"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[Greatguardian]

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?

1) My original post had nothing to do with you in particular and more to do with the trend that this thread has been following since page 3.

2) My post was also not directed at Moose at all, nor did I say anything about it being "wrong", "immoral", or "not PC" to heckle Christians or other religious groups. It's just stupid.

3) To stop asking questions is to lose a piece of what makes us human. Religious people still ask questions. They just ask different questions, to different people, and receive different answers. You highly underestimate religious thought.

4) Stupid people are stupid and it has nothing to do with whether they're religious or not. Take off the rose tinted glasses for a moment and you'll see that Atheism and Agnosticism attract just as many absolute fucking retards as Protestantism and Scientology on a relative scale.

[archibaldcrane]

full retard switch is in the on position in here

[Melena]

So marriage is between a man, woman, and god? I must not be married then with the whole wife being agnostic and me being atheist. Guess we're fucked.

[archibaldcrane]

So marriage is between a man, woman, and god? I must not be married then with the whole wife being agnostic and me being atheist. Guess we're fucked.

right, in moosey's eyes, you're not married.

you're legally married, but not MARRIED married.

the distinction may seem stupid, but it's not particularly complicated semantics. given that moosey has said he doesn't have a problem with gay people being legally married, the fact this thread continues unabated is pretty hilarious

[Milkster]

Almost 140k has been raised when the movie only needed 150k to be made, with over 6 weeks left of being able to donate.

[Milkster]

Don't know how this became so far off topic.

[bechyni]

So what if one Christian and one Atheist gets married? Is it half a marriage?

[Mazmaz]

Is the movie just gonna be taking a bunch of clips and pasting them together like the youtube video?

[Eurell]

Obviously neither of them are christian, proven by how they act against God by trying to enter a covenant with a nonbeliever




Jesus Christ, as sarcastic as I tried to be, that totally sounds like it could be the real answer lol

[Uzor]

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.

I know that, and that's why I said "If, theoretically, they gave the same rights, why would you want to marry?"

[archibaldcrane]

Don't know how this became so far off topic.

to be fair i never watched the op video

[Ashmada]

Why isn't Moosey sharing his evidence on jesus' miracles? Come on, Moosey, we're rational people, here: if your evidence is solid, you'll easily win many converts!

[Psion]

I know that, and that's why I said "If, theoretically, they gave the same rights, why would you want to marry?"

Because marriage isn't just a status, its a symbol as well. Husband and wife, married, they carry meanings that everyone understands and views in a positive light.

But civil unions? "hey guys, this is Steve, my partner." "oh, you guys started your own company?" ::awkward silence:: "no, we're civil unioned."

Yeah, it just doesn't flow, it's awkward, and it separates it into two classes, one with full rights and a status that everyone understands and views as sacred, the other which would give full rights in your universe, but with words and a status that no one normally associates with love. And civil union is four syllables dammit, that's twice as much as marriage! D:

[ronin sparthos]

Because marriage isn't just a status, its a symbol as well. Husband and wife, married, they carry meanings that everyone understands and views in a positive light.

But civil unions? "hey guys, this is Steve, my partner." "oh, you guys started your own company?" ::awkward silence:: "no, we're civil unioned."

Yeah, it just doesn't flow, it's awkward, and it separates it into two classes, one with full rights and a status that everyone understands and views as sacred, the other which would give full rights in your universe, but with words and a status that no one normally associates with love. And civil union is four syllables dammit, that's twice as much as marriage! D:

Like I said before its the old separate but equal tactic used by segregation advocates way back when retread for this marriage debate.

"Oh you're getting the same education, we just can't have the two races mix because it goes against the natural order of things."
"Why can't you guys just accept the civil unions? It's the same thing as a marriage but marriage is a religious ceremony so no gays4u."

How about we call out bigots for being bigots instead. Marriage predates the christian religion along with homosexuality so for a bunch of whippersnapper religions to hijack the concept and call it their creation is false in addition to the idea of goading people into an inferior form of marriage.

[Blarg]

I'd like to see marriage being disallowed from people who have been divorced before because that is pretty obviously against the sanctity of marriage. Only christians too, how can a non christian undergo a pact with god? Also, only the non false christian denominations. So only people from the major christian denominations who haven't been divorced before should get marriages because the sanctity of marriage is very important to me.

[Kaylia]

I'd like to see marriage being disallowed from people who have been divorced before because that is pretty obviously against the sanctity of marriage. Only christians too, how can a non christian undergo a pact with god? Also, only the non false christian denominations. So only people from the major christian denominations who haven't been divorced before should get marriages because the sanctity of marriage is very important to me.

That's exactly how it work. You can only be married once if you're christian...

The only exception is when one of them die ("till death do us part") or if the Church actually break it, but it's extremely rare (usually when one of the partner commit a crime or w/e).

[Ragnus]

Y'all postin' in a troll thread.

Trying to talk Moosey out of what he's saying is true is about as effective as him trying to convince you guys that he's right.

[Kellanved]

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.



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.

I take issue with this post and in support of Drex’s position I will state that, strictly speaking, Reason is not Logic. Though the terms are often used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference. While you accuse Drex of not understanding the term Logic, you misunderstand it as well. Logic is concerned primarily with form. What Drex was obviously getting at is Reason.

Reason is the application of Logic to experience (observation). Obviously there are two critical components, the experience and the logic. (Which of the two do you suppose is more useful?) Faith demands that conclusion be accepted without experience.

Moose (Whom I believe is trolling. Although, I’ve never actually bother to accuse anyone on a forum of trolling, but it seems to me that anyone who attempts to Reason from their belief in god must be trolling. The two are simply incompatible) and any other Christians that accepts similar conclusions are in fact rejecting Reason. A conclusion may be Logical without being Reasonable.

While you use the term “Truth” to describe what the religious (in this case Christians) are rejecting, Truth however is not what Drex’s post addressed. Truth is the conclusion, the end point. The process by which that conclusion is reached is what is at issue. As previously indicated, sound reasoning requires more than logic.

Anyone can state a conclusion. The important part is the process by which a conclusion is reached. This is what determines “Truth Value” as you put it. That is what is ultimately relevant.

It is curious that this particular exchange with moose got this far at all. From his initial posts, the conversation should have ended in 1-2 exchanges.

The fundamental concept of religion (i.e. Christianity) is based on faith. The doctrine requires Faith, the asking of questions, the seeking of truth and/or confirmation is expressly forbidden.

Faith is to accept without confirmation, without Reason.

Faith is antithetical to Reason. Where one is present the other cannot be. The retardation commences when someone comes along to argue that their Faith (i.e. god) is supported by Reason and then attempts to reach other conclusions through Reasoning fundamentally based on Faith. The moment a conclusion is reached based on Faith, Reason is no longer involved.

[Greatguardian]

I take issue with this post and in support of Drex’s position I will state that, strictly speaking, Reason is not Logic. Though the terms are often used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference. While you accuse Drex of not understanding the term Logic, you misunderstand it as well. Logic is concerned primarily with form. What Drex was obviously getting at is Reason.

Reason is the application of Logic to experience (observation). Obviously there are two critical components, the experience and the logic. (Which of the two do you suppose is more useful?) Faith demands that conclusion be accepted without experience.

Moose (Whom I believe is trolling. Although, I’ve never actually bother to accuse anyone on a forum of trolling, but it seems to me that anyone who attempts to Reason from their belief in god must be trolling. The two are simply incompatible) and any other Christians that accepts similar conclusions are in fact rejecting Reason. A conclusion may be Logical without being Reasonable.

While you use the term “Truth” to describe what the religious (in this case Christians) are rejecting, Truth however is not what Drex’s post addressed. Truth is the conclusion, the end point. The process by which that conclusion is reached is what is at issue. As previously indicated, sound reasoning requires more than logic.

Anyone can state a conclusion. The important part is the process by which a conclusion is reached. This is what determines “Truth Value” as you put it. That is what is ultimately relevant.

It is curious that this particular exchange with moose got this far at all. From his initial posts, the conversation should have ended in 1-2 exchanges.

The fundamental concept of religion (i.e. Christianity) is based on faith. The doctrine requires Faith, the asking of questions, the seeking of truth and/or confirmation is expressly forbidden.

Faith is to accept without confirmation, without Reason.

Faith is antithetical to Reason. Where one is present the other cannot be. The retardation commences when someone comes along to argue that their Faith (i.e. god) is supported by Reason and then attempts to reach other conclusions through Reasoning fundamentally based on Faith. The moment a conclusion is reached based on Faith, Reason is no longer involved.

While I agree to a certain extent, I think you're misunderstanding some of the most basic facets of predicate logic. Truth and experience have nothing to do with the conclusion, the premises, or even the process by which one derives the conclusion from the stated premises.

The most important fact which was meant to be gleaned from my posts was that something can be logically valid and still wrong/untrue. It is perfectly acceptable to state any conclusion you want and then logically derive said conclusion with the application of certain premises. If I want to logically derive the conclusion that the Earth is 6,000 years old, I can do that as long as I have the proper premises.

The problem with predicate logic is that the realm of discourse can be any possible Universe. No conclusion reached through logic alone can be accepted as true in our universe unless the premises by which it is reached are also accepted as true in our universe. Therein lies the problem, as theological proofs essentially become a tautology. If you believe in God, then God exists. If you do not, then he does not.

I'm not talking about Faith or evidence. I'm talking about logical deduction and logical induction. Logical derivation of conclusions from a set of given premises. As long as a conclusion is true in any universe where all given premises are also true, then the conclusion is logically valid. If Drex wants to talk about Reason, that's fine. If he wants to talk about how the premises used to arrive at said conclusions are bullshit, that's fine. But I will still facepalm any time I see people accusing the religious of ignoring Logic. They aren't ignoring Logic. They are ignoring certain premises while substituting others in order to logically derive the conclusion they want. The logic in that derivation is perfectly valid. It's simply an irrelevant conclusion in this universe because the given premises are, in fact, not true.

I am not sitting here trying to support religion. I am no fan of it at all. However, if people are going to rag on it I would prefer it be done with all the facts straight. People claiming that the religious don't understand logic are one of my biggest pet peeves - worse are those who do so while implying or asserting that the religious are uneducated or stupid. Nothing reeks of greater hypocrisy than accusing people of being uneducated while lacking even a basic understanding of the very thing they're being called out on.

[Kellanved]

While I agree to a certain extent, I think you're misunderstanding some of the most basic facets of predicate logic.

I don’t understand how you managed to arrive at this conclusion based on my post. I clearly distinguished between the formal Logic you’re addressing and what I claim to be the subject at issue. I do not disagree with your characterization of Logic, further, Kaylia and Jeryhn previously expanded upon it. I simply pointed out that it was not really the subject.

If Drex wants to talk about Reason, that's fine. If he wants to talk about how the premises used to arrive at said conclusions are bullshit, that's fine. But I will still facepalm any time I see people accusing the religious of ignoring Logic.

You’re certainly entitled to your face palm, but you’re not helping the problem by using the term interchangeably with a related term (which is really what the speaker you’re responding to means - at least this is my argument anyway) particularly when you demand stringent accuracy.

They aren't ignoring Logic. They are ignoring certain premises while substituting others in order to logically derive the conclusion they want. The logic in that derivation is perfectly valid. It's simply an irrelevant conclusion in this universe because the given premises are, in fact, not true.

And that is exactly the substance of Drex’s post, though he used an improper term.