None.... yet.
Should we have to wait until after we have our rights taken away to speak up?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is RF officially ramsacked by the secular movement?
- Thread starter osgart
- Start date
None.... yet.
Should we have to wait until after we have our rights taken away to speak up?
Incorrect. That is guilty until proven innocent mindset. That is the problem we wish to get rid of.
Incorrect.
Again your mindset is guilty until proven innocent.
You are the one claiming that religion is making extraordinary claims, so that burden of proof is on you.
Okay, let's back up a step. It IS true that I'm assuming that critical thinking and the values that go along with it are implied. So if you're saying that the assumption of critical thinking is a bad assumption, then I would agree with you. Of course that would leave us unable to make much progress in any sort of discussion or human pursuit.
So, can we take critical thinking and its attendant values (e.g. evidence, logic, the joy of discovery, and parsimony), as givens in this discussion?
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
How is extremism anything to do with religion? They use the religion as a vehicle of hate.
I disagree. It increases the difficulty of making an argument is all. Which is the way it should. Mind you I am also arguing for scientific law and critical thinking at the same time. While this makes it more difficult for religious beliefs to be prosecuted. It also makes it more difficult for scientific laws to be prosecuted. Because anyone challenging a scientific law would need Scientific evidence - Wikipedia to support their argument.
Right now we have secularist using scientific law to prosecute religious beliefs, and religious people using religious beliefs to prosecute scientific law. This is the antithesis of debate.
What some of us want is a return to fair and honest debates.
So if a secularist wants to challenge a religious belief. They will have to work very hard to establish scripture that supports whatever their argument is.
And also
A religious person who prosecutes a scientific law would need to work very hard to establish some scientific evidence to support their argument against the scientific law they have chosen.
Yes they have.
Christians have long taken for granted right to persecute people.
From other flavors of Christianity to black people to female people to gay people, Christian people have been persecuting others for centuries.
That right has been seriously impinged upon in the last few decades, and Christians are very upset about it.
Tom
So I'll ask again:
Can we take critical thinking and its attendant values (e.g. evidence, logic, the joy of discovery, and parsimony), as givens in this discussion?
That was never a right to begin with. So it's ok that it is no longer acceptable. The only ones upset about that are the ones who abused it to begin with.
The answer was given in my last response to you.
It depends on the argument being made.
For arguments for or against scientific law, yes.
For argument for or against religious beliefs, no.
Vice president Mike Pence disagrees.
Not only did he spend years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to save my state from marriage equality, he then got some legislation passed protecting the right of religionists to discriminate, if the persecution was due to sincerely held religious beliefs.
Tom
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
Evidence found may be only a small part of a bigger picture. Then evidence is interpreted, with many different interpretations. Do we put evidence in neat boxes of our own world views, or do we subject our evidences to the conviction that they could be incomplete pictures.
People like to absolute the evidence into their own philosophies, and call that evidently done.
But the unknown is a far greater endeavour.
And with conclusions drawn, that ignore other possibilities, a narrow road is travelled, and many things construed as fact, that may be totally oblivious to what is really out there.
The existence of life is an extraordinary happening, that requires extraordinary explanation. We can hammer it down as a fluke byproduct of physical laws, but that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The logic of the religious person, is not the logic of secular society.
For the logic of the religious person often is intelligence must pre exist for intelligent life to become. That's bedrock for many religious.
Two contrary logics. Two completely different forms of thought and conviction.
And I haven't seen anyone refute that religious logic successfully.
But no one is going to hold the other sides standards.
So it's an eternal impasse. Why does it have to be bitter, as is sometimes the case?
People like to absolute the evidence into their own philosophies, and call that evidently done.
But the unknown is a far greater endeavour.
And with conclusions drawn, that ignore other possibilities, a narrow road is travelled, and many things construed as fact, that may be totally oblivious to what is really out there.
The existence of life is an extraordinary happening, that requires extraordinary explanation. We can hammer it down as a fluke byproduct of physical laws, but that leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The logic of the religious person, is not the logic of secular society.
For the logic of the religious person often is intelligence must pre exist for intelligent life to become. That's bedrock for many religious.
Two contrary logics. Two completely different forms of thought and conviction.
And I haven't seen anyone refute that religious logic successfully.
But no one is going to hold the other sides standards.
So it's an eternal impasse. Why does it have to be bitter, as is sometimes the case?
Obviously he is in the wrong. Which I am sure you agree with.
But do we agree that he's a Christian fighting for the rights of Christians?
The rights of Christians to persecute the way they have always done. Like that baker in Oregon?
Tom
How about for discussions in the "commons"? (I don't care what the religious believe in their own homes (aside from abuse and such)). Are you saying that religious beliefs must be viewed as first class ideas in public debate? Doesn't that lead to chaos and the collapse of civilization?
No
You don't agree with that fact either.
Because all Christians don't persecute.
This monoliths and vague generalizations is also something discussed in this topic. If you want to prosecute Pence then by all means go after him, but him alone. He does not speak for all Christians.
Not not necessarily. Anyone can scrutinize any idea, religious or not, freely and as much as they like. Expecting people to provide some evidence or citations to support that prosecution, rather than the defendant is a fair request.
Right now as it stands with the guilty until proven innocent stance in place. That is leading to the chaos and the collapse of civilization. This is evidenced by the chaotic neverending arguments on RF, and even in life outside of RF. Though people tend to be a bit more civil when anonymity is not there to protect them.
Sorry, but that is actually a very reckless generalization.
Then I am not sure that you disagree with me.
I think you are severely underestimating the true variety of the systems that are usually called religions. Some of them are far more repressive than any secular people could strive to be.
osgart
Nothing my eye, Something for sure
How do you define religion?
Kuzcotopia
If you can read this, you are as lucky as I am.
What are you worried about? Envision a future with a secular oppressive regime. . . What's it like? What can't you do that you do now?
I'm seriously curious . . . are you seeing some subtle shift in religious tolerance that requires you to speak out, citing specific ordinances and actions by a unified movement, or are you building a bomb shelter in the basement of your local church because your a paranoid loon with a persecution complex?
I'd certainly like to know if I'm about to continue a conservation with the former, or ignore the latter.
Either way, just for the record, there is no current persecution now. . . You have no evidence in your actual RL of such oppression going any farther than getting offended when someone says something negative on a anonymous message board and you not liking it? That is your basic position?
K.
I'd say that right now, society's tacit agreement is that all claims can be challenged. I don't think that's the same as saying "guilty until proven innocent". Do you think they are the same?