Who wants to argue about pink and purple unicorns?

[Yazata]

For real I don't think anyone would want to argue about something they don't believe in..
Believers argue about what they believe in which is their god. So why do many like arguing about a god they don't believe in/lack the belief in?

I've wondered that too. Why do so many rather pushy and aggressive atheists frequent this board and other internet fora like it? What is it about other people discussing their own religious ideas that attracts atheists like flies? Why are several of RF's more prominent moderators atheists?

What is it that atheists hope to accomplish by posting on what is ostensibly a religion discussion board? What kind of response are they looking for? What kind of changes would they like to make?

Am I missing something?

I think that it's a real phenomenon that may or may not reveal something about the psychologies of a certain kind of atheist.

The old-style missionary impulse, perhaps. Atheist missionaries among those that they perceive as heathen. The desire to break other people's beliefs and substitute their own.

 

[Polymath257]

All fair and well.
The only problem is that the secular is like all other value systems a particular agenda. It is nothing but a case of cultural relativism and has nothing to with the truth, the world, authority and science.
So now I have a different opinion than you. So come on and show with the truth, the world, authority and science, that I am wrong.

Yes, they are different value systems. And the value system upon which the government of the US was constructed was the secular one as enshrined in the Constitution.

Those who wish to institute religious doctrines are, as such, going directly against the very principles upon which the US was founded.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, they are different value systems. And the value system upon which the government of the US was constructed was the secular one as enshrined in the Constitution.

Those who wish to institute religious doctrines are, as such, going directly against the very principles upon which the US was founded.

Yeah, but you see, I am a skeptic so I doubt that those ideas are somehow uniquely USA American. So on a forum with many cultures and values system, I would phrase your claim as an universal idea for all humans. And yet it is still a particular cultural idea.

 

[Stonetree]

Why not ask the Unicorn what he/she thinks about theist or atheist view points. And what if you are color blind ; can you still be part of the discussion? What do Bi-Corns have to do to get noticed around here?

 

[Sedim Haba]

Why not ask the Unicorn what he/she thinks about theist or atheist view points. And what if you are color blind ; can you still be part of the discussion? What do Bi-Corns have to do to get noticed around here?

As usual forum evolution, the topic has not just been derailed, it's on a whole new set of tracks. In another country. with a different gauge. with incoherent monkeys as conductors. and 3 blind mice as engineers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The theory of democracy is certainly not matched when it comes to the practice.
Actually I would say that in all democracies there are some minorities which should be suppressed for the benefit of all, even if those in the minority may not see it that way.
Which minorities and why seems to be a point of contention.

It's not a point of contention actually. It's constitutional.

It depends on what they are minorities in.

If they are white supremacists for example, then they should be suppressed as their defining characteristic is demonstrably damaging to society and unconstitutional to boot, since their "ideology" is geared towards stripping others from their rights, discrimination, etc.

If their minority is defined by them having freckles for example... then that's another story. If the majority then has a religion that defines people with freckles as being demonic, then in a constitutional democracy the majority can not make any laws against them. More then likely, it would be the other way round. It would be the religion that would have to come under pressure when it comes to those particular beliefs.

Just like we see today with homophobia embedded in abrahamic religion in western countries.
It's becoming more and more controversial to motivate homophobia with religion while waving a bible.
And rightfully so.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am in a minority where I live and there are some laws that have been passed recently seem to be suppressing the rights of Christians and other religions.

Can you give some examples of these laws?
Perhaps use as example the one law that you feel "suppresses" the rights of christians the most.

Do you think that all minorities should be given free reign to do what they want?

I don't even think in terms of minority and majority.
I think in terms of rights and what's best for society as a whole, while keeping in mind individual freedoms.

Most people are pleased that those who want to steal and murder and rape and exploit etc are suppressed.

Again, this is completely assanine.
We are talking about minorities in terms of beliefs, sexual orientation, skin color, etc.
We are not talking about criminals and / or people who wish to harm others.

There are always going to be issues which are more grey than those I mentioned of course and in a democracy we have the right to have our say even if there are those who do not want to listen and think that the ideas of religions should be suppressed.

Nobody is talking about suppressing religious ideas.
Instead, we are talking about imposing religious ideas.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.

In simplistic summary: in a democracy, you are free to pray. You are NOT free to force others to pray.

The lack of some restrictions that religious morals in politics have given is having an impact on society for the worse imo.

In constitutional democracy law, there is only room for morals that are grounded in demonstrable reality.
You are free to live by your religious morals all you want as long as they don't negatively impact others. You are not free to impose your religious morals on the rest of society.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

In constitutional democracy law, there is only room for morals that are grounded in demonstrable reality.
You are free to live by your religious morals all you want as long as they don't negatively impact others. You are not free to impose your religious morals on the rest of society.

I can't replicate the bold one. What are you talking about?

 

[Kooky]

For real I don't think anyone would want to argue about something they don't believe in..
Believers argue about what they believe in which is their god. So why do many like arguing about a god they don't believe in/lack the belief in?

Hey I'm with you in lacking the belief but I can't figure out why so much time is wasted arguing about what's not believed in.

Am I missing something?

I like to argue about mythology and theologial minutiae because I enjoy talking about obscure trivia and enjoy a good discussion if it develops. Your mileage may vary.

 

[Kooky]

In constitutional democracy law, there is only room for morals that are grounded in demonstrable reality.

Can you provide an example for one such moral?

 

[Kooky]

Why not ask the Unicorn what he/she thinks about theist or atheist view points. And what if you are color blind ; can you still be part of the discussion? What do Bi-Corns have to do to get noticed around here?

Unlike unicorns, bicorns are real.

 

[Polymath257]

meh,

she's not so great. that pink? a bad dye job. she was trying for magenta but mucked up.

and the strike of her hoof? ha! she was trying to knock off the shat she stepped in.

what flew off was you lot. ewww.

Blasphemy! You clearly aren't strong in your faith if you can say such about the holy IPU! Just wait until the great Horn is brought upon thee!

Her Pinkness is the supreme example of pink, against which all other pinks are to be compared and fail in the comparison. Anyone who tells you otherwise is both morally and intellectually deficient!

And yes, the material world is like a piece of excrement compared to be beauty and wonder. We all grovel at her majestic hooves!

 

[lukethethird]

I've wondered that too. Why do so many rather pushy and aggressive atheists frequent this board and other internet fora like it? What is it about other people discussing their own religious ideas that attracts atheists like flies? Why are several of RF's more prominent moderators atheists?

What is it that atheists hope to accomplish by posting on what is ostensibly a religion discussion board? What kind of response are they looking for? What kind of changes would they like to make?



I think that it's a real phenomenon that may or may not reveal something about the psychologies of a certain kind of atheist.

The old-style missionary impulse, perhaps. Atheist missionaries among those that they perceive as heathen. The desire to break other people's beliefs and substitute their own.

Religion was pushed down my throat, my ancestors received their religion at the end of a sword. Fortunately an education and some open dialogue can help free us of ancient religious superstitions and dogma.

 

[Sedim Haba]

Blasphemy! You clearly aren't strong in your faith if you can say such about the holy IPU! Just wait until the great Horn is brought upon thee!

Her Pinkness is the supreme example of pink, against which all other pinks are to be compared and fail in the comparison. Anyone who tells you otherwise is both morally and intellectually deficient!

And yes, the material world is like a piece of excrement compared to be beauty and wonder. We all grovel at her majestic hooves!

I'm not one to favor the fashion trends of these colours, even pink.

I prefer my fillys to be of pure radiant white coat, and pure ebony black skin.

It's true many stallions grovel at the pink one's hooves, but they like to plow the unique pastures.

 

[Brian2]

It's not a point of contention actually. It's constitutional.

It depends on what they are minorities in.

If they are white supremacists for example, then they should be suppressed as their defining characteristic is demonstrably damaging to society and unconstitutional to boot, since their "ideology" is geared towards stripping others from their rights, discrimination, etc.

If their minority is defined by them having freckles for example... then that's another story. If the majority then has a religion that defines people with freckles as being demonic, then in a constitutional democracy the majority can not make any laws against them. More then likely, it would be the other way round. It would be the religion that would have to come under pressure when it comes to those particular beliefs.

Just like we see today with homophobia embedded in abrahamic religion in western countries.
It's becoming more and more controversial to motivate homophobia with religion while waving a bible.
And rightfully so.

Then it is a good thing that your founding fathers had at least some good ideas when setting up the US constitution.
But of course what you say is not completely true because homosexual discrimination has existed in the US even under your constitutional democracy and anti communist discrimination has existed also and anti other things also.
It's great to have laws and a constitution but it is the people in power and the sentiment of the age which defines what happens.

 

[Brian2]

Can you give some examples of these laws?
Perhaps use as example the one law that you feel "suppresses" the rights of christians the most.

The law I was thinking of what I wrote was the one passed recently which denies religious schools the right to choose their own teachers based on religion.

I don't even think in terms of minority and majority.
I think in terms of rights and what's best for society as a whole, while keeping in mind individual freedoms.

That is a good way to think.

Again, this is completely assanine.
We are talking about minorities in terms of beliefs, sexual orientation, skin color, etc.
We are not talking about criminals and / or people who wish to harm others.

Who is "we"? I was not even posting to you.

Nobody is talking about suppressing religious ideas.
Instead, we are talking about imposing religious ideas.

I'm sorry if you can't understand the difference.

In simplistic summary: in a democracy, you are free to pray. You are NOT free to force others to pray.

Sorry I was speaking of suppressing religious ideas. Are you and Sheldon a tag team?
I don't agree with imposing religious principles on everyone anyway.
But getting back to democracy. It is great that you have a utopian view of your constitutional democracy but it has of course demonstrably failed to deliver the utopia you think it does deliver. Religious principles have been imposed on to the people who do not want them. It is as I said, democracy is a product of those in power and not your utopian ideas.
Your ideas may or may not give a utopia anyway, they might just give your ideas imposed onto people who do not want them.

In constitutional democracy law, there is only room for morals that are grounded in demonstrable reality.
You are free to live by your religious morals all you want as long as they don't negatively impact others. You are not free to impose your religious morals on the rest of society.

Great, I don't really want to impose my religious morals onto the rest of society.
But that does not mean that others won't be imposing their moral values onto society 24 hours a day in the name of free speech and free enterprise and free everything.
I'm older and stubborn but the tender children of society are bombarded with the spirit of the age and nobody can stop it until it is demonstrated that what is happening is bad for society and even then how long will greed and money and corruption delay action.
It's not really brain washing but it is akin to it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The law I was thinking of what I wrote was the one passed recently which denies religious schools the right to choose their own teachers based on religion.

So how does that suppress the rights of christians to practice their religion?
Sounds to me that this is just an anti-discrimination law.

Hiring people, or not, based on what their religion is... is a big no-no in a free society.

That is a good way to think.

It's also a way that leads to the law you mentioned.
Anti-discrimination laws fit neatly into protecting rights and individual freedoms.

Who is "we"?

Everyone involved in this conversation.

I was not even posting to you.

It's a public forum.
If you want a private conversation with someone, then I suggest the private messaging feature of the site or a "one on one" debate in the appropriate sub section of the forum.

In public threads however, any post is free game for anyone to reply to and get involved in..

Are you and Sheldon a tag team?

No. I think @Sheldon and I are just similarly brilliant geniuses. Perhaps that's why we sound alike.

I don't agree with imposing religious principles on everyone anyway.

Good. I don't agree with forbidding them for anyone either, unless they impact other people also and thereby infringe on their rights and/or freedoms

But getting back to democracy. It is great that you have a utopian view of your constitutional democracy but it has of course demonstrably failed to deliver the utopia you think it does deliver.

Utopia's are utopia's for a reason. It's how they are supposed to work.
And as a society we should strive to approach the utopia as much as we can.
I never said democracy is perfect either.

Nevertheless, there is a constitution and whenever politicians do things contrary to it, patriotic citizens should be up in arms about it.

Religious principles have been imposed on to the people who do not want them.

Indeed. And that's not okay.

It is as I said, democracy is a product of those in power

Those in power as still constrainted and limited by the constitution.
Just because they are in power doesn't mean that they get to do whatever they want.
You keep missing this rather important aspect.

Great, I don't really want to impose my religious morals onto the rest of society.
But that does not mean that others won't be imposing their moral values onto society 24 hours a day in the name of free speech and free enterprise and free everything.

This makes no sense.
Citizens have free speech and the freedom to live by any moral system they like as long as it doesn't break the law. But that is hardly the same as having these moral values legislated in law.

When I talk about "imposing on society", I mean legislating it. Turning it into law.
Like for example making homosexuality a crime. You are very free to have your opinions about gay people. You are very free to think it is "nasty" or "immoral" or "perverse" or whatever you want.
That's VERY different from creating and implementing a law that makes homosexuality illegal and then rounding up gay people and putting them in prison.

In short: you are free to think they are "evil sinners". And gay people in turn are free to be gay and live their sexuality like they see fit.

I'm older and stubborn but the tender children of society are bombarded with the spirit of the age and nobody can stop it until it is demonstrated that what is happening is bad for society and even then how long will greed and money and corruption delay action.
It's not really brain washing but it is akin to it.

I have no idea what you are talking about here.

 

[Brian2]

So how does that suppress the rights of christians to practice their religion?
Sounds to me that this is just an anti-discrimination law.

Hiring people, or not, based on what their religion is... is a big no-no in a free society.

I did not say that it suppressed the rights of Christians to practise their religion, I said it suppressed their rights.
The thing about the law is that it is hypocritical since politicians can still choose their staff depending on their politics. It is a law aimed at religions and the rights of religious schools to choose employees based on their religion. In a place that has nothing to do with religion, it might be considered discriminatory to hire someone based on their religion. In a religious organisation where parents pay for their children to be taught in a religious atmosphere and have the influence of people of their own religion, it is discriminatory. They may as well say that a minister cannot be hired conditional on their religion.

It's also a way that leads to the law you mentioned.
Anti-discrimination laws fit neatly into protecting rights and individual freedoms.

It all depends on those who make the laws. The principle of anti discrimination in this case is used to discriminate against the rights of the parents and religion.

It's a public forum.
If you want a private conversation with someone, then I suggest the private messaging feature of the site or a "one on one" debate in the appropriate sub section of the forum.

In public threads however, any post is free game for anyone to reply to and get involved in..

You should speak for yourself and not say what you think Sheldon was talking about.

Utopia's are utopia's for a reason. It's how they are supposed to work.
And as a society we should strive to approach the utopia as much as we can.
I never said democracy is perfect either.

We agree then and that is all I was saying to start with.

Those in power as still constrainted and limited by the constitution.
Just because they are in power doesn't mean that they get to do whatever they want.
You keep missing this rather important aspect.

Kings and politicians should not be above the law. Good theory. Kings and politicians should be forced to comply with the law. Good theory. But the practice is not the same as the theory it would be utopia.

This makes no sense.
Citizens have free speech and the freedom to live by any moral system they like as long as it doesn't break the law. But that is hardly the same as having these moral values legislated in law.

True it is not the same.

 

[Brian2]

Evidence is empirical. Evidence is that which is EVIDENT to the senses, and which tells us about the world.

Recall, however, that I said that I don't ask faith-based believers for evidence. I tell them that that is what I require to believe, and that I know that they have none.



I believe exactly the opposite - too few people reach conclusions strictly empirically, by which I mean through the proper application of reason to the relevant evidence available.



What I don't say is that there are no gods. I have sound arguments for ruling out specific ones, however, but how does one rule out the deist god, for example, or even assign a probability of its existence? Based on what? This is that strict empiricism at play. It not only prevents one from believing in gods without sufficient evidentiary support, it also prevents one from doing the opposite - claiming that none exist. The only rational position for the empiricist is agnostic atheism.



A theist can be a rigorous thinker in areas outside of his religious beliefs if he learns to compartmentalize his faith. He can do good chemistry or entomology, or make intelligent decisions about buying a home or financing it, for example, as long as he does them rigorously, that is collect the relevant facts and derive sound conclusions from them. But belief by faith is a violation of those rules, and will not generate the kind of sound conclusions that we are looking for, ideas that correlate with experience, ideas derived from the proper understanding of experience, and ideas confirmed by experience when their application produces the desired results and expected outcome. These are the only types of ideas I want about the world and how to successfully navigate it.

There's another thread going where a theist was asking about applying critical thought to his faith-based beliefs. He's already off the reservation just by having faith-based beliefs. It's like the medieval scholastics, who tried to apply reason to faith-based beliefs, famously about angels, or the guy who tried to figure out the age of the earth from biblical genealogies. If you start with false premises, you cannot generate sound conclusions about reality - just useless ones, like the 6,000-10,000 year age of the earth. Astrology is a faith based pursuit, and you can be as rigorous as you like everywhere else in your horoscope casting, but you won't generate any useful knowledge.

Once one understands this, he has little interest in faith-based ideas, or conclusions generated from them. This creates some friction when dealing with those who see faith as a virtue, and want their beliefs and the manner they arrive at them to be respected. I can be respectful to the person, but I can't respect his beliefs because of the manner he comes by them. All that means is not that I am in conflict with him, but that I disagree with him about how one ought to come to his beliefs.

This has been my only epistemology for most of my adult life, beginning in the early eighties, and I must say that I have no complaints. It has served me well. Others tell me how much I am missing out on by not relaxing those standards, but then they can never demonstrate what that is. I see the opposite. Many are lost and troubled by their beliefs, are unfamiliar with science, and few can reason well. That's the result of faith-based thinking in many. And the more that faith and religion dominates their thinking, the worse it is.

Look at the ones refusing vaccines on faith - the unsupported belief that the virus is more dangerous than the vaccines. This will be a lethal decision for many. It looks like we're in for a severe winter, with a large spike in the number of cases, even among the vaccinated. People that aren't thinking stop there. There will also be a spike in hospitalizations and deaths, but those will be concentrated among the unvaccinated. Too bad that they didn't get this far in their thinking. Too bad that they can't interpret evidence properly, or that they don't even care about it. The empiricists, being reason and evidence based, will do better. There simply is nothing to recommend believing by faith over using evidence properly.



I seldom post emotionally, and I don't get angry at theists.

I wish I had something to say that would not be repetition of what I have said on other threads and end in a lengthy debate with half a dozen atheists, sceptics, agnostics. Sigh

 

[Viker]

For real I don't think anyone would want to argue about something they don't believe in..
Believers argue about what they believe in which is their god. So why do many like arguing about a god they don't believe in/lack the belief in?

Hey I'm with you in lacking the belief but I can't figure out why so much time is wasted arguing about what's not believed in.

Am I missing something?

I'm miffed you didn't bring up blue unicorns. Why not? You have an agenda against blue unicorns?