Why Atheists Care About YOUR Religion

Originally posted by @fmf
You keep mentioning what I have been saying as me talking about "Muh Rights", and then you are citing as examples "third generation welfare collectors on a trailer park in Texas or in a ghetto in Camden". To whom in this community - out of the people you are talking to - are you attributing these notions of what "rights" are?

Oh, wow, so you don't think that the generationally impoverished who live off of welfare, etc., should have equal standing and rights in society?

I only bring this up because, legally, a single mother with 5 kids who has never worked a day in her life has the exact same rights as a Korea war veteran who served his country and community in every single capacity, and both are said that they should be treated absolutely identically before the law and with regards to their rights as anyone else, and their concerns are to be taken just as seriously.

That is the sort of nature of the egalitarianism we face where clearly unequal parties are to be thought of as total equals.

Since this seems to be what is most acceptable these days in Anglophone forums, I just assumed that this would be an accurate representation of many people's positions, even if it isn't specific to anyone in this community. Do you know what I mean?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I do not really believe in some society with some extensive network of "rights" and "freedoms," so whatever "discrimination" means to you would not have similar parallels to me.

Do you support freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of religion?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Oh, wow, so you don't think that the generationally impoverished who live off of welfare, etc., should have equal standing and rights in society?

A debate about economics probably belongs on the other forum dedicated to such things. I have a feeling that you are gagging so hard to talk about "welfare" and "ghettos" that you are simply presuming that you can attribute ideas that you don't like to me and then chunter on about them.

As for what I have been discussing with you, I don't think generationally impoverished should have their equal standing and rights in society truncated or abrogated on account of them being homosexuals.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I only bring this up because, legally, a single mother with 5 kids who has never worked a day in her life has the exact same rights as a Korea war veteran who served his country and community in every single capacity, and both are said that they should be treated absolutely identically before the law and with regards to their rights as anyone else, and their concerns are to be taken just as seriously.

And what does this have to do with the right of homosexuals not to be subjected to institutional discrimination at the hands of government?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I just assumed that this would be an accurate representation of many people's positions, even if it isn't specific to anyone in this community.

Why don't you seek out these people with these positions and confront them?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
That's a fair question and a fair point. I will address it in three ways:

(a) I accept anyone that confirms the Nicene creed as a Christian. I will even be liberal with some of the interpretation of the trinity.

(b) The 20k+ figure comes from the fact that many non-denominational sects are not registered with official denominations. However, t ...[text shortened]... to chiefly come about and it is quite different than a dispute over what the revealed truth is.

The fact remains that the Bible is widely open to interpretation and that there has been and continues to be wide disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not "moral".

The point is that, as such, the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is or is not 'moral'. You still haven't provided a reasonable answer to the question at hand.

Once again, "What would be the basis for determining what is or is not 'moral'?"

Originally posted by @thinkofone
The fact remains that the Bible is widely open to interpretation and that there has been and continues to be wide disagreement amongst Christians as to what is and is not "moral".

The point is that, as such, the Bible is not a reliable basis for determining what is or is not 'moral'. You still haven't provided a reasonable answer to the question at hand.

Once again, "What would be the basis for determining what is or is not 'moral'?"

The Bible would be the ultimate measure... Let me put on my Mitch Pacwa voice for you...

Here's the thing: the Bible clearly indicates that having sex before marriage is a sin. The Bible clearly indicates that murder, theft, etc., are sins. The Bible clearly advocates charity and hard work. Those things are obvious, and that is the moral root of any problem.

The trouble arises when we try to further extrapolate from that.

You are probably saying that the Bible is not reliable because you did not receive a proper explanation of how it is to be treated. The Bible is to be read with the interpretation that Christ is God, and the Old Testament is to be read with the knowledge that the final covenant given unto the gentiles is the final, climactic truth. Thus, elements of the Old Testament are clearly cast into a new light.

The morality is very, very clear. It only gets complicated when we talk about how we should structure a society, and what should be happening with the government -- whether it should be secular, or whether we should have an autocracy. And yes, I specifically mean autocracy and not theocracy, because theocracy isn't what is endorsed by leading Orthodox thinkers. An autocratic government that practices "sinfonia" is what is promoted by Orthodox thinkers, and to be polite, I would refer to any form that likewise is anti-democratic and anti-despotic and rooted in Christianity as its own form of 'autocracy.' But that's neither here nor there.

One point I will give you, though, is that an issue like abortion or transgenderism can have some answers that aren't celarly biblically rooted which may favor a very liberal perspective. But, ultimately, it is impossible to favor any interpretation of Christian thoguht or morality that actually would affirm some LGB or 'sex positive' perspective.

Do you know what I am saying?

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you support freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of religion?

Could you explain what you mean by these things?

For instance... at what point can one be said to no longer support free speech? In Britain, it is illegal to basically be a racist. The same is true in Germany. To voice those opinions will literally land you in jail. Are those countries ones with free speech?

It is illegal in the US to not bake a cake for a gay person's wedding. Does the US still have freedom of association?

If I can know more about what you consider to be freedom, then I can better answer the question.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Could you explain what you mean by these things?

Could you explain what you mean by these things?

Government not proscribing or curtailing the exercise of those activities by way of threats of force.

For instance... at what point can one be said to no longer support free speech? In Britain, it is illegal to basically be a racist. The same is true in Germany. To voice those opinions will literally land you in jail. Are those countries ones with free speech?

I don’t agree with the concepts of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” and I disagree with there being sanctions that are gauged with those concepts in mind. There should be no ‘freedom from being upset’. Or ‘freedom from being hated’. It’s rather odd to think these things can be legislated and punished out of existence. Aside from attempts to restrict racist discourse and other things like religious villification, countries like Germany and Britain do reasonably well in terms of championing freedom of speech, and certainly are better in that respect now than in bygone times.

It is illegal in the US to not bake a cake for a gay person's wedding. Does the US still have freedom of association?

That decision is a curtailment of the freedoms of action and association and I don’t agree with it. Nevertheless, the US still makes a pretty good stab at promoting and protecting freedom of association.

If I can know more about what you consider to be freedom, then I can better answer the question.

For someone who seems to feel he has a good grasp of what people who don’t agree with you think, this seems like a peculiar gap in your understanding. Do you still not know what freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, freedom of religion are? Or is it merely a rather arch discursive affectation? Be honest now.

Originally posted by @fmf
I noticed you capitalized "Social Justice Warrior" earlier. And here you are using a word that isn't even a word - "muh" - and you're capitalizing it to make "Muh Rights". What is the effect from this that you wish to have? Does it actually work for you when you engage dissenters?

Bump for Jacob Verville

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Here's the thing: the Bible clearly indicates that having sex before marriage is a sin. The Bible clearly indicates that murder, theft, etc., are sins.

The notion of "sin" is meaningless to people who do not believe in supernatural causality and divine intervention. A non-superstitious moral argument can easily be made against "murder, theft, etc." and thus established as being morally unsound by common consensus. But what non-superstitious moral argument can be made for "having sex before marriage" being deemed to be morally unsound?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
We should be live in organically formed communities that operate based on the traditions and needs of the people, and they are rationally implemented to increase the wealth and power of the respective nations.

What would you do about people having sex before marriage in your "organically formed communities"?

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]Could you explain what you mean by these things?

Government not proscribing or curtailing the exercise of those activities by way of threats of force.

For instance... at what point can one be said to no longer support free speech? In Britain, it is illegal to basically be a racist. The same is true in Germany. To voice those opinions will liter ...[text shortened]... n, freedom of religion are? Or is it merely a rather arch discursive affectation? Be honest now.

So you personally sound to be something of a libertarian. That's great. Much of my family thinks along those lines.

But if you think that it is OK that these places curtail nationalist speech, then, you would also be OK with blasphemy laws, right? I mean you can say other things and are pretty free, but you just can't blaspheme against God.

It's just a different kind of blasphemy law, right? One that you might not particularly believe in, of course, but that doesn't really matter. Plenty of people obviously do not believe in multiculturalism but they have to put up with the ideological blasphemy laws and you still call it a free country.

Can a country be free if it prohibits blaspheming God, or prohibits the promotion of the "gay agenda"?

Now, of course, I do not want to totally reverse this on you and sidestep your questions... But if the measure is that Germany gets to be considered a 'free state' with how it regards free speech, and America is a 'free state' when it comes to free association... Then, yeah, sure. I endorse all of those things. I just have my own sets of blasphemy laws in mind.

Originally posted by @fmf
Bump for Jacob Verville

I just think it is proper grammar. These things are references to what amount to proper nouns. It also helps to emphasize them and indicate that I am aware of the cluster of ideas around them.

Originally posted by @fmf
What would you do about people having sex before marriage in your "organically formed communities"?

Nothing.

Signal against it on TV broadcasts; have a code where all popular entertainment never promotes any line of thought where this is acceptable or normal, and generally makes story lines that are designed to dissaude from the practice, and encourage crafting messages that promote virtuous and prosocial behavior.

Basically: just run the airwaves with a traditionalist message instead of an active libertine message.

Just do the opposite of what American TV does through our own domestic culture and broadasts today and that's sufficient enough of a response.