"I Am Not A Second Class Citizen"

[BaneTheBrawler]

Who are you to say that those old books aren't just as good as intelligence, reason, and free thought? Again, supreme arrogance. What do I think about it? I don't. Since you're asking I'm sure you're going to tell me they're just as hypocritical and arrogant as you are, though. And I'll agree. It still doesn't excuse your sheer arrogance.

Edit: I agree, Ronin.

[Siatdiat]

What seems to be missing in this thread is the fact that religion will never cease to exist. Ideas such as Christianity or Islam may fall before the sands of time like the Greek pantheons or Aztec cultures of yesteryear but people will never think in a purely logical fashion and surely in the next 2000 years a new religious belief will have adherent followers.

Try as we might as a species to continuously answer the questions that make up that void filled by religious belief, spirituality will forever be apart of the human species because people are different and science won't satisfy some. Be this spiritual belief superstition, ancestor worship, a personal deity or an outright belief that a deity is pulling the strings the minor nuances if your life it will continue to persist.

As it stands the current non-believing community is met with scorn and discrimination across large tracts of the globe. Like any outgroup they are labeled as dangerous and driven into the ground at any turn but what must not be repeated is the urge to make war in the name of reason. There is a distinct difference between standing your ground and demanding religion respect your way of life and systematically attacking anyone who professes faith because you feel they're worth less than you.

Look no farther than the Christians to see what happens when you go from being oppressed to being the oppressors within the span of a couple hundred years. We have history at our fingertips and we'd be fools to repeat it.

So long as the monotheisms hold the power they do innocent blood will be spilled but what should be the ideal is a world where religious moderates stand side-by-side with their non-believing counterparts against the extremist elements of faith. It will continuously be a battle of ideas, minor spats are inevitable but I see it as akin to the integration of races where eventually enough people become accepting hat both sides take away something constructive from coexistence.

Religions have changed and they will continue to change. The best thing non-believers could do is shift religion away from it's extreme elements through action.

I said before that I would never be participant in anything that tries to outlaw religion or peoples rights to believe what they want to. But for me to pretend to respect it would be lying on my part. I think honesty is important.

[BaneTheBrawler]

As I've said, you're certainly entitled to your opinions, but when you show blatant disrespect for a group of people, you're just as bad as everyone else who does exactly that. Just because you believe in reason and whatnot doesn't make it okay.

[Siatdiat]

Who are you to say that those old books aren't just as good as intelligence, reason, and free thought? Again, supreme arrogance. What do I think about it? I don't. Since you're asking I'm sure you're going to tell me they're just as hypocritical and arrogant as you are, though. And I'll agree. It still doesn't excuse your sheer arrogance.

I know Christianity teaches you you yo feel weak and afraid before the almighty God, but I don't have that holding me up. I hate religion by my own conclusion. My own thoughts led me yo where I stand. Again, what is up with Mormons dawg? They added to the Bible man, and that shit is nowhere near as old as the Bible.


PS get a thesarus, look up arrogance, find a synonym, and use that to spice up your posts.

[Demosthenes11]

It's literally impossible to attack religion in your mind Bane.

Say it's an unnecessary restriction based on nothing? offensive.
Say it's a tool used to control the masses and not question you? offensive.
Say it promotes a distrust of science, a supremely backward mentality, and amorality? offensive.

You can't say everything is open to discussion, and then not allow a discussion because someone called it stupid or because there is perceived offense. If you tell anyone their religion is wrong, it's offensive, yet that's the entire basis of argument - their stance is not correct.

[BaneTheBrawler]

I hear lemon-pepper goes good with red herring.

Remember when I said Alleya didn't lose any respect? You have, and I'm done trying to convince you. I no longer consider you worthy of a decent argument, based on your inability to do algebra. One belief system on the left, another on the right. whatever you apply to one, you have to apply to the other. You can't selectively apply rules and judgement and still come out with a reasonable conclusion.

I'll leave you to your idiocy.

[Yugl]

Say it's an unnecessary restriction based on nothing? offensive.
Say it's a tool used to control the masses and not question you? offensive.

To be fair, all morals apply to the former and science applies to the latter as well.

[BaneTheBrawler]

It's literally impossible to attack religion in your mind Bane.

Say it's an unnecessary restriction based on nothing? Underlined makes it offensive. Remove that and it's Legit debate
Say it's a tool used to control the masses and not question you? Legit debate
Say it promotes a distrust of science, a supremely backward mentality, and amorality? Legit debate

You can't say everything is open to discussion, and then not allow a discussion because someone called it stupid or because there is perceived offense. If you tell anyone their religion is wrong, it's offensive, yet that's the entire basis of argument - their stance is not correct.

There's a difference between "You're wrong!" and "YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF MORONS!"

Edit: bolded etc in quote, kinda ftfy

[EternityEnd]

I would suggest that it is the other way around.

You claim to hate religion because some religions are judgmental... and then you go around judging people who follow religion. That is hypocrisy. It's also supremely arrogant, which is yet another reason it's annoying.

I don't believe that anyone claims to arbitrarily hate religion for simply being "judgmental." Judgment is something so pervasive, so intrinsic to human observation, as to be unavoidable.

Revilement of religion tends to have myriad causes (i.e. its self-purporting discouragement of objective education, the vague malleability with which its damning texts may be interpreted, its self-proclaimed infallibility, etc). Specific to the discussion at hand, I think that people's contempt of religion stems from its judgment and often violent condemnation of [/i]intrinsic[/i] human traits (such as gender, sexuality or ethnicity), or the rigidity with which it attempts to forestall beneficial medical practices. To say that it's equally prejudicial to protest those effecting harmful changes toward human rights is a ludicrous and untenable stance because of the lack of moral equivalency.

[Demosthenes11]

There's a difference between "You're wrong!" and "YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF MORONS!"

would any of those 3 statements be ok in your world? If someone can't take their world view being challenged, they suck as a human being.

[Demosthenes11]

To be fair, all morals apply to the former and science applies to the latter as well.

what?

[Siatdiat]

It's literally impossible to attack religion in your mind Bane.

Say it's an unnecessary restriction based on nothing? offensive.
Say it's a tool used to control the masses and not question you? offensive.
Say it promotes a distrust of science, a supremely backward mentality, and amorality? offensive.

You can't say everything is open to discussion, and then not allow a discussion because someone called it stupid or because there is perceived offense. If you tell anyone their religion is wrong, it's offensive, yet that's the entire basis of argument - their stance is not correct.

I have tried many times to be clear but it hasn't worked.

Also, there can be only one truth, kind of like Highlander. My hope is that as a species we can discover it. Religion isn't really set up yo discover truth. It claims to already know it. But of course it doesn't, and that is part of why it is dangerous.

[BaneTheBrawler]

To say that it's equally prejudicial to protest those effecting harmful changes toward human rights is a ludicrous and untenable stance because of the lack of moral equivalency.

What's worse? Torturing cats or torturing dogs? It doesn't matter, torture is torture. I fail to see how arrogance does not equal arrogance.

Edit: and yeah, demo, I fiddled with the quote.

[Siatdiat]

To be fair, all morals apply to the former and science applies to the latter as well.

Morals are based off nothing? What are you a nihilist?

[Demosthenes11]

Edit: and yeah, demo, I fiddled with the quote.

I don't think anybody was really trying to debate anyone here originally about religion. Someone mentioned religious reasons for something, and a few posts said "fuck your religion" more or less, which isn't that much of an outlandish comment considering many of us are constantly finding religion jammed down our throat by family, society, and the government. If you were to sit down and talk religion with someone, they aren't going to open with "You are dumb *silence*"

This is a message board. Some people are venting, some people just want to tell others how ridiculous their points of view are, some people are trolling, and some people want a discussion. This can't be new to you.

[BaneTheBrawler]

No, it isn't new, but in this particular board I operate under the assumption that people aren't trolling (since, yknow, that's supposedly a rule). I am here for a discussion. Is it wrong for me to call people out for shitting up that discussion by passing off their venting as a part of the discussion itself? If someone wants to vent, that's fine, but it only takes a few simple words to make it clear that's what they're doing.

[Yugl]

Morals are based off nothing? What are you a nihilist?

I haven't done any research into what Nihilists proclaim, so I don't know. I agree with this statement from Wiki:

Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.

Based off nothing might have been strong. They may be based on biology. However, as premises, they are based on nothing.

what?

When people fail to recognize the underlying theoretical/philosophical principles of science, they tend to make claims (and rise to a level of conservative thought) that makes science capable of the latter claim.

I explained why I believe the former in my response to Siatdiat.

[Caiyuo]

No idea what the current topic is, but there's a live play of "8", about prop 8 on youtube right now involving a lot of famous faces: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlUG8...A&feature=plcp

Featuring an all-star cast including George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Martin Sheen, Jamie Lee Curtis, Jane Lynch, Kevin Bacon and others, "8" is a play written by Academy Award winning screenwriter Dustin Lance Black and directed by acclaimed actor and director Rob Reiner. It is a powerful account of the case filed by the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER ) in the U.S. District Court in 2010 to overturn Proposition 8 [LINK], a constitutional amendment that eliminated the rights of same-sex couples to marry in the state of California. Framed around the trial's historic closing arguments in June 2010, 8 provides an intimate look what unfolded when the issue of same-sex marriage was on trial.

[Caiyuo]

aaaaaand Martin Sheen is fucking killing it

e: turds it's over

[Demosthenes11]

I haven't done any research into what Nihilists proclaim, so I don't know. I agree with this statement from Wiki:



Based off nothing might have been strong. They may be based on biology. However, as premises, they are based on nothing.



When people fail to recognize the underlying theoretical/philosophical principles of science, they tend to make claims (and rise to a level of conservative thought) that makes science capable of the latter claim.

I explained why I believe the former in my response to Siatdiat.

oh god, a pseudo-intellectual. please