Religious Insensitivity

[A Vestigial Mote]

But your beliefs about God are no more 'evidenced fact!', than any theists. You have a belief about the nature of the universe. Others have different beliefs. How can you ridicule other's beliefs, when yours are no different?

My beliefs that you claim are "like yours" are different in this particular way - I have no certainty regarding them as actually "knowledge", and I don't ever pretend to. I don't call them "truth" like YOU do (and have even in this particular thread). I don't imply that they are anything more than belief and I don't tell people they are denying some "Truth" by not believing as I do. Here are some of my beliefs that I recognize are only belief and are completely up for debate, further inquiry, scrutiny and revision:

1. Consciousness is a property of the body (specifically the brain), and is in charge of keeping the colony of trillions of living cells (that is "the body") fed and out of harms way.
2. No gods exist
3. The universe is cyclical, and the last "big bang" was merely one in a long procession of cycles of contraction and expansion, due to some cosmic-scale "critical mass" event which is reached when a mass (starting as a black hole) becomes too overly dense and some insane-scale chain reaction causes it to explode back outward.

And here are some of my beliefs that are not up for debate, and for which evidence is too clearly present for there to be much (if any) room for error:

1. Gravity is an automatic force present between any two masses.
2. If I have two apples, and I add two apples to the "pile", I now have 4 apples.
3. I am a living being within a very large universe, and I am not the only one.

See how that works? There is, most certainly, a sliding-scale of certainty we can have about our beliefs. When the majority of the evidence points in favor of some idea, then we can be fairly certain, or almost absolutely certain about those ideas. When the evidence does not point in favor of the idea, or is entirely lacking, then that is in area in which claiming certainty is irrational.

Straw man. Nobody is trying to legislate 'Christianity!' ..as the Official State Religion. That's the progressive schtick.

YOU'RE the one who just built a "strawman" with this very statement. I never said anyone was trying to make the U.S. a theocracy with Christianity at the helm did I? And this is precisely where the dishonesty of so many theists just shines through. I said that people attempt to legislate Christian principles. They use their religion to inform them on topics like gay marriage, and then attempt to make sure that people can't "go against" their religious doctrine. This is simple fact, and has been seen time and time again with subjects like evolution being taught in schools, abortion and even slavery, historically.

Progressives, however, do all these things. Mandates, legislation, courts. ..to ban competing ideas and force homogeneity of belief..

If you mean trying to get everyone to stick with secular ideals and discourse in the public sphere, then yes, they do that.

You mean they want to impose the majority view of morality on everyone else? Isn't that what collective legislation is? But the Constitution protects us from the state establishing any religious beliefs.. which is why Progressivism and atheistic naturalism gets a pass..

Rational examination of the FACTS surrounding moral issues is what should, most certainly be used to drive forward legislation. People being able to BACK UP THEIR ASSERTIONS AND IDEALS WITH FACTS AND EVIDENCE. And what should not ever drive a collective legislative body is any sort of religiously-driven idea that can only point back to doctrine or "what God thinks."

Now, now.. you were doing so well.. sticking to critiquing ideology, and avoiding ad hom.

Calling you a hypocrite isn't ad hominem if it is a fact. Or were you talking about the "bathe your feet" part? Either way... pointing out someone is being hypocritical isn't ad hominem. If the character fault is relevant to the argument at hand, then it isn't an "attack." The "bathe the feet" thing was me being a bit more dramatic about it, sure, but the point still stands, I see you being hypocritical by calling out "ridicule" as something bad or that shouldn't be used.

Bathe my feet? You think i expect accolades and respect?

You apparently think people should be "nice" to your beliefs. That's not expecting respect?

I EXPECT mocking, ridicule, and fallacies, from progressive indoctrinees, because that is almost ALWAYS what i get.

If that is the expectation, then why are you complaining? Or is it that you simply desire that it wasn't the case, but your expectations remain realistic? I'll grant you that. But do you think I expect anything spectacular out of theists with my experience?

I point it out, from time to time, but i do not expect it to change, and i expect (and give) no quarter. You want a debate with me, bring it, but you better have some reason.. fallacies won't cut it with me, and lame ad hominem is a deathbed confession of defeat.

Do you realize you come back to me with not one shred of decent argumentation? Please point to me where you have brought "reason" free of "fallacy" to the table. You're not even really taking on most of my points. You're just responding to what you feel like and trying to point out my deficiencies! You can not just tear down the opposition and expect that you've proved your case. I've given example after example of how religious thinking is acceptance of something for which there is no evidential warrant, and you have remained completely silent on this - instead preferring to attack some caricature of me, or try and discredit me due to other words that don't have much to do with the actual argument at hand.

/shakes head/ ..hypocrisy.. you think i shrink from controversy, or the hostile bigotry from these anti-christian pretenders?

You don't necessarily back down, but the armaments you bring to the table are absolute garbage.

Lob your ad hom grenades all you want. I'll just pull the pins and lob them back..

Seems to me more like the grenade exploded in your face, and the "weapon" you come back to the battle with is your tear-streaked face which you hope will garner some sympathy. The cross you seem to feel you bear is being dragged behind you like a ball and chain. (Now you can feel free to claim ad hominem)

Exactly. There are no facts to justify your belief.. it is a conclusion based on life factors:

And what "belief" are we talking about here? I already noted above that I do not to claim that my belief that "there are no gods" is a certain endeavor, and is completely open to revision if/when some actual compelling evidence is produced. Otherwise, I have no certain belief about God. All I do is tell you that I don't believe you when you make your claim. Because I don't. I don't believe you. Exactly like you wouldn't believe me if I told you that I knew of a place that unicorns gather in Colorado. You'd need some evidence before it made any sense to believe, right? Right?

Many factors combine to mold a worldview in a person. 'Absolute Facts', are seldom factors in that list.

I agree. But again, there are real-world items that can be measured, investigated, examined, and real world data that we can use to make educated guesses. With "God" and even with "Religion" we have nothing to go by when making things like moral judgments except what someone else says.

Just because you want to legislate YOUR philosophical beliefs on everyone else, does not mean others do. I know of no Christians who want to force belief in any tenets of Christianity.. unlike progressives, who use legislation and the courts CONSTANTLY to mandate their beliefs.

Again, I don't have a belief that I am trying to get anyone to accept. I have a lack of belief that I am trying to get everyone to see is completely warranted. And I want them to accept that, if we are ever to be fair to one another, with all the disparate beliefs out there that everyone holds, then we have to stick to reasoned arguments and evidence - things that can be demonstrated in reality - in order to drive forward our societies and culture. We cannot allow people to use their religion or religious tenets to steer their thinking. It isn't fair to any other human being to simply allow this to happen.

I don't wonder at all. It is because of religious bigotry, from an intolerant, State mandated worldview.

This is you simply strawmanning what is actually "state mandated." "The State" is forced to understand exactly what I wrote above. People's religions should NOT be allowed to influence or drive legislation that is enacted on the entire population of a place.

I'm surprised (and grateful) that we (Christians) had the freedom and respect as long as we did.

And what freedoms do you no longer have? You can still practice your religion, you can still praise your God. you can still gather, you can still pat one another on the back for being "good, God-fearing Christians." The things you can't do are inform public opinion with religion-based evidence, and you can't inform legislation with religion-based evidence, and you can't gather publicly with the purpose of telling them their beliefs are wrong or that Christianity is the "right way" with religion-based evidence, and you can't decide what gets taught to other people's children in school with only religion-based evidence. In other words... the only thing you cannot do now is "AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES WITH ONLY RELIGION-BASED EVIDENCE." You do not have the freedom to do that, no. And since that's the only thing you've truly lost, apparently you think you SHOULD be allowed to do those things - otherwise you wouldn't be complaining that you have "lost" so much. Seriously, if you answer no other question or point in this post, please, TELL ME WHAT FREEDOM YOU HAVE LOST.

Ah, you mean 'morality' should be a majority consensus? ..seems reasonable. Yes, that is the appeal of despotism.. they keep the trains on time.

If this was said sarcastically, then am I to assume that you actually advocate for the opposite? That is - that morality should be formulated by a minority? Maybe God - the ultimate minority?

Do you expect others to NOT believe in God, because that is your belief?

Believe in God all you want... just KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

 

[usfan]

Believe in God all you want... just KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

Do as you say, not as you do? Who is the real hypocrite here?


Your ad hom laced screeds do not intimidate me.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Do as you say, not as you do? Who is the real hypocrite here?


Your ad hom laced screeds do not intimidate me.

I am now only asking you for your support of the statement made that you, as a Christian, have lost freedoms.

Can you tell me what freedoms you feel Christians, specifically, have lost?

 

[usfan]

I am now only asking you for your support of the statement made that you, as a Christian, have lost freedoms.
Can you tell me what freedoms you feel Christians, specifically, have lost?

Straw man. Where have i ever said such a thing?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Straw man. Where have i ever said such a thing?

And now I have you... caught in a trap of your own design and making:

I don't wonder at all. It is because of religious bigotry, from an intolerant, State mandated worldview.

I'm surprised (and grateful) that we (Christians) had the freedom and respect as long as we did. It is not typical in human history, and I'm sure we'll be back to Normal Human bigotry, intolerance, and anti-christian persecution very soon. I see the constant propaganda streams against 'the evil Christians!!' .. and suspect the cleansing to resume.. perhaps in my lifetime.. perhaps not..

Note the bolded part in red above. I kept some context to make absolutely sure you couldn't claim I took the comment out of context.

Note the specific use of past tense. "had the freedom and respect as long as we did" Meaning you obviously don't feel you have this "freedom" or "respect" anymore. I will grant you the "respect" part, because I can certainly understand where you might feel disrespected. But I want to focus on the "freedom" part. This obviously (so very, very obviously) implies that you feel Christian freedoms have been cut in some way. And I am simply asking you: what freedoms might those be?

P.S. Note that there is a tiny arrow, which is a hyperlink, next to the "usfan said:" above the quote. Clicking that arrow will take you directly to the post that you made that contains the language I quoted above, just in case you want to verify for your self what you said... or as the case may be (since you flat out denied that you said anything like this), let slip.

 

[usfan]

And now I have you... caught in a trap of your own design and making:

Yes, i said that. You got me. Your 'gotcha!' moment has come at last!

Note the specific use of past tense. "had the freedom and respect as long as we did" Meaning you obviously don't feel you have this "freedom" or "respect" anymore. I will grant you the "respect" part, because I can certainly understand where you might feel disrespected. But I want to focus on the "freedom" part. This obviously (so very, very obviously) implies that you feel Christian freedoms have been cut in some way. And I am simply asking you: what freedoms might those be?

I forgot this because i don't usually carry on about dwindling freedoms, and didn't remember including that word in a post that was mostly about something else.

But since you brought it up (or i did!), there actually have been dwindling freedoms for Christians, and all humans, under the blight of Progressivism.

1. No more acknowledging God in schools.
2. Banning of teaching creationism as a theory of origins. Atheistic naturalism exclusively.
3. Crosses, nativity scenes, and other cultural religious expressions forcibly removed by court order.
4. The freedom to live rescinded from unborn children.

That's a few.. sorry i forgot including 'freedoms' in my rant. But it is a good reminder of the insidious direction that Progressivism is driving us.. away from freedom, tolerance, and Enlightenment, back to the dark ages..

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

1. No more acknowledging God in schools.
2. Banning of teaching creationism as a theory of origins. Atheistic naturalism exclusively.
3. Crosses, nativity scenes, and other cultural religious expressions forcibly removed by court order.
4. The freedom to live rescinded from unborn children.

I consider all those good things. But then again, I've always been pro-choice.

 

[usfan]

Believe in God all you want... just KEEP IT TO YOURSELF.

I guess this is the 'unforgivable sin', in Progresso World. . for now. Homogeneity of belief is not mandated.. yet.. As long as Christians, 'keep it to themselves', and do not express their faith publicly, progressives don't mind their beliefs.

That seems to be the problem, here. I'm reminded of this quote, and apply it to freedom of conscience, and specifically Christianity.

“Liberals claim to give a hearing to other views, but are shocked and offended to discover there are other views.” ~William F. Buckley, Jr.

..but i think i will fade from this discussion, and the forum in general. I am not interested in an echo chamber of agreement, but neither a lion's den of anti-christian hostility. The intensity of the anti-christian sentiment here is surprising.. shocking, in fact, and it is more than my dainty disposition can bear.

 

[usfan]

I consider all those good things. But then again, I've always been pro-choice.

My point is made. Progressive ideology has been successful in curtailing freedoms previously held, and has indoctrinated their values from infancy into a pliable citizenry.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, i said that. You got me. Your 'gotcha!' moment has come at last!

I forgot this because i don't usually carry on about dwindling freedoms, and didn't remember including that word in a post that was mostly about something else.

I figured your list below were some of the things in your mind as you wrote "freedoms". And I honestly thought that when I called you out on it that you'd be too embarrassed to try and argue some of the below as actual "freedoms lost" when, in actuality, these items were only ever Christians infringing on other people's freedoms. And I will explain why for each point.

1. No more acknowledging God in schools.

As I am sure has been pointed out to you many, many multiple times (I wonder why you haven't gotten it yet?), a public school is not filled to the brim with "good little Christian boys and girls" - it is instead comprised of kids who have been brought up in a variety of faiths and belief systems. If you allow the invoking of your "God" within schools, then you also must allow the invoking of everyone else's God as well, and Christian children must then also be exposed to "Vishnu", possibly even "Thor", or how about "Satan?" Wouldn't that be fun for them? To have to join in praising Satan's good name? Ultimate point being, the easiest and most expedient way to reach "fairness" is to PROHIBIT ALL OF IT. Done. It cannot be rationally argued otherwise. Again - I know you have heard this, and I would dare say you have probably never successfully refuted the point. Which means your trotting it out yet again, hoping someone, somewhere has never heard these rationalizations so you can try and win them over to "your side" is entirely dishonest.

2. Banning of teaching creationism as a theory of origins. Atheistic naturalism exclusively.

Once again here, your religion's creation story is not the only creation story. Do you get that? Why wouldn't we necessarily want to include all the creation stories of (at the very least) all religions represented by the students in the class? Would you want your Christian son/daughter to be exposed to another religion's creation story, and have them then question why you told them that the story you told them was "the truth?" Which story is right? Do you think those kids wouldn't wonder? Evolution is a completely religion-free, fact-based scientific model, that doesn't have anything to do with atheism (as much as you would like assert to the contrary, you are DEAD WRONG about this), and doesn't have anything to do with the origins of life. There is a plethora of observable evidence and most importantly - its principles and teachings can actually be applied to practical areas of vocation - such as in the medical/pharmaceutical/genetic fields. And I would heartily challenge you to name ONE practical benefit that knowledge of the creation story offers ANYONE. I can't think of a single thing outside of learning it in order to teach others about it... which itself if useless.

3. Crosses, nativity scenes, and other cultural religious expressions forcibly removed by court order.

Here again (as I am sure you have heard/read/had-explained-to-you), our "public" is not comprised entirely of Christians. If you allow one religion's imagery to be present on government property, then by all things fair you must allow others to represent their religions also. All of these are cases in which the goal is NOT that your freedoms as a Christian be restricted - but that NO ONE ELSE has to feel that they are being restricted because they don't get to do the same things that Christians do, or they don't feel as well represented by their government as you do. It is only fair. I would challenge you to come up with valid argumentation as to how it is more fair to everyone to allow Christian imagery to adorn government buildings while turning others away. And, honestly, there was a recent case in which a government building in some town did attempt to cater to everyone, and allowed all sorts of statues, signage and displays to be put up. And do you know what? It got out of control. And so what is easiest, most fair and most expedient? To disallow any of it. Period.

4. The freedom to live rescinded from unborn children.

This last is a purposeful mischaracterization of the situation. No one throws their abortion in your face. No one comes knocking on your door to let you know they just had an abortion. For all intents and purposes, you do "live rescinded from unborn children." There are plenty of other things that happen behind closed doors, but with your full knowledge, that you would consider sordid and terrible that you have probably never considered an infringement on your freedoms. For example, parents who beat or abuse their children - this happens every day, but have you ever considered that people beating their children is them taking away your freedom to "live rescinded from abused children?" If you've never thought about child abuse in that way, then why does abortion get a special place for such thoughts? By this I am not saying that you should "consider the abused children" before you take up arms against abortion. But what I am getting at is that you use some different lens to view abortion through than you do child abuse - and it would probably be helpful for you to examine why that is. There is also the issue of bodily autonomy for all individuals, which is too deep a topic to worry about here - but suffice it to say that we attempt to limit how much we infringe on people's right to do what they think is right for their physical/mental/emotional health situation.

That's a few.. sorry i forgot including 'freedoms' in my rant. But it is a good reminder of the insidious direction that Progressivism is driving us.. away from freedom, tolerance, and Enlightenment, back to the dark ages..

Interesting that what society might deem progress can be characterized by some as our being plunged into the "dark ages." And sort of ridiculous to lump all of the progress Christians try to thwart into that bucket. Like gay marriage. Do you think they allowed gay marriage in "the dark ages?" Or is that a pretty new idea on how society should treat all its members more fairly, and allow the same rights for any two couples wanting to join themselves in that lawfully-recognized way? I (and many others) will always label our society making its way out from under irrational, "this-is-what-God-wants-but-I-can't-really-be-arsed-to-defend-it-any-other-way" idiocy as progress. Making our way toward something better.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I guess this is the 'unforgivable sin', in Progresso World. . for now. Homogeneity of belief is not mandated.. yet.. As long as Christians, 'keep it to themselves', and do not express their faith publicly, progressives don't mind their beliefs.

And this is where you just keep going off the rails. Atheists can't possibly be looking to get to mandated "Homogeneity of belief." How can you not get this? Again - I am quite sure it has been explained to you a great many times. Atheists only don't believe in gods. Other than that, we don't have prescribed beliefs. None of us need be the same as any other. There are atheists who believe in spirits and ghosts. Atheists who are conspiracy theorists. Atheists who are pro-choice or pro-life. They can be anything. And, because we atheists understand this (something theists can't seem to grasp to save their lives), there is an understanding that people are going to differ on topics. What we tend to advocate for is that there be more justification for any position than "God says so." That kind of justification JUST ISN'T GOING TO FLY. It's garbage. It's worthless. It means nothing.

..but i think i will fade from this discussion, and the forum in general. I am not interested in an echo chamber of agreement, but neither a lion's den of anti-christian hostility. The intensity of the anti-christian sentiment here is surprising.. shocking, in fact, and it is more than my dainty disposition can bear.

You won't hear an argument from me on your leaving or the idea that your disposition is "dainty." You have my whole-hearted support on both accounts. Just please try to stop thrusting forward your strawmen in every single post, and actually read what people reply to you with. I think those two things are why you experience such "hostility." You're just extremely obstinate and you seem to readily ignore facts as it suits you in every conversation I have had with you.

 

[usfan]

Interesting that what society might deem progress can be characterized by some as our being plunged into the "dark ages."

Oh, no.. i think these things are very progressive. It is just coincidental that they are similar to dark ages practices. Elitism, cheapness of human life, subservience, mandated belief, mandated science.. all very 'dark ages', imo..

 

[usfan]

Just please try to stop thrusting forward your strawmen in every single post, and actually read what people reply to you with. I think those two things are why you experience such "hostility." You're just extremely obstinate and you seem to readily ignore facts as it suits you in every conversation I have had with you.

Right. To please you, i should just keep my opinions to myself.. then you would approve?

LOL!

Your distortions and bullying don't intimidate me. I may fade from these absurd caricatures of 'Reason!', but not from intimidation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oh, no.. i think these things are very progressive. It is just coincidental that they are similar to dark ages practices. Elitism, cheapness of human life, subservience, mandated belief, mandated science.. all very 'dark ages', imo..

Nothing is being mandated. Your views are just the ones being ridiculed now, rather than the other way around, as it used to be. You, and many others of your mindset, are stuck on the idea that you don't need reasoned facts and evidence to argue your case... that all you need to do is assert that "it is what God wants" and everyone should just bow to these whims as if what God wants should necessarily be of some great importance to everyone.

Meanwhile, "the other side" is all about justifying their positions with reason and logical discourse. If "what God wants" happens to match up to the "best" things we can do in an area to make sure everything is fair and equitable, so be it. But at least we didn't dictate our behavior in that area based on "what God wants," but rather by examining the facts, data and making observations and recommendations for the positions held.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Right. To please you, i should just keep my opinions to myself.. then you would approve?

LOL!

Your distortions and bullying don't intimidate me. I may fade from these absurd caricatures of 'Reason!', but not from intimidation.

If your opinions are mostly come to by conversations you've had with God, or things you've read out of a 2,000+ year old text, then yes, you may as well keep them to yourself.

If, however, you can come to the table with facts, evidence, reasoned arguments, or things the vast majority can be sympathetic to or relate with, as to why your positions are superior, and represent (to the best of your knowledge) a best case scenario for the country's wide and varied population, then, by all means, present your opinions and their justifications.

 

[usfan]

You, and many others of your mindset, are stuck on the idea that you don't need reasoned facts and evidence to argue your case... that all you need to do is assert that "it is what God wants" and everyone should just bow to these whims as if what God wants should necessarily be of some great importance to everyone.

I'll once again ask you to source your accusation. Where have i argued ANYTHING about "what God wants!?'

You can seize another 'gotcha!' moment, or admit to a strawman..

Reason? ROFL!! Since when do progressive indoctrinees use reason? Ad hom, straw men, assertions, distortions, false accusations.. yes, but reason?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Reason? ROFL!! Since when do progressive indoctrinees use reason?

I prefer Inference.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

If your opinions are mostly come to by conversations you've had with God, or things you've read out of a 2,000+ year old text, then yes, you may as well keep them to yourself.

I'll once again ask you to source your accusation. Where have i argued ANYTHING about "what God wants!?'

You can seize another 'gotcha!' moment, or admit to a strawman..

Reason? ROFL!! Since when do progressive indoctrinees use reason? Ad hom, straw men, assertions, distortions, false accusations.. yes, but reason?

Okay... give me your secular justification as to why abortion (which you did allude to, let's not kid ourselves with the "freedom to live rescinded" nonsense) should be entirely illegal, and I could then give you the alternative arguments as to why it shouldn't be. Better yet - give me the secularly justified reasons why you should be allowed to put up Christian monuments in lieu of everyone else of different faiths doing the same.

And how in the world do you think I am producing strawmen arguments and that YOU AREN'T? Even if some of my points are strawmen, and you were to make me aware of how ignorant I was being, your assertions against atheism are almost entirely strawmen - they don't even resemble the facts of the position AT ALL. And I have, time and again, post after post, given you the reasoning behind this. Explaining to you why you are in error. And yet you persist, and don't bring any reasons as to why my arguments are "strawmen." Except to keep asserting that they are. I do admit that maybe you haven't been on the "let's follow what God says" mode of debate directly, but you're definitely arguing for Christian principles... and God is the head of that organization. Again... let's not kid ourselves.

 

[dybmh]

I prefer Inference.

Here's a picture of a train derailed

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Here's a picture of a train derailed

This picture is now entirely on-topic.