Who wants to argue about pink and purple unicorns?

[TagliatelliMonster]

Fair enough. However, living in a democracy entails accepting that there will be times I have to accept the views and values of the majority becoming enshrined in law, even if I don’t agree with them

That entirely depends on what those "views and values" are and if they violate your constitutional rights as a citizen of a nation.

Which imposing religious beliefs inherent to the religion, would absolutely do.

Whether those views and values are driven by religious belief or some other premise, is irrelevant really.

Absolutely not irrelevant.
Democracies aren't theocracies.



Having said that, if laws are implemented and people don't agree with it because they think the premises for those laws aren't right, or the laws aren't fair or whatever - there aren't any laws against arguing about it either.

And since the OP is about "why do they argue".... well, reason one is the very much illegal practice of trying to get religiously motivated legislation and the other is simply "because they don't agree".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

So...

- you don't see the point in someone arguing about something they don't believe in.

- apparently, you do see the point in arguing about someone arguing about something they don't believe in.

Weird.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That entirely depends on what those "views and values" are and if they violate your constitutional rights as a citizen of a nation.

Which imposing religious beliefs inherent to the religion, would absolutely do.



Absolutely not irrelevant.
Democracies aren't theocracies.



Having said that, if laws are implemented and people don't agree with it because they think the premises for those laws aren't right, or the laws aren't fair or whatever - there aren't any laws against arguing about it either.

And since the OP is about "why do they argue".... well, reason one is the very much illegal practice of trying to get religiously motivated legislation and the other is simply "because they don't agree".

So you're willing to accept the views and values of the society you live in, providing they coincide with your own?

The Rule of Law in a democratic society makes no distinction between laws based on religious or secular values. These frequently overlap anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by the term Theocracy, but I think you are probably misusing it; do you think the USA is in danger of tearing up it's constitution and appointing an unelected ecclesiastical body to govern? Seems unlikely.

It is of course true that in a constitutional democracy, you have the right to campaign for reform or repeal of laws you consider unjust.

 

[Daniel Nicholson]

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?

Vocal atheists believe religion is negatively impacting some aspect of their lives or the social, political, and/or economical reality they are apart of. In their eyes, they are trying to make a world a better place by arguing against religion. Furthermore, believing in unicorns has little to no affect on the world, where believing in God and practicing religion impacts almost everything.

 

[Link]

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?

Atheists should not care to argue true if the analogy holds true. If they really believe we have no proofs but they constantly seeking confirmation for their disbelief with arguing.

I don't go arguing with people who believe in trolls or Yetis exist.

 

[Polymath257]

I have long been a devote of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace be unto her) and how she created the universe with one strike of her glorious hoof.

All those that cannot see her beautiful Pink Invisibility are clearly deficient in faith and reason and should be locked up for the benefit of society. Also, governments that don't fund her worship are illegitimate and need to be overthrown.

Furthermore, as the IPU is defined to be the greatest Unicorn that can be imagined, and since existence would only make her greater, she must obviously exist. She is also the ground of existence.

This is in opposition to that obviously false doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with his pirate followers and his detestable tomato sauce.

Anyone care to debate?

 

[Clara Tea]

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?

Proof of unicorns might be stronger than proof of God. Similar proofs are offered for both.

Atheists believe that one can't believe in God without applying the same proof to unicorns and Santa.

Many drug addicts have turned to God, and claim that God spoke to them. On the other hand, a lot of pink elephants also spoke to them.

Many drug addicts who reformed using belief in God are so adamant that they are dangerous to anyone who disagrees with them.

I'd rather argue with facts rather than argue with threats.

 

[Clara Tea]

Atheists should not care to argue true if the analogy holds true. If they really believe we have no proofs but they constantly seeking confirmation for their disbelief with arguing.

I don't go arguing with people who believe in trolls or Yetis exist.

My troll and yeti thanks you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That entirely depends on what those "views and values" are and if they violate your constitutional rights as a citizen of a nation.

Which imposing religious beliefs inherent to the religion, would absolutely do.



Absolutely not irrelevant.
Democracies aren't theocracies.



Having said that, if laws are implemented and people don't agree with it because they think the premises for those laws aren't right, or the laws aren't fair or whatever - there aren't any laws against arguing about it either.

And since the OP is about "why do they argue".... well, reason one is the very much illegal practice of trying to get religiously motivated legislation and the other is simply "because they don't agree".

I don't understand the bold.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I have long been a devote of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace be unto her) and how she created the universe with one strike of her glorious hoof.

All those that cannot see her beautiful Pink Invisibility are clearly deficient in faith and reason and should be locked up for the benefit of society. Also, governments that don't fund her worship are illegitimate and need to be overthrown.

Furthermore, as the IPU is defined to be the greatest Unicorn that can be imagined, and since existence would only make her greater, she must obviously exist. She is also the ground of existence.

This is in opposition to that obviously false doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with his pirate followers and his detestable tomato sauce.

Anyone care to debate?

No, not that one. But you could start a thread about the truth, authority, science and the world. That one I would debate.

 

[Sheldon]

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?

Yes, you are. Do these unicorns want anything from us, are they offering rules to live by, are believers in these unicorns lecturing others on how they must live in order to please the unicorns, are they murdering people, blowing themselves and others up for not believing in their version of the unicorns? Are believers in these unicorns meddling in politics to influence laws they passed to please these unicorns based on the moral worldview of patriarchal bronze and iron age Bedouin societies?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you're willing to accept the views and values of the society you live in, providing they coincide with your own?

I think I was pretty clear.

..provided they don't infringe on my constitutional rights as a citizen of said nation.

Imposing religious views on me, would very much infringe on my constitutional rights. EVEN if I followed said religion!

The Rule of Law in a democratic society makes no distinction between laws based on religious or secular values.

lol

These frequently overlap anyway. I'm not sure what you mean by the term Theocracy, but I think you are probably misusing it; do you think the USA is in danger of tearing up it's constitution and appointing an unelected ecclesiastical body to govern?

I think in the USA the constitution is already being ignored in ways in favor of religiously motivated legislation, yes. The are certainly already in the "grey zone".

Many of the things they do would not fly over here, I can tell you that much.

It is of course true that in a constitutional democracy, you have the right to campaign for reform or repeal of laws you consider unjust.

And lawmakers do NOT have the right to legislate religious beliefs.
And if they do anyway, then that is illegal and unconstitutional.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't go arguing with people who believe in trolls or Yetis exist.

You would if their beliefs affected your life and/or your own freedom of believing what you believe.

 

[Clara Tea]

I have long been a devote of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace be unto her) and how she created the universe with one strike of her glorious hoof.

All those that cannot see her beautiful Pink Invisibility are clearly deficient in faith and reason and should be locked up for the benefit of society. Also, governments that don't fund her worship are illegitimate and need to be overthrown.

This is in opposition to that obviously false doctrine of the Flying Spaghetti Monster with his pirate followers and his detestable tomato sauce.

Anyone care to debate?

False Spaghetti monster? I'm writing to the Vatican about you (it's surrounded by Italy, but technically it's own sovern territory). At the very least, I should be able to get an Italian dinner out of this.

If it's invisible, how is it pink? Translucent with a pink color, maybe.

Maybe prayer to Spaget and Uni should have forced attendance and force adherance in schools?

All those kids who don't believe should be ostracized, and beaten up on the play ground. I know that Jewish kids are often treated that way, especially when they are the outcasts who don't believe as others do.

America is the land of free religion (where one must believe as I do). It is the land of free press and speech, where the cancel culture, for the sake of nipping false rumors about Covid in the bud, have cut off all false rumors (including banning former president Donald Trump.

Some claim that it is because Trump incites riots and gets people to shun real cures (pushed an antibiotic instead of an antiviral to cure Covid). Trump jokingly suggested injecting chlorine bleach to cure Covid (I suppose a dead person isn't going to be a carrier once he is buried).

Some worry that Trump will instigate more riots (like the one over ballot counting).

We ridicule Communist Russia and China for not allowing freedoms for their people, but, increasingly, the US is getting more dictatorial.

Free practice of religion hinges critically on the other freedoms (assembly, speech, press). If we lose too many of our freedoms, we also lose our choice of religions.

I wonder if much of the world would now believe in unicorns if they had been tortured during the Dark Ages? Their argument would be that unicorns must be real, or there would not be so many who believe in them. (The lynch mob mentality).

Sometimes the lone voice whispering in the wilderness speaks the truth. For example, Noah was quite alone (except for family) in his belief that the world would be flooded, so he followed God's plan to build a huge ship in the desert, expecting God to load it two by two with animals that He controlled. Naysayers were wrong, and the lone voice was right.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you are. Do these unicorns want anything from us, are they offering rules to live by, are believers in these unicorns lecturing others on how they must live in order to please the unicorns, are they murdering people, blowing themselves and others up for not believing in their version of the unicorns? Are believers in these unicorns meddling in politics to influence laws they passed to please these unicorns based on the moral worldview of patriarchal bronze and iron age Bedouin societies?

Yeah, but that is not unique to religion. You should study Ayn Rand Objectivism. It is a really simple system, so it must be true.

 

[John D. Brey]

Based on the feel of their body shape and horn, here is an artist's rendering of how an invisible unicorn would appear.

Thank you! Based wholly on your lucid rendering I feel I've now converted to belief in unicorns. I'm saved. Redeemed. Bound for glory. . . . It was bound to happen. I guess seeing is believing.




John

​

ד׳

חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתדיוגבינהה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​

 

[Clara Tea]

I think I was pretty clear.

..provided they don't infringe on my constitutional rights as a citizen of said nation.

Imposing religious views on me, would very much infringe on my constitutional rights. EVEN if I followed said religion!



lol



I think in the USA the constitution is already being ignored in ways in favor of religiously motivated legislation, yes. The are certainly already in the "grey zone".

Many of the things they do would not fly over here, I can tell you that much.



And lawmakers do NOT have the right to legislate religious beliefs.
And if they do anyway, then that is illegal and unconstitutional.

Before religion takes over in America, you need to sue....In court, put your left hand on a bible, raise your right hand, and swear to tell the truth. Bible? In a land of free religion?

The W. Bush administration arranged for churches to dole out welfare to those that they deemed worthy. Suppose non-religious people are not worthy?

Around the world, Christian charities offer soup to those who pray to their God and with their bibles. They call them "rice Christians." Does this mean that people of other religions don't matter? I thought that we are all God's children?

In England, they wanted to diffuse the power of the Irish (so they wouldn't unify and gang up and rebel). So, if they wanted soup at a church, they had to show that they dropped their Irish names like O'Sullivan, and changed it to Sullivan. When Irishmen see that today, they say "he took the soup" (pronouced and spelled soap). It is an insult because it means that they sold out their birthright for a bowl of soup.

Increasingly, America is losing its freedoms. Already the unalienable (can't take it away) right of redress of grievances (right to sue) has been taken away from those who wish to sue HMOs. Now, HMOs force everyone to arbitrate, and the HMO is the judge and jury. Of course HMO complaints have dropped like rocks. Kaiser Permanente, since they refused to accept any complaints at all, oddly have received no complaints at all.

Free speech, free press, and free assembly are all under attack, threatening, of course, freedom of religion. The rich (like the Koch brothers) have a campaign to get the voters of America to vote away their own freedoms. They claim that frivolous lawsuits have cost HMOs so much money that they could keep drug costs down if only they could eliminate them. Well, such lawsuits have been eliminated, yet drug costs are soaring. Maybe it is because poor people have unlimited medical coverage and still they are going to emergency rooms with fake illnesses in order to get a free sandwich.

 

[Clara Tea]

Thank you! Based wholly on your lucid rendering I feel I've now converted to belief in unicorns. I'm saved. Redeemed. Bound for glory.




John

And it makes a dandy beer can opener (the horn on their head).

 

[firedragon]

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?

Because the prophets are doing it. Its fun.

 

[Clara Tea]

But that has nothing to do with religion per se. That is politics and there are many versions of what rights, duties, good and so on are. As one living in a secular society, religion has be exchanged with different ideologies, but the effect is same.
So no, it might in some sense be better in a secular society, but it is not over.

Some believe that they are fighting the "Axis of Evil" and believe that killing a million Iraqis makes Americans feel a tad bit safer because a group in the middle east was attacked....albiet the wrong group.

Some believe that mammon is the ultimate diety, trumping God. Mammon will make oil pollution and Global Warming a problem for the poor, while the rich can find some other location on earth.

I wonder if there is such a thing as universal law (that prevents senseless killing, protects God's environment, helps the homeless, etc.)?

Surely there are crimes, so heinous, that everyone agrees that they are heinous?