scientific definition. The standard that was created is generally called the scientific method.
I've forgotten everything else I initially planned to address in this message, but I hope its somewhat useful none the less. My initial reaction was to angrily write that most of the arguments on this topicare being argued from ignorance, and are useless in any serious conversations as a result. I figured that demonstrating why was a lot more useful.
BEcause many of those that regularly argue around here don't know what they are, I'd encourage people to have a look around on the net to learn about logical fallacies.
That knowledge will keep me from needing to retread the same tired ground.
I expect that I'll be contributing again soon. When I remember everything else I planned on addressing.
Wayne, if you're going to attribute a story to Einstein, you could at least do
him the service of getting the temperature of absolute zero right. Which you
didn't. If you're going to display your stupidity, at least polish it first.
Meglet, while I agree re: Paul's comments on women, he was specifically talking about the church.
It's a problem: one reason I could not reconcile Christianity as being reasonable. My very Christian Wife has done ministries for women and the like. And yet, withinb certain contexts because I have a penis, it was expected that I "lead" certain things. I took my cues from Her, and fulfilled my obligations to my best extent, but it is a foolish designer who makes the argument that the obviously-better-qualified, She, should not lead something and the obviously less-qualified, he, should instead, based on sex alone.
Fortunately, outside of certain rituals, the churches don't seem to practice this to the letter. But it is a stupid law created by folks without the least capacity for engineering or design of any kind.
Greg is right: not all arguments are equal, and that goes for us atheists too. Personally, I would rather a religious person challenge my arguments head on. Being challenged makes you strong and not weak, sharp and not dull.
Wayne is correct that the pseudoscience of frenology and eugenics made rash claims, claims without evidence, about blacks and other people groups. These pseudosciences deferred to the socially accepted fluff talk, much like the social sciences often do today. And today, the anti-gay rhetoric takes from the same play books as did the eugeneticists of the 1930s.
You can know if science is correct on a given point, and real science -- especially us in the applied sciences -- must stand up and state that we are wrong, when we're wrong.
Religion, it is up to the imterpretation. How could I possibly know that my interpretation of some ancient texts is correct or not? I cannot prove anything in that space. And I in my search studied all of the Christian apologists I could find: William Lane Craig of ReasonableFaith.org, C. S. Lewis -- more philosopher than apologist, Francis Schaeffer, even, to my shame, Ken Ham and Kent Hovind.
The reality is, you can't know. The best you can do is hold an opinion. That "you" includes me, by the way.
However, it's important to make the distinction between the ideas of religion, and the people who hold them. I respect many Jewish, Christian and muslim people, even if I don't give place to the gods of the desert sands.
Three iterations of one tribal storm god Yahweh contest for the hearts, minds, finances, and militaries of the world's peoples. Quite obviously, monotheistic systems that instruct subservience to the masses and provide deferred rewards they will never have to pay themselves, are a distinct military and economic advantage for the world's elites.
Chelsea speaks of the good that religious people are doing. That is honorable people doing honorable things, no more and no less.
If you read the top of that last post, you’ll note I didn’t write it, nor did I suggest Albert said it.
I didn’t post it as fact, but as a way to show argument validity.
I personally have no problem with atheism, and I believe I understand it as it was described.
My problem is many that practice atheism state we are 100% correct.
Our arguments are 100% better, because they are based on science, and science is perfect.
We as a whole think clearer, are moral, and just better people.
We, have let go of fairytales, and this makes us supreme.
We don’t believe in the “shit man.”
We don’t harm anyone, nor do we hurt anyone.
You, we, are humans, and subject to human failings.
Just because you claim you practice atheism, doesn’t make you any better, or worse than people that are deeply religious.
People that practice atheism are just as likely to hate gays, be deeply prejudice, and anything else.
Science has been used to support their claims, just like religion has.
People that practice atheism say all religious persons are stupid, dumb, living in a fog, wrong, corrupt, and screwed up generally.
Look at the terms applied to me, and these aren’t the half of it.
Folks, there is injustice in this world, and even if we wiped religion from it, we’ll still have injustice in this world, maybe even more, due to the people that are guided by religion not having the frame work they require.
People that practice atheism have no respect for anyone that thinks differently, yet, they claim to be open minded.
You have to shit, eat, get sick, be born, die, and all the rest of the things humans do.
When you start saying you are just a traveler in this world like anyone else trying to come to grips with your reality, I’ll sit down.
Atheism, isn’t the answer folks.
Leo, thanks for your insights.
I'm going to put a bit of a monkeywrench into this, from Loui's comment about swearing on the Bible.
I don't!
I am a Christian, and I do NOT swear on the Bible. I did not do so when I applied for my marriage license, nor will I do so if I ever have to testify in court.
It goes back to something attributed to Jesus in those very pages (paraphrased): Do not make oaths, or swear on anything either on the eart, nor above or below it; let your yes be yes and your no be no.
That bugs many Christians because swearing on the Bible is so engrained...
Kate
Kate, I for one always appreciate it when you speak up on these topics.
There's always something to be gleaned, especially from a side less heard from.
I thought you were required to swear on the Bible in court though? I didn't think you had a choice.
In the U.S., at least where I've been, you stand up, raise your right hand and swear the oath, so help you god.
Inside, I think to myself, "On my honor," which I think is something like Kate means by "let your yes be yes and your no be no."
You have a choice.
You can state what post64 stated,
or the fact you are not religious, so it won't make your oath any more valid.
People do it to show there not lying, then lie.
Laughing!
In Canada, you can either swear or affirm. so instead of swearing on the Bible, I signed a document that said something to the effect of "I affirm that the information I provide is accurate," etc. So while someone might say it's the same thing, it's simply letting my yes be yes...
Eh, I see the difference, for sure, and I can see why you did it. I will do the same, just for different reasons.
Ironically, I don't think our reasons are so different :)'
I would refuse because the Bible means nothing to me; you refuse because the Bible means enough to you that you won't swear on it (after all, it tells you not to, right?). Both valid, but very different.
I haven't read this whole thing, but I want to say something about "faith," or religion. Most devoted Christians and people who have a faith, don't like the things that are going on, like hate-speak from West Burrow, or the forcefulness of some Mormons and JW followers.
I even dislike the person who approaches me in the middle of the street, litterally, and says: "You need my praying for you. Right now!" No, what I need, is to safely get across the street.
I'm not saying all Christians or religious folks got it right. I'm saying I don't think that hatting people who don't agree, is right.
However, I believe in the God I serve, and will never appologize for serving Him. That doesn't mean I hate you cause you don't. That's where people get so mixed up. I know the Bible says a lot of things. But let me say it also says that there is: "...A time for war, and a time for peace."
I'm not saying get your guns loaded, just in case. I'm saying, when people are oppressed, they should defend themselves.
Another thing I want to point out, is that Christianity isn't getting the all out "thumbs up," it used to. Some might be happy. But, I say all people have the right to choose what they believe.
Don't fear the average person. Fear the person that's willing to hurt others to get their point across. Be they Christian, Muslem, or, don't believe in anything. When we start hurting others, we aren't showing the compassion that this world needs. And, how do you convince others you are right, when you're too angry at someone's faith to be objective?
Right, said enough for now. Hope this makes sense.
Blessings,
Sarah/HW
Well, I find this interesting. Being as I am a Christian myself, but not strict one, I believe that if a person is homosexual, that's them. That should not make them a bad person. Like I have said before I think we should all accept gay or lesbians. They can't help what they are,
Furthermore, it has nothing to do with the people who are straight. Live your life, I say
Live your life, but don't throw your homosexuality in people's faces the way most people in that crowd do.
Most people in that crowd? That is so ignorant I can't even fully articulate my feelings.
Agree with Kevin. Chelseabell the Cow moos ignorantly again.
Now tut tut, said the guy from Pizza Hut. Lol.
Yeah, what the fuck? Says the girl who use to pretend...
And, now she's so high and holy. No wonder why the church is slowly disappearing.
If only it was quickly disappearing.
it's not going away fast enough.
No need to bandwagon. Just ignore the troll, and she chokes on obsolescence.
I don't really like the "can't help what they are" thing though, I've got to say. That makes it sound like they should help it, if they could. It makes it sound like their sexual preference is something they should resist or be ashamed of.
I'm sorry, but you don't get a free pass if you preach supposed tolerance with your first breath and bigotry with the next. I'm death on hypocrites, figuratively speaking.
I won’t feed the troll if I don’t have to, but I’d say that if it’s not right, according to some people, for me to mention that I mmight have a boyfriend, it’s also not right for any straight person to mention his or her opposite-sex partner, even in passing, because if I were that sensitive, I might scream about how someone is throwing their heterosexuality in my face. Besides, if I and the rest of the gay people on this planet simply went away or started acting straight, some others among us would lose the opportunity to be the self-righteous bitches they’re so good at being. Then what would they do with no one to look down on?
I don't see iot wrong to say what you like.
I think, and I hope I'm right, Chelsea is talking about the parades, flags, and such.
If you visit Hollywood, you find, and this is mainly, gay male couples making a public show of being gay.
I'm not talking about just being together on say a nice Saturday evening, but they call notice to themselves.
That, I can't see the purpose.
I'm a straight male, and I don't take a girl out, have her skip down the middle of a busy street, with a flag saying, we are whatever, kissing on her, fondling her, not in a loving way, but a show way.
If that's not what she meand, I'd have to agree.
I live in Denver, and we are the second gay capital, and we have plenty gay citizens.
However, aside from the gay pride parade, they just go about life.
Two guys together, or two girls together is just that. You don't think, ah, I can tell they are gay.
Some hold hands, or what have you, but not in a showboat manner.
it is public display. Us straighties do it so it's nothing to kick and scream about. You don't like it then you don't have to look at it.
Very fascinating Wayne.
The thing is, it doesn't bother me at all.
No, I don't see the need for it, but if people wish to go on acting in manners they want, as long as it doesn't bother me physically, I'm good.
However, I don't see the need.
"I'm gay" I want to be gay" Okay, be gay. Lol
You don't need to holler aat me about it, because I don't care.
Maybe you haven't experienced this.
It is the same as a soap box preacher.
You understand she or he's religious, but why do they need to be on a soap box?
Tell the folks that are interested, because frankly, you aren't going to save anyone that doesn't want to be saved on your soap box.
You will just irritate some.
Because wayne, while you don't mind it, other people do. The reason you
don't see straight people walking down the street kissing and fondling each
other is because you don't notice such things because they happen every day.
Its perfectly normal to see a man and a woman kissing. A man and a man
kissing is not normal in our society yet, and we need to work on that. The way
to force the issue to be worked on is to throw it in your face until you address it.
Look at how you've differentiated here. You say that a man and a woman
kissing is ok, you don't even think it happens, which I think we can all say is a
crock. Of course that happens. But two men kissing, it must be to draw
attention to themselves. Why do they have to make a spectacle of it? Its fine
that they're gay, but why do they have to kiss on the sidewalk?
Honestly, you're not far from the idea that gays could always get married in
this country, as long as they married someone of the opposite sex. What you're
saying is, its fine for gays to kiss and make out, as long as I don't have to see it
happening. I don't see anywhere where you say the same thing about you and
your girlfriend, or Lakeria and her boyfriend, or SW and Meglet.
It's going to happen whether you like it or not. So grow up.
Not what I personally am saying at all.
What I am saying is if you want to kiss your boyfriend, kiss him.
Don't kiss him, and holler, "hey people, I'm kissing a man!"
I don't see that here, but in Holly Wood, gay men would call attenchen to themselves.
I personally don't even care about that, but I was responding to what I thought Chelsea was trying to get across.
Do what you do normally, or naturally, but, and this is my opinion, don't see why it needs to be made a big deal over.
Society should mind themselves, or business, unless the act they see is illegal, or harming someone.
Two men kissing if it is just being done as the course of the day, it just fine.
When I was visual, I have seen it, and it is also some customes for some people.
I don't assume two men kissing makes them gay.
If they are, that is fine, but they don't need to tell me and everyone on the sidewalk.
When I kiss and fondle my girlfriend, I do it in a legal manner and I don't make an announcement.
that's because it is your choice not to make a show of it.
Yeah, but how often do you see a straight couple kissing and carrying in public anyways? I can't see, so I wouldn't know if it's normal or if it's just a gays and lesbians thing.
Lakeria, trust me, straight couples fondle and make out in public all the time.
People get arrested for it here.
But, I'm curious, Wayne, can you describe for us the scenario in which you
saw two men kiss and then one of them yell out, "hey people, we're gay?" Color
me skeptical.
Sure.
When I lived in California, I spent lots of time on Holly Wood Boulevard
Some, not all, because that isn't correct, gay men would parade up and down the street, singing, kissing, skipping, and other activities.
This is a good place for lots of people to see you, because of the shops, and tourist spots on it.
They would dress the part.
The gay man that was the female side, if you spoke the him would talk in a specific manner.
I have known many gay men, and only one can I blame for this, my neighbor Kenny.
He'd make you know he was gay.
But, this isn't my argument. I was only speculating on what I figured Chelsea meant.
Maybe she'll come back and explain from her side.
Yes Lakeria, straight couples are likely to show displays of affection.
Depending on how far it gets, it is illegal in some places.
Some places, not.
I am guilty of kissing women intimately in public, holding hands, hugging them from behind while standing in line, and such things, but I’m not doing this for anyone else’s benefit but mine.
I can’t see as I once could, so I don’t know how often it goes on with gay, or straight couples now.
I had some men that were friends who were couples, and they’d hold hands as they walked, or hug.
I don’t think many people gay or straight kiss passionately in the public.
Inside a night clubs, this is different, and expected.
Honestly, if it's okay for a straight couple to do it, it's okay for a gay couple to do it, and that's basically an end to it.
Some gay individuals, in particular, tend to stand out because of what they wear or how they act. So what? Some men are hopeless flirts and some women enjoy wearing next to nothing in order to show off their figure. It amounts to the same thing; the only difference is that a "flamer" is considered gross or weird or out of the ordinary, while someone in a slinky outfit or some guy hitting on anything that walks is considered normal because you see it everywhere. If you don't want to see it, just look away. You're not going to make it go away, and you don't have the right to try.
Wayne. its interesting that you can say that you do things in public for your
own benefit, but instantly assume that, because someone is doing something
you wouldn't do in public, they're doing it for your benefit. Did you ever think
maybe those gay men were holding hands and skipping because they wanted to
hold hands and skip? Maybe it made them happy to hold hands and skip, and
they didn't give a crusty hobo fuck about you or whether or not you knew they
were gay? Why do you have this double standard? Right now you sound like a
subtle version of Chelsea.
Cody, I know you understand what I'm saying.
There is a difference in display, and public affection.
You can tell when a couple is just enjoying each other, and when they are doing it for show.
Maybe you should ask one of your friends that can see to explain how they can tell if a person is on display, or just going about their business.
That might help you understand, if you choose.
Personally, I'm pretty satisfied that I know Chelsea's opinions; she's been pretty explicitly anti-gay in other postings, so I just infer that there couldn't have been very much of a change in the past three months or so.
Just let those people do what they want for fuck sake! Oh and one more thing: Post 100 for the win!
Are you saying being gay is an excuse for obnoxious behavior?
Smile.
Of course not. Gay or straight we should act within the confines of deessant human society. I'm just saying you cannot dictate what is right and wrong. Let groups do what they do and you worry about yourself.
I know, but I just had to tease you. Lol
lol
Everything I've wanted to say has been said already, but I'll say it again: people have double standars. What's the difference between a man and woman kissing and a man and a man? People still have emotions, regardless of gender. It's not a choice as to who you'll like, and to bar someone from loving another person is just wrong, because you're taking away something that does no harm to anyone. Sorry, I haven't phrased it very well.
Hey everyone.
Let me make this really simple for you. First off, I think and have come to think for a long time that when we who disagree with the whole “The Bible says it’s wrong to be gay.” Argument, all we’re really doing when telling people not to hate on gays because of what they think their religion says, we’re actually playing right in to their hands in that we are, whether we know it or not or whether we like it or not, actually giving them a ready-made excuse with which they can be bigoted towards people who are GLBT.
In other words, what we’re saying to them about how we disagree with their religious views that being gay is wrong, then that could easily make them more inclined to cling to those excuses. The reality of the situation is, The Bible doesn’t make them believe that homosexuality is wrong and while it seems like they come to believe that in a vacuum, that’s not usually how it works and that people usually unknowingly subconsciously get anti-gay arguments with which they agree from certain messages from society or because they themselves are gay and don’t want to face it and admit it to themselves as well as the fact that they might not be comfortable admitting it to others.
So when we feed in to their arguments by trying to fight them and tell them that they’re wrong because of letting themselves follow what The Bible says about homosexuality being wrong, then not only are we inadvertently handing them an excuse they can hold on to and become even more anti-gay than they already are, but we’re also looking at the wrong issue and not addressing the real root causes of their anti-gay bigotry in the first place.
This is really no different than people believing that 15-year-old Jonny killed people because he was listening to too much Death Metal. When looking harder at the hypothetical Jonny’s life, it’s usually brought to light that he was being beaten by either his parents, kids at school or other family members who didn’t give a damn and to not make an effort to understand the roots of his rage he takes out on to other people and put it on a music label, is quite frankly to be complicit in his worsening psychological state and to delay him getting the help so he doesn’t do further bad things, or that could prevent him from taking out his rage and pain on others or himself in the first place. So this is really another part of the same issue and so I no longer call these people homophobic, for to call them as such means to say they have a phobia and given that a phobia is viewed as a disorder for which there’s little you can do to treat or even cure it, then are we not actually saying that these people are not fully responsible for their actions? Let’s finally learn to do what the author Thomas Szasz suggests and just call this for what it is, just people who are afraid of what they don’t understand and so they’re being anti-gay bigots using religion as their excuse to justify their fear and then eventually their hatred and let’s stop giving them further abilities with which to use this excuse by way of us not engaging them on that level. And yes, even the seemingly loving and gentle anti-gay bigots need to be called out as such. I’m of course talking about the ones who say things like: “Oh, I would never disown my kids if they were gay, and I’d still love them, but I just wouldn’t agree with their life choices.”.
Those are the ones who are all the more dangerous, for they can easily cause their child’s psychological torment to be added to with what they’re saying, because not only does the child have to already be in psychological torment because of trying to figure out if they are still a good person while being gay, but they now have the confusion on top of it in that they hear the anti-gay things their parents are saying, but it’s said in a loving way with the language of love mixed in, which could cause more confusion for the child with them having to question if their parents still would love them at all and how the parents could love them and not be understanding and supportive of who they end up loving as their partner, thus compounding the child’s questionable psychological state even further and only raising the child’s risk for self-harm or harm to others. It’s time to take seriously the ideas set forth in Dostoyevsky’s novel “Demons” in that we have to make sure we do right by the young and make sure the ideas we teach them will lead them to lives of good and not ones of danger and lives lived based on moral nihilism and other related dark aspects of life.
James
Kevin. It wasn't so long ago that you detested seeing anything gay, washing your hands of it and the likes. That's the beauty of zone archives. I'm glad you're slowly coming around.
I actually just read this topic in one big jumble, and while I did take notes on things that I wanted to respond to, I forgot, in my note taking to mention specific posts. So, I'll just mention everything in general. Here goes!
A lot of you seem to believe that Jesus was mostly quoted or referred to in the bible. However, there were several reputable historians and scholars who were alive at or around that time, along with modern-day scholars who also referred to him in their own texts in a manner similar to the biblical texts. So, if you believe that the bible skews my viewpoint because I am a Christian and have read much of it, please look at the following link:
http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/historicalev.htm
As for another post in which someone mentioned that women are held to a lesser standard than men according to the bible, please read the following:
Ephesians Chapter 5, vurses 21-33.
In a nutshell, though I strongly encourage you to read the passage I outlined for you, I will say that according to St. Paul, Christ encourages men to love their wives as they love themselves. To take care of them as they would take care of themselves.
Homosexuality is a very gray topic, because there are multiple Christian viewpoints regarding it. Some denominations support it. Others, such as the Catholic denomination do tell us not to judge them, but to love them. However, that does not mean that someone who is living the homosexual lifestyle would ever be married at my church, since we do believe, as has been written several times in the bible, that God made them "one male, and one female", as it were. All that being said, I highly doubt that there are too many homosexuals out there that would want to get married in a Catholic church anyway.
Wayne, to answer your question about what I meant, I am specifically referring to people making a show of their sexuality. Gay, straight, bi, whatever; love who you love.
Wow chelslicious really? We throw our way of life in you and other peoples' faces. Funny. It sounds like you are forgetting that sighted people could easily make the same argument about the blind in that they could say to us to stop swinging our canes towards them and making them feel uncomfortable. Do me a favor chelslicious go and find the lines of the song called "Song of Myself" by Nightwish based on the Walt Witman poem of the same name where the lines of the song say: "How can I judge a begger, priest, whore, politician or wrong-doer? I am, you are all of them already.". I'm not saying that GLBT people fall among those people for being homosexual, as sexual orientation is a trate no different than hair color, eye color or skin color. My point is that when chelslicious and others who think in this bigoted way judge us for being morally wrong for who we love, they give the false notion that they have never done a bad or wrong thing in their lives and so that's why I provide the poetic lines I do.
James
Well, I understand to a point what you mean by saying you don’t need to make a big deal about your sexual orientation.
I don’t make a big deal about being a straight man, O black man, or the fact I have brown eyes, I just live it.
Now, if pressed about it, then I speak up and say, but only if pressed.
The problem is, as a gay person, you are pressed often times in to stating why you are gay, and fighting for rights that should be given you as a natural course of life.
If you could just live gay, just like I live straight, you’d not need to make a big deal about it.
It is difficult for people to only make a big deal about something when necessary, because, some people feel the need to be on, or seen.
I like Tim Cook for this reason.
He’s gay, been gay, but he only speaks out when pressed, or on issues related to oppression. He doesn’t run around waving his rainbow flag.
As to people beliefs, I personally disagree. People are sort of like sheep.
If the preacher keeps pointing out his or her ingurgitation of the Bible, or if you are in a group you wish to belong to, you’ll swear gay is wrong, even though you don’t believe it.
Next, people simply believe whatever, because the group does, and they never think about the other side.
The get in the sheep mentality and simply follow.
Think about it, people have swallowed poison thinking they were doing the best thing, or going to transcend to another place, even though they know if you swallow this stuff, you’ll die.
People join groups, the Masons, the Klan, the church, whatever, and they adopt these beliefs.
Jesus never talked about gay people, simply because it just isn’t important, but if you belong to a church that keeps showing you only the passages that say, or seem to say, being gay is wrong, and being told, that is what it means, you believe it.
You don’t read on.
Same with women as pointed out a couple post before.
Women were highly respected in the Bible, and are in some religions, but if you are looking to oppress a group, you only read what you need to make it valid. You’ll believe rap music is causing killing, even though, you have no idea that all rap songs aren’t about killing.
People don’t investagate, they follow many times.
Look at the Germans. German’s aren’t bad people, but they killed a bunch of Jews, human beings for no other reason but they were Jews. Just blind following.
Just my thoughts.
How do you differentiate between someone who is showing off that they're
gay,and someone who is showing off that they're in love? When I'm out with my
girlfriend, I hug her, kiss her, hold her hand, play with her hair, all sorts of
things. Hell, I took her to a dinner theater the other day and held her
throughout the play. How is that any different than someone who is gay and
does the same thing? Why do we assume they're doing it for some sort of social
outspeaking, and not simply because they're a couple who like each other or
love each other? If you support gay people, which I think many people here do,
you should have your default be that they are simply a couple in love. That is
how you treat people normally, and if you treat people normally, you will
eventually hep get everyone to treat people normally, or at least will help force
those who don't treat everyone normally to the fringes of society. So when you
see a gay couple being proud of their relationship, simply be happy for them
that they found something so special that they can be proud of it, and leave it
at that.
And by the way, I love this idea that you can love the sinner but hate the sin.
By love here, I mean find to be absolutely moronic but still get a chuckle out of
when people actually believe its something you can do. People are made up of
actions, that is how we engage with the world around us, by actions. So to say
that you hate the sin, means you hate part of what makes someone who they
are. Which means you can't actually love the sinner. Especially not when it
comes to things like homosexuality. You can't love Anthony, if I can use you as
an example Anthony, without also accepting his homosexuality, because his
homosexuality is what makes him him, or at least part of it. so to say that you
love the sinner but hate the sin means that you like anthony, as long as he isn't
himself. You like him, but only when he isn't being who he is. You like him, but
only when he's being the person you want, and not the person he is. Which is
the exact same thing as saying you don't like Anthony.
I wish more people, and by here I mean religious people, would stop being
such cowards about things. Your club is exclusionary by its nature. You have a
special sky daddy that talks to you, and he has favorites. You think you're one
of his favorites, and to be one of his favorites means you have to think other
people are not his favorites. So just own up to that. You don't like gay people.
You're a bigot. Your book tells you to be a bigot, so just admit it. Eitehr you
follow your book and are a bigot, or you don't follow your book and aren't a
christian/muslim/jew; I'll leave the other religions alone for the sake of ease.
stop being such a damned coward and admit your actual feelings. Either be a
bigot, or stop being a christian, you can't be a christian and not a bigot without
not being a real christian. I know that's the no-true-scotsman argument, but
when you ignore nearly all of your book, and even the words of your savior, in
favor of being nice and happy and peaceful, you're not following the book. And
if you don't follow the book, you aren't a member of the club.
Oh, and one last thing, no, there are not contemporary historians that talk
about jesus at the time of his life. There aren't even eye witness accounts at the
time of his life. Even the accounts of the witnesses, the gospils, were written
decades after his death, and every reputatble historian agrees with that. Just
my two cents.
Well said Silver Lightning.
James
Thank you Cody! I often wonder the same thing.
I could not get over it when someone on FB made a claim like this not long ago to my argument.
Hell, even the passages about Jesus attributed to Tacitus and Josephus have been shown to be forgeries written by the Catholic church.
Fine. If they wanted to make gay, or being gay bad, the Caths should have written Jesus's story right.
They didn't, so no matter what, it isn't important as far as morality goes.
One might ask, why did Jesus hang out with all these guys?
Grin.
Seriously,if you think about it, what gay people do, or don't do, has nothing to do with you personally. It won't keep you from anything, so again, it simply isn't important.
It will be between them and God, if you believe in God anyway, not you, them, and God.
If gay people could just live, they'd have no reason to say anything at all.
I loved For Real's post from yesterday.
Yes, people do have a problem where they need to be the followers and it's sad.
James