You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
__________________
"Alcoholism is a disease, but it's the only one you can get yelled at for having. Goddamn it Otto, you are an alcoholic. Goddamn it Otto, you have Lupis... one of those two doesn't sound right."
not going to be winning this case, stupid kids (and the parents behind them)
"Two high school students from Naperville have filed a federal suit after one of the students claimed her school violated her civil rights by not letting her wear an anti-gay T-shirt."
So, should we let them wear the crap, and then we see the anti-black shirt, the women shouldn't vote shirt and a nice hat promoting the bombing of abortion clinics?
I hope someone breaks this girls nose before the prom.
"Zamecnik and Nuxoll, a freshman, desire to express through speech and clothing a more religious viewpoint of homosexual behavior. Both Zamecnik and Nuxoll are Christians with very religious beliefs, the suit says."
What would you say to a shirt which says "Believe in yourself, not God"?
"Oh, look, an attention *****."
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."--Thomas Jefferson
What would you say to a shirt which says "Believe in yourself, not God"?
Doesn't really matter to me. A person that believes in god could just as easily wear a shirt that says "Believe in God, not in yourself" and I really wouldn't care. It's when someone wears a shirt that says "Be happy not gay" that you start to notice that gay people, by and large, can accept religious people, but not the other way around.
Religion has been designed to divide and conquer populations since it's inception. I was pretty stunned to see a poll that said that something like less than 45% of Americans could vote for an Atheist for president.
The assumption that religious people tend to make is that Atheists are immoral people. That, in general, is not the case. Atheists simply use philosophical reasoning to guide morality, rather than a book and a beliefs system. See, an atheist (in theory) doesn't have an "out" like the 10 hail mary's that religious people get when they "sin". Furthermore, sinning is a contraption invented by religion in an effort to control the population as well.
There's really two things going on here. There's "organized religion" (scary) and personal beliefs (not scary). Organized religions, in my opinion, are the leading cause for pain and suffering in the world today, and furthermore are the driving force behind most of the intolerance within the world. Personal beliefs, such as "yes, I believe in God because I find it valuable to believe in something greater than myself" doesn't do much harm.
Dave (stands by the comment that more people have been killed in the name of god than any other cause in the history of history)
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
Doesn't really matter to me. A person that believes in god could just as easily wear a shirt that says "Believe in God, not in yourself" and I really wouldn't care. It's when someone wears a shirt that says "Be happy not gay" that you start to notice that gay people, by and large, can accept religious people, but not the other way around.
I think you have exactly zero evidence for that belief - it's just a hunch on your part. I would say, however, that many religious people are gay, and many gay people are religious - so it really isn't the focus of the point. The real point is that we're witnessing at present a battle over who finds what tolerant - and many of the same people who revile a shirt that says "Be Happy, not Gay" don't have the same feeling if the shirt said "Be Happy, not Christian", or some such thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
Religion has been designed to divide and conquer populations since it's inception. I was pretty stunned to see a poll that said that something like less than 45% of Americans could vote for an Atheist for president.
Religion also unifies and pacifies (or conquers - so says those that revile the Crusades). I think you're using religion as a convenient generalized whipping boy. Plenty of things have been used to divide and conquer (like class warfare tactics of the Democrat party, for instance) - but religion solidifies and unifies. In fact, the only thing that seems to want to divide and conquer are those against any form of religion.
The poll result doesn't surprise me at all. People want to vote for someone who has important things in common with them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
The assumption that religious people tend to make is that Atheists are immoral people. That, in general, is not the case. Atheists simply use philosophical reasoning to guide morality, rather than a book and a beliefs system. See, an atheist (in theory) doesn't have an "out" like the 10 hail mary's that religious people get when they "sin". Furthermore, sinning is a contraption invented by religion in an effort to control the population as well.
I believe your assumption is what is generally not the case here. '10 Hail Marys' isn't an out - this springs from your misunderstanding of the purpose of penance. Sinning isn't an invented contraption. It is a recognition of the tendency of man to err, and recognize it as such, and an attempt to correct those errors. Everyone sins - you don't have to be religious to understand what it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
There's really two things going on here. There's "organized religion" (scary) and personal beliefs (not scary). Organized religions, in my opinion, are the leading cause for pain and suffering in the world today, and furthermore are the driving force behind most of the intolerance within the world. Personal beliefs, such as "yes, I believe in God because I find it valuable to believe in something greater than myself" doesn't do much harm.
I do think that there is much bad about organized religion - and nearly all of it springs from policies which are aberrant to real religious beliefs. Each person is accountable for their own actions. If your priest or pastor or pope endorses behaviour which you know is sin and/or evil, you do not participate, and/or you leave that organized religion.
My point was to make those using religion as a whipping boy aware that the backlash against those perceived to be 'religious' by people who aren't can essentially be a self-fulfilling prophesy. Those who revile the religious because of the perceived evils done in the name of religion can in fact be guilty of those same evils in persecuting the religious.
Millions have died in the name of something other than religion. Many military conquerors didn't use religion as their reason for conquest.
[/quote]Dave (stands by the comment that more people have been killed in the name of god than any other cause in the history of history)[/quote]
I posted a chart in another thread of the multimillions of people who have died in the name of something else - and those dying for or because of a religion do not come close to compare.
1. Homosexuality is a sin in most religions. Therefore, homosexuals cannot be truly accepted by the religion that they worship.
2. Your notion that religion unifies and pacifies may be true, until that religion encounters an alternative belief. In which case, that "unified" religion turns in to a unified opponent of another unified group that believes their belief system is superior.
And regarding the poll, I would ask - what does religion have to do with the qualification to lead a country (especially one not led by theology... in theory).
3. Sinning is an invention.
4. You don't get a lot of people killing each other that share the same belief systems. Its also the reasons democracies have a hard time fighting democracies - the people's beliefs and voices are more powerful than the leaders of those groups.
If it makes you feel any better I also tend to oppose nationalism and partisan-ism as well. Like I said, a person's individual belief system is fine by me because it's something they themselves enjoy. It's when a bureaucracy is created to support an agenda to perpetuate it.
Dave (thinks most collective mechanisms are founded in good ideas and perverted for the causes of a select few)
__________________
There's a fine line between rubbing lotion on yourself and rubbing yourself with lotion.
1. Homosexuality is a sin in most religions. Therefore, homosexuals cannot be truly accepted by the religion that they worship.
You are engaging in a logical fallacy. Religion doesn't reject homosexuals - specific religious sects do. Homosexuals have found a place to worship if they wish to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
2. Your notion that religion unifies and pacifies may be true, until that religion encounters an alternative belief. In which case, that "unified" religion turns in to a unified opponent of another unified group that believes their belief system is superior.
That's true of any group holding any set of beliefs. Capitalists versus Socialists, for instance. That it is religion is incidental.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
And regarding the poll, I would ask - what does religion have to do with the qualification to lead a country (especially one not led by theology... in theory).
It speaks to core beliefs, and is as legitimate an issue as any issue could be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
3. Sinning is an invention.
No more than 'breaking the law' is an invention. It is merely a different term, meant to describe 'breaking a law of God'. That you don't use the word 'sin' to describe your own misdeeds does not change that accurate description in the eyes of someone religious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
4. You don't get a lot of people killing each other that share the same belief systems. Its also the reasons democracies have a hard time fighting democracies - the people's beliefs and voices are more powerful than the leaders of those groups.
I agree, of course. People with radically different religions, however, will also have radically different views on many other issues as well. Radical Islams do not just hate Christianity, they hate the West, and all the cultural implications that follow.
You're not going to see Lutherans (Germany) and Catholics (Italy), for instance, engaging in a war over it. They're no where near radically different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
If it makes you feel any better I also tend to oppose nationalism and partisan-ism as well. Like I said, a person's individual belief system is fine by me because it's something they themselves enjoy. It's when a bureaucracy is created to support an agenda to perpetuate it.
Dave (thinks most collective mechanisms are founded in good ideas and perverted for the causes of a select few)
We have it pretty good in America so we don't turn out too many religious radicals. Radical religious groups are a lot more common in areas of the world that are poor and have a great amount of turmoil. Still, the thought process of holding irrational beliefs is exactly the same. The only difference is it's harder to get people to take the next step here because people have homes, jobs, cars, etc. Remove or great American lifestyle and you would see the same type of radicalism here.
It's not that I think religion is dangerous. I think any irrational beliefs are dangerous because once you remove rational thought then anything can be rationalized in some nutball way. Also, just like a witness caught telling a lie on the witness stand where you can no longer trust any of their testimony, a person that holds one irrational belief instantly becomes questionable with all their other beliefs.
I think any irrational beliefs are dangerous because once you remove rational thought then anything can be rationalized in some nutball way. Also, just like a witness caught telling a lie on the witness stand where you can no longer trust any of their testimony, a person that holds one irrational belief instantly becomes questionable with all their other beliefs.
Fortunately, most people, at least in the West, tend not to extend their religious irrationality to other spheres. They are perfectly capable of accounting, lawyering, engineering, doctoring, and researching.
A big difference between the West and, for example, the Middle East, is that in the West, conspiracy theorists and religious folk are not often the same people. That is, religious people have no need for the irrationality of conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theorists have no need for the irrationality of religion. In the end, neither does that much harm to society. That has a lot to do with the amount of political, cultural, and religious freedoms we have.
In the Middle East, where there is much less freedom of religion, speech, and political assembly, and where there is a long history of impassioned religiosity, people are more likely to adopt irrational perspectives in both the spiritual and secular aspects of their lives. The fricking heat then drives some of them to do crazy things.
Schools have dress codes and I am almost positive this specific school has the code like most schools that clothing promoting offensive material are not allowed.
A lot of people would argue this goes agaisnt freedom of speech, but there are limitations to freedom of speech and the school administration has the authority to present such limitations, such as bigotry.
The shirt is offensive to people based upon nothing but how they were born, which is what the big deal is.
If the two kids want to wear the shirt while not at school during school hours that is their right to be bigots, but the administration has authority to limit the material on attire while at school.
Also, just like a witness caught telling a lie on the witness stand where you can no longer trust any of their testimony, a person that holds one irrational belief instantly becomes questionable with all their other beliefs.
So who decides what an irrational belief is?
To me, it is irrational (albeit none of my business) if a guy decides to stick his pisser in another dude's poop chute, but I do not believe his irrational personal decision necessarily detracts from his ability to make informed, unbiased political decisions.
I believe many politicians use religion to rally voters, and also use it as an excuse when they make unpopular decisions, but I do not believe having a religous leader is a bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dczoner
Atheists simply use philosophical reasoning to guide morality, rather than a book and a beliefs system. See, an atheist (in theory) doesn't have an "out" like the 10 hail mary's that religious people get when they "sin".
To say that atheists use philosphical reasoning to guide morality sure sounds nice, but what are the consequences if they choose to ignore the reasoning? I'd rather have someone who's worried about burning in hell if he doesn't do what is right than somone who fears no consequences of their actions other than their own guilt. This is not to say that I feel fear should drive politics or decision-making, but let me provide an example. We were all young once, and we all did stupid, immoral things we shouldn't have done, am I right? Well, let me ask you this, how many of those things would you NOT have done if you knew your parents would find out?
__________________
One should always have a healthy distrust for anyone who wields the power of the gun and says, "I know what's best, and I'm here to help." - JonnyC
To say that atheists use philosphical reasoning to guide morality sure sounds nice, but what are the consequences if they choose to ignore the reasoning? I'd rather have someone who's worried about burning in hell if he doesn't do what is right than somone who fears no consequences of their actions other than their own guilt. This is not to say that I feel fear should drive politics or decision-making, but let me provide an example. We were all young once, and we all did stupid, immoral things we shouldn't have done, am I right? Well, let me ask you this, how many of those things would you NOT have done if you knew your parents would find out?
I'd rather someone make rational decisions rather than those who make decisions based on faith. Plus, I'd rather have someone know that if they murder someone, their life will essentially be over as well, rather than someone who thinks they can say "Hail Mary" a few times and still get into heaven.
Did you know that 0.02 percent of the prison pop. is atheist or agnostic?
Be Happy?
