"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[Sera]

I imagine you're kidding (and I don't blame you for that), but you would know as well as most would that ignoring a problem does not make it vanish.

She's right. Admittedly I thought this guy was a troll (and he may well be) but that doesn't detract from the fact that he's distracted everyone from the topic of the thread. Christianity has nothing to do with the legal definition of marriage. They're not related topics.

[Jonny]

We really need to get the like/dislike buttons up in here.

[Drex]

I imagine you're kidding (and I don't blame you for that), but you would know as well as most would that ignoring a problem does not make it vanish.

No, I agree, and I agree he's in the wrong, but he made it clear around page 4 that he, like many Christians, cares more about what he believes to be true than what can be proven or is logical or objective. Trying to hold reasoned, logical discourse with someone who has admitted to rejecting reason and logic is just begging for circular discussions like this thread. Consequently, I imagine that also explains why he has had such a hard time conducting a reasonable discussion about his beliefs on bg: because he has rejected reason.

I just hope pointing out the problem with this whole conversation saves someone the trouble of joining in and piling on. Maybe he'll even read this post and realize what an ass he's being!

[Ryko]

Trying to hold reasoned, logical discourse with someone who has admitted to rejecting reason and logic is just begging for circular discussions like this thread.

Faith is not tantamount to rejecting reason, stubborn chest beating can happen regardless of your religious point of view. Those blanket statements are just as detrimental to fostering worthwhile discourse as anything they say.

[Kaylia]

No, I agree, and I agree he's in the wrong, but he made it clear around page 4 that he, like many Christians, cares more about what he believes to be true than what can be proven or is logical or objective. Trying to hold reasoned, logical discourse with someone who has admitted to rejecting reason and logic is just begging for circular discussions like this thread.

I didn't read anything before your post, nor do I intend to, but logic and beliefs are two different things that aren't mutually exclusive.

Trying to hold a "reasoned, logical discourse" when you don't understand the concepts of axioms (beliefs), and logic (reason) also lead to circular logic. You're basically trying to refute something using your own set of axioms when the other side use another.


[edit]
And I'm not agreeing with whatever he said, I would probably disagree with him as well.

[Odon]

So what I've gotten from this thread is that the Christians feel that the word Marriage is to Christians as the N-word is to black people.
It's their word. don't use it if your not one of em'

That about sums it up?

[Ashmada]

God created marriage, it has everything to do with God. If you choose not to believe that, fine, but it doesn't make it any less true.

How??? How can someone/thing create what predates it? Your god was created ~2000 years ago (though, tbh, most of it was created ~1900 years ago, for the first hundred years it was quite incomplete), marriage existed long before that. Cicero was married. Plato could've married (but didn't), ancient egyptians had marriage, and cultures that had very little prior contact with christians like native americans and pre-Meiji Japan had marriage.


Oh, and I'm still waiting on that evidence. Uzor helped you a great deal (he should've waited), but you still haven't come through.

[Ragnus]

We really need to get the like/dislike buttons up in here.

And be like Alla? Hell no. If someone writes something stupid or against the grain of the forum I want someone to call that person out on it. Not just hit "dislike" and never say anything.

[Dantrag]

What Ashmada said. The concept of marriage predates the Bible by thousands of years, and probably predates Judaism, which means people have been getting married since long before God revealed Himself. Not to mention that even after the advent of Judaism, cultures with no connection to or knowledge of the Hebrew God were still getting married.

Nothing to do with God. That part got stuck in the Bible because it was decided God (the Church) should make sure people were getting married for the "right" reasons.

Third, forth, fifth this statement. Shit has been around a lot longer than God has been "known".

[Drex]

Faith is not tantamount to rejecting reason, stubborn chest beating can happen regardless of your religious point of view. Those blanket statements are just as detrimental to fostering worthwhile discourse as anything they say.

Have you actually read his posts? I said many Christians, not all, so please don't try to pretend I'm pigeon-holing here. I don't think it's at all unreasonable to point out that many Christians don't bother to question their beliefs, and Moosey's made it clear he's one of them despite his claims to the contrary. Please don't tell me BG is going to try to be politically correct and argue that, because there are a handful of Christians who question their beliefs, anyone spouting bullshit like Moosey is needs to be humored for 10 pages+ to verify whether he is retarded or not when he made it obvious on page 4 that he does not care about the contradictions in his belief system.

You're basically trying to refute something using your own set of axioms when the other side use another.

I'm not trying to refute anything. I'm pointing out that others are and that it's pointless. He has non-falsifiable beliefs that he uses to justify his faith. It was pointed out to him much earlier in the thread and he doesn't care. At that point there's really nothing to be done except to go around in circles with each side reciting their viewpoint to the other and the other not acknowledging for a moment that they may be correct.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Faith is not tantamount to rejecting reason, stubborn chest beating can happen regardless of your religious point of view. Those blanket statements are just as detrimental to fostering worthwhile discourse as anything they say.

This. I'm Christian, and I have no problem at all holding an intelligent discussion. Partly because I admit the bible is fallible and don't try to use it in arguments. I (and most people in my church) look at it like a textbook. It was inspired by real events, but it was written by real people prone to exaggeration and mistakes... and then it was carefully edited by a governing body to weed out any unwanted truths. In modern society, most textbooks turn out about the same... but ancient society didn't have the benefit of widespread literacy to keep such governing bodies in check.

So, while there are nuggets of truth in the Bible, you need to filter it through something. We use our "common sense" and a general idea that God/Jesus loves us and wants us to succeed as a species. Anything that doesn't vibe with that was probably added later by a silly human looking for power, etc. It's not the most scientific of methods, but it serves us well and tbh, in matters of faith, at some point you have to be able to say "okay this doesn't quite all add up, but I get the picture" and believe anyway. That's why it's called faith. Some people reach that point a lot sooner than others, unfortunately.

For me, I look at faith like this: The universe is fucking amazing. I look at Dropping the Science on memebase every day because that stuff is awesome. I'm fascinated by everything. Nature is so incredibly complex, but functions as a system so perfectly. I look at that, and I think to myself that there HAS to be some sort of higher power responsible. It's just too amazing to have happened by chance. So I look to my church; Not for explanation, but for a way to express my awe in the world around me. I could be wrong, but none of us will know until we die or the resurrection happens, at which point we all get a second chance. So until then, it doesn't really matter too much what I believe. And frankly, in a lot of cases, I don't presume to know.

Edit: rephrasing some shit because I know people are going to misinterpret it.

[Greatguardian]

Anyone stupid enough to apply the beliefs of Moose or Egon to "all Christians" is fucking stupid.

It's easy enough to say "Moose and Egon are fucking retarded" without adding in any sort of generalization.

Moose, you're fucking retarded. Most of the people posting in this thread? You're fucking retarded, too.

Organized religion does a fine enough job of making itself look bad without your "help".

Oh, and shut the fuck up about "Logic". Logic is just the process by which one can take a set of premises and arrive at a particular conclusion or set of conclusions. Creationists and religious zealots don't need to "defy logic" in order to do anything. They just need to throw out premises they don't like and substitute premises that they do. That's perfectly sound logic. It's not true, but it's logically valid. They are completely different things.

Fucking fuck, religion threads just make everyone go full retard.

[Drex]

Anyone stupid enough to apply the beliefs of Moose or Egon to "all Christians" is fucking stupid.

It's easy enough to say "Moose and Egon are fucking retarded" without adding in any sort of generalization.

Moose, you're fucking retarded. Most of the people posting in this thread? You're fucking retarded, too.

Organized religion does a fine enough job of making itself look bad without your "help".

So making fun of organized religion is fine but not the people who unquestioningly center their lives about it? How can one be retarded but not the other? Isn't this just semantics to avoid hurt feelings? And who is it that keeps saying "all Christians" anything anyway? I said many personally, and most of the people in this thread were speaking to Moose directly.

Oh, and shut the fuck up about "Logic". Logic is just the process by which one can take a set of premises and arrive at a particular conclusion or set of conclusions. Creationists and religious zealots don't need to "defy logic" in order to do anything. They just need to throw out premises they don't like and substitute premises that they do. That's perfectly sound logic. It's not true, but it's logically valid. They are completely different things.

I haven't formally studied logic and reason in depth enough to discuss their academic definitions and go on a philosophical tangent about them, but if it's true that bad logic is still logic, fine. I amend my post to poorly reasoned. I was under the impression that analysis and evidence (or at least seeking evidence beyond an ancient book with an obvious bias) are an important part to being logical and well-reasoned. If that were the case, then it would be true that most Christians are rejecting reason by accepting God and the word of the Bible without investigating them further or seeking evidence beyond "well the Bible says so". Are you going to tell me I'm wrong that many Christians do not care to search for evidence of God or biblical events, but instead just take their communion and say their prayers because that's what makes them feel good? Many Christians, not all.

I know actual discussion hurts your head and straw-manning me into a stereotype is way easier, but say something of substance.

Fucking fuck, religion threads just make everyone go full retard.

Something I can agree with!

Please though, everyone, continue going around the yard with Moosey a few more times. I'm sure he'll see the light soon.

[Uzor]

I don't see what the fuss about gay marriage is. I can marry in Sweden, but I don't even want to. Because, quite honestly, I consider marriage to be a religious union, despite the laws and benefits included.

If you get the exact same benefits (I know you don't, but let's pretend you do) in a civil union as you do for a marriage, why complain? I don't see why it's so hard to respect the Christians "sanctity of marriage" if you can get all of the benefits withouth a marriage. Is it a matter of "But THEY have it, I want it too!!!"?

my parents are Atheist, and they didn't get married, they insisted in a civil union. If I ever decide to get married, I want a civil union too, not a marriage, even though gays are allowed to marry.

Why? Because marriage is traditionally religious imo, and since I'm not religious, I see no point in it.

I can honesty understand why you want to be allowed to marry, as the benefits you get from that are greater than through civil union, but if you get the same benefits, why bother?

[ronin sparthos]

Separate but equal.... why does that sound familiar...

[Dantrag]

I don't see what the fuss about gay marriage is. U can marry in Sweden, but I don't even want to. Because, quite honestly, I consider marriage to be a religious union, despite the laws and benefits included.

It makes a huge legal difference here in the US. Such as being able to make decisions for people in hospitals or visiting rights. And not to mention all the different things with children. In some states babies can't take the last name of their father if the mom and dad aren't married.

[Greatguardian]

So making fun of organized religion is fine but not the people who unquestioningly center their lives about it? How can one be retarded but not the other? Isn't this just semantics to avoid hurt feelings? And who is it that keeps saying "all Christians" anything anyway? I said many personally, and most of the people in this thread were speaking to Moose directly.

You don't need to make fun of organized religion, is my point. They do a fine enough job on their own. Bashing them just gives them more reason to troll around and play the victim card like Egon.

I haven't formally studied logic and reason in depth enough to discuss their academic definitions and go on a philosophical tangent about them, but if it's true that bad logic is still logic, fine. I amend my post to poorly reasoned. I was under the impression that analysis and evidence (or at least seeking evidence beyond an ancient book with an obvious bias) are an important part to being logical and well-reasoned. If that were the case, then it would be true that most Christians are rejecting reason by accepting God and the word of the Bible without investigating them further or seeking evidence beyond "well the Bible says so". Are you going to tell me I'm wrong that many Christians do not care to search for evidence of God or biblical events, but instead just take their communion and say their prayers because that's what makes them feel good? Many Christians, not all.

I know actual discussion hurts your head and straw-manning me into a stereotype is way easier, but say something of substance.

Then you don't understand logic. That's fine. Damn near everyone misuses the term so it's nothing new. Premises and conclusions don't have to be true to be logically valid. They're separate things. Evidence has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It has to do with establishing truth values.

Moose, and other Christians, are absolutely not rejecting Logic or Reasoning. They are rejecting truth. There is a huge difference. They are being perfectly logical when they make an assertion and derive its conclusion based on the premises that they want to hold. That is sound reasoning. That is valid logic. Atheists everywhere need to stop making themselves sound like dumbfucks by pulling the "logic" card. It only hurts their credibility.

Religion doesn't reject logic. Religion rejects truth and substitutes their own.

I will tell you that assuming what "many Christians" do is a matter of generalization, though. Generalization is never a good thing, and it's hardly necessary in these cases. Christianity is such a splintered religion at this point that it's damn near impossible to make any particular generalization about them and have it hold under scrutiny. Using individual cases presents a much stronger argument and is less open to defamation.

If you're going to get into a religious argument on the interwebz, at least do it right ffs.

[Jeryhn]

Premises and conclusions don't have to be true to be logically valid. They're separate things. Evidence has absolutely nothing to do with logic. It has to do with establishing truth values.

Pretty much this. Though he's got it slightly wrong on what "sound" reasoning is considered (the premises have to be in fact true, and lead to an in fact true conclusion, not just meet logical necessity), GG has logic nailed down.

[Drex]

You don't need to make fun of organized religion, is my point. They do a fine enough job on their own. Bashing them just gives them more reason to troll around and play the victim card like Egon.

My point was that your post made fun of organized religion while saying it's wrong of anyone to point out that basing your life around organized religion is a terrible way to live. I don't really see the difference in our viewpoints other than a semantics argument about the definitions of logic and reason, and a misplaced straw man where you thought I said all Christians when I said many. I don't see how it's "never a good thing" to point out that many Christians don't question their beliefs when it's the central source of one of the greatest divides in our country. Sure, it's true of other religions and non-religious folk too, but are we really going to get so politically correct that we demand every statement be qualified with a laundry list of caveats?

[Kaylia]

I'm not trying to refute anything. I'm pointing out that others are and that it's pointless. He has non-falsifiable beliefs that he uses to justify his faith. It was pointed out to him much earlier in the thread and he doesn't care. At that point there's really nothing to be done except to go around in circles with each side reciting their viewpoint to the other and the other not acknowledging for a moment that they may be correct.

Beliefs are by definition non falsifiable, it's a premise you assume to be true. Like I said previously, it's just one more parameters you have to deal with when you use logic, and as long they are logically consistent with the rest, there is no fundamental issue.


I agree with you when you say that arguing is pointless when both side simply recite their beliefs (or base their arguments on them), but that's pretty much every arguments in mankind history.